Talk Fantasy Football

stashman wrote:Can you keep your Rostered Star Player all season, even during the play-offs? Semifinals and finals?

I would say yes. DZ 1 reads "cannot enlist the services of star players [...] using inducements".

Having them as rostered players or through special rules (white dwarf/black gobbo, for example) should be fine.

Having finally read DZ2. A few questions/comments:

1) Can star players use apoths now? In CRP it was explicitly stated that they couldn't. (Stars, don't roll on cas-table, they're just badly hurt - so are they prevented from using apoths as there is nothing to re-roll, or are apoths automatically succesful, as they turn BH into reserve?)

2) Stashman asked this earlier, but is it intentional that one-time sponsherships can not make a star MNG, while ongoing doesn't explicitly exempt stars, so presumably can cause a star MNG?

3) Steelhelms Sporting Emporium seems for the best of the major sponsorships. Agreed?

4) Similarly, Horatio X seems far the best staffer. Kari and Fink are nice. The rest really don't seem useful, or am I missing something.

5) Rostered stars appear to be particularly good for teams that are cheap beacuse they are either a) crap or b) underpriced. Looks good for ogres, gobbos, halflings and underworld (Yay!). Also looks pretty good for Amazons (shudder!).

6) The Farblast sponshorship looks particularly good for Pact - being the only lineman with P-access.

7) The referee rules seem to be a nerf to fouling, or am I missing something?

Cheers
Martin

PS - I like the stadium rules in all their randomness.

No Stars can't use an Apo, same as always. If a rostered Star is hurt they make a full recovery but have a Prima Donna strop and won't return to the match.

But yes rostered Stars stick around for playoffs and the rest. You've paid more for them by then.

1) I think I saw Milo answer here or Facebook that it was the case
3) Without a doubt. You can choose to use it, so it is also good for short leagues, as you don't use it on a necessary player before the final for example (you trade a higher chance of double/stat for a MNG)
4) On paper I agree. Having played with him he is, more often than not, not very relevant. The d3 scatter is a lot.
5) Agree. Ongoing sponsorship+rostered stars is a boosts for cheap teams. Without sponsorships, it will be difficult to have the cash for them. I would think they will be mainly used by bashy teams that can hoard money (orcs, undead, etc) just before the playoffs.
6) Agree. It is really good for them.
7) Agree. Huge nerf.
8 )The couple of stadiums I have tried were fun and not game changing

MacHurto wrote:1) I think I saw Milo answer here or Facebook that it was the case
3) Without a doubt. You can choose to use it, so it is also good for short leagues, as you don't use it on a necessary player before the final for example (you trade a higher chance of double/stat for a MNG)
4) On paper I agree. Having played with him he is, more often than not, not very relevant. The d3 scatter is a lot.
5) Agree. Ongoing sponsorship+rostered stars is a boosts for cheap teams. Without sponsorships, it will be difficult to have the cash for them. I would think they will be mainly used by bashy teams that can hoard money (orcs, undead, etc) just before the playoffs.
6) Agree. It is really good for them.
7) Agree. Huge nerf.
8 )The couple of stadiums I have tried were fun and not game changing

1) I don't recall saying that one way or the other. Regardless, JT-Y has posted the correct answer.
3) Yep, I think that's a clear winner, too, although the others would have situational usage. McMurty might be good going into a playoffs scenario.
5) I think Orcs and Goblins will have a fierce competition for Ripper's services.
6) Yep.
7) If you want to use the new ref rules without a nerf, suspend the "ejected on a doubles armor roll" for any game that has an infamous ref in attendance.
8 ) That's the hope. There are a few which would have a value to specific teams/playstyles over others, but none of them should be overbalancing.

Sorry, by 1) I meant 2). Didn't you answer that one?

7) it is still a nerf. As written, if you don't roll a double in the armor and don't injure the player, you still roll to see if you get ejected. Even if that is not the case, the chances with all referees are around the same or higher than before. It promotes more risky fouling (without assists), though, as there is no consequence on a failed foul.

extra question:

9) for the Ogre referee: if the opponent has FAME from Having more fans and I have fame from a a fan favorite skill. Do we both roll to see if the referee gets to outlet fans on a Get the Ref result? The writing assumes only one team has FAME, but it could be both.

Stadiums

First you roll for Becoming Residents.
Even if you lost the game you can still Becoming Residents if your FF is high enough.

Then you roll for Losing Residency later on in the post-match sequence.

'Ruleswise' you have to roll if you lost the game, even if you just Becoming Residents - BUT is it a miss that will be FAQed later on when you become residents for the first time, even when losing or are the stadium owner that greedy that they fool you to sign a resident contract and then just Kick you out of that stadium???

Well, the average stadium owners ARE that greedy, but rather than FAQ it I'd hope coaches would realise that trying to become resident right after a loss is a huge gamble, unless they really want that stadium and think it worth the gamble.

JT-Y wrote:Well, the average stadium owners ARE that greedy, but rather than FAQ it I'd hope coaches would realise that trying to become resident right after a loss is a huge gamble, unless they really want that stadium and think it worth the gamble.

Thanks!

A question regarding Ongoing Sponsorship. Can a rostered star player mng when rolling to see who will miss?

Yes. Part of the risk of combining the two is that Star Players aren't protected from the murky world of corporate sponsorship and are just as likely to upset a sponsor as anyone else. Some of them probably more so than a regular player if we think about it.

JT-Y wrote:Yes. Part of the risk of combining the two is that Star Players aren't protected from the murky world of corporate sponsorship and are just as likely to upset a sponsor as anyone else. Some of them probably more so than a regular player if we think about it.

Thanks!!!

We are toying with adding a house rule to On-Going Sponsorships that treats the initial sponsorship as a one off and then you get the as written on-going 1d3 gold. It makes On-Going much more lucrative best case compared to trying for a one off every match. It also makes the feel of On-Going Sponsorships much more epic with the potential for a huge influx of cash.

Does anyone see an issue with this house rule?

Glamdryn wrote:We are toying with adding a house rule to On-Going Sponsorships that treats the initial sponsorship as a one off and then you get the as written on-going 1d3 gold. It makes On-Going much more lucrative best case compared to trying for a one off every match. It also makes the feel of On-Going Sponsorships much more epic with the potential for a huge influx of cash.

Does anyone see an issue with this house rule?

Sure if no one complains I see no problem.

Glamdryn wrote:We are toying with adding a house rule to On-Going Sponsorships that treats the initial sponsorship as a one off and then you get the as written on-going 1d3 gold. It makes On-Going much more lucrative best case compared to trying for a one off every match. It also makes the feel of On-Going Sponsorships much more epic with the potential for a huge influx of cash.

Does anyone see an issue with this house rule?

My only concern would the reduction in value (comparatively) to the one-time sponsorships. Why would you ever choose a one-time sponsorship, if the ongoing one gets you almost as much gold immediately and more over the long run?

But if you want to do this in your league, that's up to you.

Milo wrote:

Glamdryn wrote:We are toying with adding a house rule to On-Going Sponsorships that treats the initial sponsorship as a one off and then you get the as written on-going 1d3 gold. It makes On-Going much more lucrative best case compared to trying for a one off every match. It also makes the feel of On-Going Sponsorships much more epic with the potential for a huge influx of cash.

Does anyone see an issue with this house rule?

My only concern would the reduction in value (comparatively) to the one-time sponsorships. Why would you ever choose a one-time sponsorship, if the ongoing one gets you almost as much gold immediately and more over the long run?

But if you want to do this in your league, that's up to you.

It's easier to get the one time.