Definitive Illegal Formation Rules

Has anyone tested this formation to confirm legality? -

--ST ST ST
AML - - AMR

DML - - DMR
--DC DC DC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markiinhobr

I did not play with a 4-4-2 dmc 3 and mc, but always lost couple times That play with ML / MR and AML / AMR, agora game in 3-1-3-1-2 tactic, 1gk, 1dl, 1DR, 1DC, 1dmc, 1MC, 1RM, 1ml, 1amc, 2nd not know you considered it illegal, but I've been playing with players Looking Very She ended up doing the SHE results improve, because she fexa from All Sides make field and When Game against 4-3-3 and so PER dr / dl quarterback, Semper contract dr / dl dc / dc, Cause for That and also, one vario and zonal marking man-to-man depending on quality I tatica opposing faces. so I wanted to take a doubt themselves and illegal

---

3w-1-3w-1-2 is a legal formation.
3n-1-3w-1-2 or 3w-1-3n-1-2 are both legal too.
3n-1-3n-1-2 would be illegal.

I hope that answers your question. Although I'm not even sure if you are asking a question because your translator is garbage. The mods might get mad, but I'd suggest posting both the translation and your native language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darren Keighley

I play:
GK
LB CB RB
CDM CDM
MC MC
AMC
STK STk

How is not using wingers illegal??
Jose Mourinho was using this for years at Chelsea with great success, was his tactics illegal???

---

You have a player on each flank as I highlighted in bold. So this formation would be legal in T11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickyb

Has anyone tested this formation to confirm legality? -

--ST ST ST
AML - - AMR

DML - - DMR
--DC DC DC

---

it meets all the requirements that I'm aware of, but I haven't tested it. You'd still have lousy possession though because of the lack of players at center.

So this one (3W-4-2(AML/R)-1) is illegal, right?

about an illegal formation
when we place 2DC-2(dml/dmr)-2mc-2(aml/amr)-2st..

---st---st---
-aml----amr-
---mc--mc---
-dml----dmr-
---dc--dc---
-----gk-----

is it still call Illegal..?

Which of these rules is confusing?

• Some combination of at least 3 defenders (i.e. 3 players anywhere in the back row )
• At least 1, but no more than 2, players on EACH outside flank. {the D(L/R), DM(L/R), M(L/R), AM(L/R) slots}
• at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be an DM* or M*
• At least 4 players on the opponents side of the pitch.
• at least 1 Striker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrayen

about an illegal formation
when we place 2DC-2(dml/dmr)-2mc-2(aml/amr)-2st..

---st---st---
-aml----amr-
---mc--mc---
-dml----dmr-
---dc--dc---
-----gk-----

is it still call Illegal..?

---

Yup it's illegal. I hve tested it, and got 20% ball possession.
My advice remove ur striker to defender. And up to 2dc, down to dc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matcho13579

So this one (3W-4-2(AML/R)-1) is illegal, right?

---

3 players on flanks, that definitely illegal formation!

Is red cards illegalise the formation?

i played a superb bot robot, won 3-1 just, he had three gk on the pitch and got 46% possesion, so its all utter rubbish really, beat the top of league yesterday 4-1-3w-1-2 wide diamond with 4-1-1-1-3 by accident, forgot to watch + 5 away team won 2-0 haha this is 5th season and ive spent £13 ! a fool and his football are soon skint, ktf

i think its totally unfair, cause i had my strikers injured so y played without a striker without knowing and lost 5 - 1 in the cup match and i could not buy any strikers with all those token masters around and i get to know about this after i lose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrayen

about an illegal formation
when we place 2DC-2(dml/dmr)-2mc-2(aml/amr)-2st..

---st---st---
-aml----amr-
---mc--mc---
-dml----dmr-
---dc--dc---
-----gk-----

is it still call Illegal..?

---

yes it is,you need 3+ defenders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnr8555

3 players on flanks, that definitely illegal formation!

Is red cards illegalise the formation?

---

Yes, a red card can make your formation illegal and you'd get 20% possession from that point on.
e.g if you had 3 defenders, and 50% possession in the first half, and a defender was red carded in the 45th minute, you'd end up with 35% possession overall (50% first half, 20% second)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavier E. Lahm

i think its totally unfair, cause i had my strikers injured so y played without a striker without knowing and lost 5 - 1 in the cup match and i could not buy any strikers with all those token masters around and i get to know about this after i lose

---

You could have played, say, an AM out of position at ST.
Unfortunate for you, but that's Nordeus stated policy: They want you to discover yourself the intricacies of the game.

