|
Post by Ren Höek on Oct 17, 2015 14:01:53 GMT
As you might have seen in the rules discussion thread, there are some good pints to why it is a loophole that teams may buy mercs for their inducement money. What say you: Should we ban the possibility to buy mercs and coaches will have to make do with loners instead?
Please vote before monday otherwise we will leave the rules as they are for this season.
|
|
|
Post by Squiggy on Oct 17, 2015 14:20:48 GMT
Interesting discussion. I can see the issue of "team x has a max of 13 players but can induce loners to have 15" being an issue but I also see "team x can only field nine players due to mngs so has 2 loners and induces a third to make twelve" being perfectly reasonable. Possibly there is some middle ground where you can induce mercenaries but cannot go above your race's max roster number at kick-off. So, if you're missing 2 through mng on a twelve man squad you can get one loner to make it eleven, and induce a merc to make it twelve. But if you have a fully healthy max roster (like 13 healthy wood elves...God I'm hilarious...or 14 skaven) you cannot induce further mercs to go over that number.
|
|
|
Post by arthurwynne on Oct 17, 2015 14:51:55 GMT
Yeah, that (cannot go above race's max number) is what I would support. Banning Mercs altogether seems too restrictive but I agree that "toolbox" builds could become an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Insidious on Oct 17, 2015 16:56:47 GMT
Mercs are not fitting for the cripple, the whole point is that you manage to win in the face of overwhelming odds
|
|
ted
Member
Australia GMT+9.5
Posts: 141
|
Post by ted on Oct 17, 2015 20:36:47 GMT
Loners are just as good as normal players in the crippled cup, and so you should have no need to hire any players except star players. Hiring mercenaries goes against the rules in my opinion. Yes its a loop hole to hire instead of buy, but I see it as cheating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 4:12:23 GMT
I would say both "No mercs" and "Mercs only up to the roster limit" are both improvements, so I voted yes
Still haven't made up my mind which of the two would be more balanced, so I'll come back with a reasoned case later, probably.
|
|
|
Post by Ren Höek on Oct 18, 2015 16:49:55 GMT
Squiggy makes a clever point. Is there a way to distill all those words to a 'simple rule'. There are alot of rules as it is, but so far the more 'complicated' ones (max number of players etc.) happens in between seasons.
Another concern of mine is that even IF someone could reform the idea Squiggy mentions to a simpler rule, it is a bit late to change rules now. Without fair warning I don't feel good about too much changes... ? OR... what do you guys say? If we can word it so it is simple to understand, shall we go with Squiggy suggestion instead? (Or, gods forbid... make the rule active during the season?)
|
|
|
Post by Squiggy on Oct 18, 2015 16:57:16 GMT
Squiggy makes a clever point. Is there a way to distill all those words to a 'simple rule'. There are alot of rules as it is, but so far the more 'complicated' ones (max number of players etc.) happens in between seasons.
Another concern of mine is that even IF someone could reform the idea Squiggy mentions to a simpler rule, it is a bit late to change rules now. Without fair warning I don't feel good about too much changes... ? OR... what do you guys say? If we can word it so it is simple to understand, shall we go with Squiggy suggestion instead? (Or, gods forbid... make the rule active during the season?) How about "if your team has a maximum amount of players in the squad permitted, you may not induce further mercs to go above this number."
|
|
|
Post by Ren Höek on Oct 18, 2015 17:03:59 GMT
Hmm.. yes, but will that 'solve' the real 'problem'? Now that you put it in so simple terms (thx for that btw) I'm wondering that if this is really the better idea. Of course, you can get a few more than what you get with loners... but.. hmm.. I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by WingSteel on Oct 18, 2015 23:19:14 GMT
Hmm.. yes, but will that 'solve' the real 'problem'? Now that you put it in so simple terms (thx for that btw) I'm wondering that if this is really the better idea. Of course, you can get a few more than what you get with loners... but.. hmm.. I'm not sure. maybe if u buy mercs u cant give them a skill? maybe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 4:14:31 GMT
How about "if your team has a maximum amount of players in the squad permitted, you may not induce further mercs to go above this number." I like this idea so much I'm going to take credit for thinking of it! Being able to field a wagonload of loners really insulates you from injuries, and the teams with crazy TV efficient linos are plenty strong already (norse/zons). I don't see a problem with allowing journeymen to take skills, especially with inducements already so tightly restricted If nothing else this will be a gentle transition that we can playtest without greatly upsetting the normal order of things. You're welcome Disclaimer; I will be playing Chorfs in Stretcher, who have no roster limit
|
|
|
Post by gorgrael on Oct 19, 2015 11:42:28 GMT
So my answer is no. We should not be buying mercenaries. Being able to hire players which are disposable and effective foulers does not make sense in this cups rules. Why worry about your team if you can just replace them with your growing inducements?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 14:58:14 GMT
Honestly I would glady get behind the "No Mercs" or "Capped Mercs" rules. Both would be improvements (probably), but they both need some playtesting We don't have to commit totally to either, lets just give one a whirl and see how things go. Also, I would really prefer we didn't prevent people from inducing star players. The issue as I see it is bringing an army of expendable fodder that you needn't worry about getting hurt I'm sorta repeating myself at this point, so I'll pipe down
|
|
|
Post by Smakapotomus on Oct 23, 2015 15:27:42 GMT
There are always those who will look for, and exploit opportunities taking advantage of the 'rule set' when they can. A simple 'No Mercs' is the easiest solution to this gap. While 'loners' can fill the spots for MNG players, and the re-load provision for stunty teams can keep them competitive; I see no reason to change the flavor of the 'Cripple Cup' by allowing someones bank roll to take advantage of this 'gap'
|
|
|
Post by comfort_eagle on Nov 19, 2015 13:49:07 GMT
... yet some teams (like I have found this season with vamps) have a roster full of fragile players, while also requiring a significant bench to be viable. The stunties get a transfer window, but the fragile bench-reliant non-stunties are left in the lurch if, like in the first 5 games of my current hospital season, you end up getting a player killed (and/or a few MNG'd) each game. They aren't crippled (which would suit the flavour of the cup), just dead, and so I find myself going up against a monster team next week (and probably for the rest of the season) with 10 regulars on my squad, half of them with bloodlust. It'd be a shame for vampires not to be played in this format, but they seem severely hamstrung at the moment.
I too dislike the idea of people exploiting the rules to get cheap foulers, maybe we could find some middle ground? Then again, I'm out for the near future after this, my 4th season with vamps, and I doubt if anyone else is silly enough to coach the bloodsuckers in cripple cup ever again, so this may be a moot point.
|
|