New Chip! Free Hit

[Mav3rick]

I'm not sure whether this favours good managers or casuals. Certainly it helps casuals who forget to plan for blanks. On the other hand it's one more decision to make which is generally a good thing for good managers. Maybe casuals will waste it before blanks anyway.

I suspect it's a bit of both. Overall, better managers should do better with the chip and probably increase a gap between themselves and the casuals by season end.

However it's a pretty powerful chip so it will boost the points tally's of casuals enough that they stay engaged for longer.

The last couple of seasons have seen massive rank shifts in the last 6GWs or so and I think this might make that even more pronounced as top 10k turnover increases further.

Of course it may open up different strategies, such as an early second wildcard as it effectively a free shot at a DGW as well as a potential blank protector.

[ajcairns]

GW38 i reckon, the last hurrah to save a dying season.

[TheBigLewandowski]

Do we still get the 2 wildcards along with this chip?

[MoSe]

Of course it may open up different strategies, such as an early second wildcard as it effectively a free shot at a DGW as well as a potential blank protector.

a lot will depend on BGW/DGW trailing side fixtures
(maybe that's a bit obscure... hmmm, on the fixtures in the GW(s) after the BGW/DGW)

[Stemania]

Do we still get the 2 wildcards along with this chip?

The 'Free Hit' article says the chip "could lead to many FPL managers rethinking their use of existing chips, particularly the second Wildcard" so I'd say we can confirm so, yes.

[OIEIAO]

The FA Cup Semis are back in GW35 again this year, so we may well be in for a return to

Sizeable GW34 DGW
Blanks
GW36
Sizeable GW37 DGW

which immediately throws out GW35 as a good potential candidate. (GW31 is the QFs.)

Indeed. Can see strategies like

Wildcard 33 to load up on doublers
BB/TC 34
FH for the blanks in 35
Back to the Wildcard team in 36
BB /TC 37
Normal 38

[Sutter Kane]

Yeah advantage to nerds I'd say as it's a tactical chip for sure. I first thought load up on GW37 doublers, play it in GW34, then keep loading up on those doublers for gw37 - or something like that. Maybe not! Dunno.

[Stemania]

So you can pick a whole new team for one gameweek and then return to your original team the gameweek after?

First that comes to mind... What happens with price rises/falls?

"Managers cannot benefit from any price changes gained from their new Free Hit squad.

However, price changes applied to their previous line-up will take effect on their return once the chip expires."

Though presumably we can still temporarily gain in one sense - by making as many transfers as we want during the week preceding the FH (selling any players we owned that were dropping and riding any risers, before picking the FH team and then pressing the FH button), to potentially give ourselves a slightly bigger FH squad budget. Even if we lose all those gains as soon as the deadline passes and revert to the new prices of the old players and our old bank balance.

Presumably it will be undoable in the same way the wildcard is. In fact, it could be quite dangerous to hit the FH button early as (unlike the wildcard) if a couple of your players pick up knocks or are dropped etc you're locked in to a week of price volatility that you can't escape from - it could be quite easy to come out of the thing the best part of 1m down in TV.

[Rich2086]

I would put money on it that this chip will confuse a fair few casual player who presume it's another wildcard chip.

[Finisher1]

I guess FH will most likely lead into losing team value, since you probably have a kind of shitty team for a particular gameweek and you can't escape from those price drops.

So that's why I won't play this chip at all! Who wants my useless FH chip?

[Sutter Kane]

Yeah right! Playing it in GW38 is inevitable if you haven't used it by then.

On another note, the problem with playing it in blank weeks is that the players all play each other so the average score tends to be very low those weeks. Unless the blank weeks contain multiple double games.

[Finisher1]

On another note, the problem with playing it in blank weeks is that the players all play each other so the average score tends to be very low those weeks. Unless the blank weeks contain multiple double games.

I have never really got this argument. Surely every player has his own points potential, so you shouldn't worry about them playing against each other. If you pick just a one-sided team who don't play against each other, then you might not get any points at all.

[Latic]

Another gimmick. If they carry on like this I'll probably not bother. It feels like Nintendo are running this game.

[Sutter Kane]

On another note, the problem with playing it in blank weeks is that the players all play each other so the average score tends to be very low those weeks. Unless the blank weeks contain multiple double games.

I have never really got this argument. Surely every player has his own points potential, so you shouldn't worry about them playing against each other. If you pick just a one-sided team who don't play against each other, then you might not get any points at all.

