16 players

[Darkson]

Hypophethical question as it's never hapened to me.

A team has 16 players and plenty of money in the bank with nothing to spend it on (got RR's, Asst. coaches, cheerleaders etc.) Can they drop a player or 2 for a game and get freebooters in, and then after the game put the players back in the roster, or would this count as retiring the players?

[Relborn]

that would count definately as retirement. So if you drop them you can't bring them gack in line.

[Darkson]

Then maybe we should bring back the idea of benchwarmers from 2nd ed.

[Relborn]

yes personally I like the idea of a larger Cockerel (20 players for example, with only 16 players to participate each match). Under the actual rules that would give older teams an too large advantage over younger ones.

In our league, there is a houserule where you have to pay your players after every game and therefor we use benchwarmers and all seems balanced so far.

[Mojoshenpo]

... is more starting money and a requirement to fill a 16 roster full of players. Make a few little mistakes, or have your opponent do well on injury rolls, and the starting team is behind for a long time....

Or maybe I'm still too new at this....

Mojo

"You can't outrun this: (1)(1)"

[Colin]

Yes, but that goes for any game. Opponant gets lucky with inj rolls and starting team is behind for awhile. Had WE team get 3 KIA in first game, never really were able to overcome this.

Anyway, I like the idea of 20 man roster and increasing starting money and having to buy full 16 man roster. As long as you don't let people start with too much money, it should work very similar to normal rules (buying 12 out of 16 man roster to start).

[bingbong186]

I agree, the idea of a 20 man roster really appeals to me, I'm not really sure about this, but in American football, don't they take to the field with a defensive lineup, or an offensive lineup, depending on the situation? This would make for excellent team-building opportunities, but I don't know about game balance. It would also allow Halfing/Gobbo/Snot teams to pack lots of players into their roster, which IMO is more suitable fluff-wise.

[GalakStarscraper]

Guess I'm the dissenting vote.

I definitely do not want to see more starting cash for new teams.

Also with the new rules, I tend to run my teams at no more than 13 players. The new winnings table makes the things you guys are talking about fantasy land .. lots of rerolls, full rosters, apoth, and a bucket of cheerleaders + asst. coaches ... how the heck are you funding such a team?

By keeping the team at 13 players I concentrate the MVPs and the winnings table doesn't bite me as quickly since I sink most of the money on buying double costed rerolls or replacing aged/niggled players and sacking the asst coach for doing so.

Galak

[Relborn]

Well Galak then try to stay with this strategy when you are playing Wood Elves or Skaven.

You can hardly play a season with this two races with just an 13 player line-up.

Sure the winning table would forbid an 20 player lin-up, and that's the reason why our league has monthly salaries for players, and well that's also the reason why this all belongs into house rules

For official rules I think that the whole matter is a too big change to happen really. Just raising the player pool to 20 and increasing the starting money won't do it.

[Darkson]

When I asked the original question I wasn't advocating more money for starting teams, just the possibility of having more than 16 players on the roster.

For the record, I like to see a system of "Benchwarmers", like the old 2nd ed. You could bring in the 'warmers for games you'd think you'll win easily to give them experience, and maybe make up rules for rookie/young gun player who start at -10 SPP and can't use TRR until they get to 0 SPP.

(I'd just like to point out that thee above rookie/young gun player is something of the top of my head and has not been thought out in the slighest.)

[Relborn]

Darkson: the problem would be that older teams would have an even larger advantage over newbie teams as they could build up an larger player pool.

So to keep it balanced you have to raise the starting funds or stay with the 16 player team.

[DoubleSkulls]

For the record, I like to see a system of "Benchwarmers", like the old 2nd ed. You could bring in the 'warmers for games you'd think you'll win easily to give them experience, and maybe make up rules for rookie/young gun player who start at -10 SPP and can't use TRR until they get to 0 SPP.

(I'd just like to point out that thee above rookie/young gun player is something of the top of my head and has not been thought out in the slighest.)

I quite like this idea for rookie players. Why not expand it and start a new thread?

Ian

[voyagers_uk]

I put something along these lines with reserve teams and larger squads, but it didn't get very far. I cannot find the thread now so I am interested to see how this develops.