EXV: Discussion

[elephants]

I'm not fussed either way for a sub rule but I very much don't like the ruck one. You should have to have a ruck because that's a whole point of fantasy team planning.

Yeah I agree + the complexity of it is not worth it.

KESP

Keep Euro Simple Please xxx

Good discssion though guys, minimum HGA is a great idea. I suppose 50 is about right, its not enough to be an advantage and its not enough to destroy your team. Not many teams will field a player that scores less than 50 in an entire game.

[Nige]

I'm not against a minimum HGA.

[Holz]

ok so a minimum HGA with the potential of more if all your players score over that number seems fine.

I do like the fact that injuries come into it just like they do in the AFL but the HGA loss was a double compound.

maybe a minimum of 50 and then more if all your players fire.

45-55 seems about the average of the weakest non injured player.

[elephants]

I'd probably go with 40 as a minimum HGA, maybe a poll?

[Scrads]

I'd probably go with 40 as a minimum HGA, maybe a poll?

Yeah, otherwise HGA just basically becomes 50 for most games and it takes out some of the fun of it being your lowest scoring player.

[Holz]

I'd probably go with 40 as a minimum HGA, maybe a poll?

Yeah, otherwise HGA just basically becomes 50 for most games and it takes out some of the fun of it being your lowest scoring player.

was actually thinking 40, but went with 50 as the round number. seems like a good floor that most teams should beat barring injury or a shocker.

im looking at you Josh Hill

[LF]

I'd probably go with 40 as a minimum HGA, maybe a poll?

Yeah, otherwise HGA just basically becomes 50 for most games and it takes out some of the fun of it being your lowest scoring player.

was actually thinking 40, but went with 50 as the round number. seems like a good floor that most teams should beat barring injury or a shocker.

im looking at you Josh Hill

McEvoy for us  ::)
Think Roughead will definitely be taking the reins from McEvoy next season for us

[elephants]

Yep I think 40 is the way to go. Blokes that have stinkers generally score 40s.. anything less is injury affected (generally).

[Nige]

I'll just be happy if I have a ruck playing each round next season with Ceglar, Maric and Witts as my current lineup. Can't believe how pear-shaped having them went, thought I was set for ages.  :(

[Ziplock]

I'll just be happy if I have a ruck playing each round next season with Ceglar, Maric and Witts as my current lineup. Can't believe how pear-shaped having them went, thought I was set for ages.  :(

Giles is on the table :P

What was your idea for the ruck rule holz? Like  a player above x height can play in the ruck for like 0.8x rather than 0.5x points or something?

I personally wouldn't mind the reintroduction of the sub rule. I feel like injuries impact euros more than an actual afl game personally. The double HGA hit is pretty significant as well... I think a min of 30 is reasonable though.

[Holz]

Was thinking players 190cm or higher get 65%

Players 195cm or higher 80%

It means instead of chucking CALEB daniel in the mid you might stuck a tall guy like buddy in

[elephants]

Dont like it, rewards coaches that planned poorly.

Also whats to say a 190cm guy is better than a 180cm guy. Depends on the player, Cooney outrucked Coxy once.

[Holz]

Dont like it, rewards coaches that planned poorly.

Also whats to say a 190cm guy is better than a 180cm guy. Depends on the player, Cooney outrucked Coxy once.

yeah leaning towards a no, just wanted to float it.

[LaHug]

I know we have a team list thread but is there anywhere that has a list of players NOT on a team?

[Holz]

I know we have a team list thread but is there anywhere that has a list of players NOT on a team?

Stil making it, but here is 95% of it with guys left over from last years Rookie

http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,105456.0.html