Puts a ceiling on the scores. As planners, we pick players who have good fixtures generally especially when we rotate - if our options for choice and also our options for captaincy are depleted we score less. It's no surprise those weeks are poor ones, as we have no choice to rotate or pick desired fixtures even with xi men. We literally have to play attacker vs defender which is undesirable but hard to avoid in such weeks.

I always believe each player has his own points potential but this isn't the same thing as the % ownership argument where I believe in picking the one who'll score the most points, not worrying about high ownership.

[Finisher1]

It puts a ceiling on points but it also puts a floor (on or under? ) points. If you pick a one-sided team then you may score a way below this floor.

Just to be clear, this is not a question about "playing it safe" - to me all that matters is individual points potential. If I have a forward who is expected to score six points and a defender who is expected to score six points in a particular game against each other, then I'm happy to have them both, even if it's unlikely they both will score six points.

[Sutter Kane]

Yes it does put a slight floor under points. However just cos you pick an attacker vs a defender and the attacking team scores doesn't mean it's your man who's involved. Yes there's more chance but not 100%. However you've 100% lost the clean sheet. The limited choice means we're bound to be picking in an inferior way. What I'm saying is the floor you suggested exists does not make up for the ceiling, not even close. In any particular week I want all my players to have a great chance of points, my chances of that happening in a heavily reduced timetable are destroyed. I plan throughout the season to avoid such confrontations of att vs def.
Don't think there's many if any combos of def/att getting 6ppg average - 99% of the time it doesn't work nicely like that. Basically we don't like def vs att if possible but you are forced to in such weeks, and with a limited choice at that.

[Sutter Kane]

Basically because of the lack of choice/combinations of players, you are forced to do something you don't want to do throughout the season, play Johnny Evans vs Troy Deeney; the individual points expectations are just poor compared to the options available to you in full timetable weeks because they are playing each other. If one can avoid confrontations, you would right? (that's kind of how the rotation tactic works with defences)

[Mr Clarinet]

So, heavy snow decimates a winter weekend's PL match schedule, leaving only (say) Saints vs Huddersfield and Brighton vs Watford to play down on the south coast. The argument is that I shouldn't use the free hit chip to get a one-week only squad with 12 players from these teams, because that will involve two sets of players playing against each other (and so negating each other's scores), and instead I should stick with my non-playing XV. Have I got that right?

[Sutter Kane]

That sounds like a lovely time to use it yes. Under those circumstances or similar. Dream scenario.

If that is pertaining to the discussion myself and finisher are having, it's irrelevant. Unless the question was rhetorical...Zero points or 30 points, yeah of course 30 points. But my initial point was to do with similar scenarios to what happened this season where many managers were able to squeeze out 10-11 players anyway with no hits. What I was saying is that I wouldn't use it to gain an extra 2-3 players who are playing each other. However I'd have thought it was plainly obvious that the situation you provided is extreme enough to make it a no-brainer.

[Sutter Kane]

In fact I was fully prepared to go into that week with 8-9 men as long as I had the captain I wanted. But if I had say 5-6 men (due to sudden bad weather) then I'd have to seriously consider using this chip in such a week. It would still depend on a lot of things though.

[Finisher1]

Basically because of the lack of choice/combinations of players, you are forced to do something you don't want to do throughout the season, play Johnny Evans vs Troy Deeney; the individual points expectations are just poor compared to the options available to you in full timetable weeks because they are playing each other. If one can avoid confrontations, you would right? (that's kind of how the rotation tactic works with defences)

Evans (wat H/A) and Deeney (wba H/A) are both good fixtures as their own and they both have a good points expectation for that match. I will very happily have those kind of players in a BGW that includes only 3-5 fixtures and when most premium players have blank because of FA Cup. Very happily.

Isn't FH just made for this kind of situation? I'm not sure why you are talking about "planning to avoid these situations" since the idea of FH is to remove planning issues for BGW.

"Blank gameweek is a low-scoring gameweek" is a really flawed argument. Yes, it is a low-scoring gameweek, so what? Why is that relevant? We should only be interested in incremental points. Do you rather play your chip in a high-scoring gameweek and score 90 points instead of 70 points, than in a low-scoring gameweek and score 45 points instead of 20 points? Incremental points is the thing here.

[Mav3rick]

The best picks in any blank weeks would be picked up anyway via normal methods, I think there would be a lot of diminishing returns, however if it's a straight choice between a 2 point player or a zero point return over perhaps 6 slots in an XI then that's probably quite hard to overcome in a normal week where you just swap XI with another XI.

