Talk Fantasy Football

Its been brought to my innocent mind that in LRB 5 it is better not to have a full roster. Could someone please explain this logic. Mind I have very very little experience outside of 3rd edition.

zephard wrote:Its been brought to my innocent mind that in LRB 5 it is better not to have a full roster. Could someone please explain this logic. Mind I have very very little experience outside of 3rd edition.

If you have players in reserve that never take the field than those are inducements that you gave your opponent for that match for free in effect edging their team to actually having the advantage.

Example

If a Dwarf team has 16 players (and lets say the worst 4 are rookies). During the game, he has only one player get injured/knocked out. So only 12 of his players actually play during the game.

This means his opponent recieved 280k of inducements (or the Dwarf team received 280k less of inducements) for the match than the Dwarf team needed to have happen for that match.

====

So the conventional logic is that you should only have as many players on an LRB 5.0 team as would normally be needed to take the field during a normal match for your team.

The other part of this is having open slots for Star Players. So for instance on my Halfling team ... I never have more than 15 players so that I always have an open spot to get Deeproot. A Goblin team that likes to use Bribes and Star Secret Weapons might very well not run more than 14 players.

Galak

Thanks Galak. That is the kind of explaination I needed.

Coming from a long lay off since 3rd ed myself, the idea of better managing "dead weight" on my TV was a big adjustment to make.

Galak pretty much sums it up, though it took me a few games with the inducement system to really appreciate just what a big deal TV management is in LRB5. In fact, there are even times when it may be advantageous to ignore stat increase or doubles rolls if they will bloat the cost of your team without directly helping you be more competitive (i.e. AG increase on a Slayer etc.). It's a neat extra layer of long-term strategy that's been added to team development and league play.

Warpstone wrote:It's a neat extra layer of long-term strategy that's been added to team development and league play.

That would be what I would call it to.
Makes for a lot more fun strategic way to play long term wise.

What would be some suggested genearic roster sizes for various teams? I know High AV probably need a shallower roster whereas with low AV need a deeper one.

I suppose your roster size ultimately depends on your playing style and the teams in your league. For example, I can generally get away with 12 players for my Skaven because I tend to be aggressive early, take a 2-0 lead and then avoid a lot of bashing while my opponent tries to equalize. I'll even offer a token defence if it means getting the ball back without him stalling--I only need 3-4 players to score anyway.

Meanwhile, I can see a Khemri coach even reasonably goto 15 players since Skellies break easy against bashers (now that regen is weaker in LRB5) and the only star he would ever induce would be Ramtut.

Warpstone wrote:Meanwhile, I can see a Khemri coach even reasonably goto 15 players since Skellies break easy against bashers (now that regen is weaker in LRB5) and the only star he would ever induce would be Ramtut.

Why do you think that Regen is weaker in LRB5?

Mootaz wrote:

Warpstone wrote:Meanwhile, I can see a Khemri coach even reasonably goto 15 players since Skellies break easy against bashers (now that regen is weaker in LRB5) and the only star he would ever induce would be Ramtut.

Why do you think that Regen is weaker in LRB5?

Sorry, still get LRB4 confused with the third ed rules once in a while . I just came back to BB as the switch to LRB5 happened.