The new chip would give you a way to select any captain you want as another usage. Picking a plum captain plus one or two optimised transfers could be worth more than a blank week cover.

[Finisher1]

The best picks in any blank weeks would be picked up anyway via normal methods

I don't think so. Think about this main BGW in the last season. Apart from Liverpool players and Sigurdsson, I don't think you would have wanted any of those players if it wasn't BGW.

Planning five gameweeks in advance and squeezing in BGW players will only reduce your points potential for those gameweeks prior to BGW.

[Mav3rick]

Yeah that's my point so you pick the players you're likely to want regardless, maybe just happen to have another 1 or 2 anyway, then you get 6 players or so that you don't really want (by using the new chip in a blank) and probably won't have great expectations of.

I'm not saying you should get them without the chip, I'm saying you can just leave them out, score 0 for those player's positions in the blank and think of other ways to recoup a lost 12 points or so.

I think the bit you're getting excited about is your assuming you can pickup these extra players with "good points expectations" that's the critical part, it depends if they really are decent prospects though.

[Finisher1]

Yeah that's my point so you pick the players you're likely to want regardless, maybe just happen to have another 1 or 2 anyway, then you get 6 players or so that you don't really want (by using the new chip in a blank) and probably won't have great expectations of.

I'm not saying you should get them without the chip, I'm saying you can just leave them out, score 0 for those player's positions in the blank and think of other ways to recoup a lost 12 points or so.

Well 12 points is a massive advantage to start with. And it's not as if there's only Gareth Barry and Lee Cattermole available for those spots. There will be some decent picks with decent points potential, who are very capable to score more than two pointers.

If there's going to be a similar BGW than last season, including 3-5 fixtures with only few premium players, then I just can't see past FH in BGW. I just can't. Isn't that a typical gameweek when there's only players you wouldn't want to have outside BGW, but in that particular BGW they have a decent points potential? Isn't this what FH is made for?

I guess I already know what's going to be my "Sanchez" or "team value" this season

Jokes aside, it's a new chip and these are just my initial thoughts, so I'm happy to hear these other arguments too

[Mav3rick]

Yes there will be 'some' players with 'decent points potential' but it will be diminishing returns and most of those somes could be achieved in different ways.

It's like the whole BBWC thing it's all so squad and fixture dependent as to which weeks are best to play and what combos to use. You have to fully understand your team in context of the fixtures to make the right call, but I can't see there being one right answer that fits everyone.

It's a tactical chip no doubt, my first thought was to use it in a blank, but if I found myself stuck with a dodgy captain, or a temporary ban/injury crisis I could see potential other uses.

[Finisher1]

Yes there will be 'some' players with 'decent points potential' but it will be diminishing returns and most of those somes could be achieved in different ways.

It's also a diminishing return to pick a premium player over another premium player or a captain candidate over another captain candidate in a normal gameweek. I don't think most of BGW picks are those we want to bring in via normal methods, as they are generally decent picks in BGW but shitty picks outside BGW - that's what FH is made for in my opinion.

It's a tactical chip no doubt, my first thought was to use it in a blank, but if I found myself stuck with a dodgy captain, or a temporary ban/injury crisis I could see potential other uses.

Anything can happen, but I think in most cases a good captain candidate is indeed a player we would bring in via normal methods. I don't think it's very likely there would be a standout captain pick in some gameweek that you wouldn't want to have for a long run anyway!

Similarly I don't think it's very likely you will have banned or injured players that you wouldn't want to have to get rid of for good!

Isn't benching or selling with 1FT what we do for banned or injured players? Or play a wildcard? I just think a situation where you have injured or banned players that you are happy to have in your team after one particular gameweek is a quite unlikely situation.

[Mav3rick]

Well what about a scenario where you've moved early to catch a price rise then your captain gets a knock or a 1 match ban, or like last year where the city DGW was thrust upon us? I'm not saying you should swap one premium for another, it's got to be a real advantage.

There's plenty of scope for other uses, we don't need to zero in on the one true use, if you can't see beyond one use at this stage, then I don't think you're thinking critically enough.

No prize for being right first, take a step back and think it all through.

[Joccki_10]

(...)so I'm happy to hear these other arguments too

You have made some serious progress during the summer.

[Finisher1]

Well what about a scenario where you've moved early to catch a price rise then your captain gets a knock or a 1 match ban

Bench him.

or like last year where the city DGW was thrust upon us?

FH could be a real option there. Luckily we will know what BGW is going to look like when the first DGW's emerge. Maybe the key here is to not waste FH in the early season.