No no, no ilegal formation no ♪

---ST-----ST
AML--AMC---
--------------ML
-----DMC-----
DL--DC--DC--DR

one boy use it and won the 95% of league matches! Him is league's bichampion!!! FFFUUUUU :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geodude

No no, no ilegal formation no ♪

---ST-----ST
AML--AMC---
--------------ML
-----DMC-----
DL--DC--DC--DR

one boy use it and won the 95% of league matches! Him is league's bichampion!!! FFFUUUUU :mad:

---

3 defenders: YES
3 midfielders: YES
4 players on opponent's half: YES
1 striker: YES
1-2 players on flanks: YES

That is a legal formation...

I think it should let u know that u using a illegal formation when u press save and asked if u still wanna use it.

Attachment 9398

is this an illegal formation?

You need at least 3 defenders. In the first page it tells you

could someone be banned for using an illegal formation?

Nah you wont be banned. You'll just be properscrewed by an engine. The entire concept of illegal formations is silly to begin with. Imagine it in actual football! " hey there Real Madrid, I see you are using only 2 defenders. Now you have to give the ball to Barcelona!"

With 11 players on the field there will always be strengths and weaknesses no matter which formation, so why illegal formations exist...no clue.

Is 3w -2n mc- 2w aml/amr -3 f an illegal formation there is a team that is winning all the other teams in the leauge with this formation and I do not find a counter for this formation in the guide ...
Was thinking of going with 3n -2 dml/DMr -2mc - 1 amc- 2

Thanks

Maybe this has been answer already. But i see this 2 formations are illegal. Just wanna make sure why?
Almost lost against a weaker team luckily i was wtching the hame and change formation.
Attachment 9445
Tied against a weaker team that i had beating 6-0 in the first game of CL
Attachment 9446.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juan Fernandez

Maybe this has been answer already. But i see this 2 formations are illegal. Just wanna make sure why?
Almost lost against a weaker team luckily i was wtching the hame and change formation.
Attachment 9445
Tied against a weaker team that i had beating 6-0 in the first game of CL
Attachment 9446.

---

You must have atleast one player on a flank, which menas a player playing AMR, AML, DMR, DML, MR or ML.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Confuzzled

You must have atleast one player on a flank, which menas a player playing AMR, AML, DMR, DML, MR or ML.

---

Dont forget DL and DR.

Thanks.

Would a 4-1-2W-2-1 work? Where the top half is the shape of a Christmas tree and then the 4 defenders on the bottom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVSC

Would a 4-1-2W-2-1 work? Where the top half is the shape of a Christmas tree and then the 4 defenders on the bottom?

---

Thats a legal formation.

I've seen a picture on which 4-3-4 is illegal, what is the cause? [DC, DC, DC | ML, MC, MC, MR | ST, ST, ST]

The same happened on a 4-5-1 formation [DL, DC, DC, DR | ML, MC, MC, MC, MR | ST]

Players with this color are greyed out for some reason in the formation! Does anyone know what caused the 80% / 20% Possession?

so, following the OP rules, 4-2-4 is an illegal formation?? It sounds really weird

is this an ilegal formation?

-------ST---ST------
-----------------AMR
-------MC---MC-----
DML-----DMC--------
----DC---DC----DC--

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Confuzzled

I've seen a picture on which 4-3-4 is illegal, what is the cause? [DC, DC, DC | ML, MC, MC, MR | ST, ST, ST]

The same happened on a 4-5-1 formation [DL, DC, DC, DR | ML, MC, MC, MC, MR | ST]

Players with this color are greyed out for some reason in the formation! Does anyone know what caused the 80% / 20% Possession?

---

might be red card players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavier E. Lahm

is this an ilegal formation?

-------ST---ST------
-----------------AMR
-------MC---MC-----
DML-----DMC--------
----DC---DC----DC--

---

seems legit to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavier E. Lahm

is this an ilegal formation?

-------ST---ST------
-----------------AMR
-------MC---MC-----
DML-----DMC--------
----DC---DC----DC--

---

That's fine.
3 defenders, a player on each flanks and a striker, that's okay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Confuzzled

I've seen a picture on which 4-3-4 is illegal, what is the cause? [DC, DC, DC | ML, MC, MC, MR | ST, ST, ST]

The same happened on a 4-5-1 formation [DL, DC, DC, DR | ML, MC, MC, MC, MR | ST]

---

Both formations with red carded players resulted in formations with no flankers on right side.

Does this formations are illegal 3-3-1-3-----4-3-3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Confuzzled

I've seen a picture on which 4-3-4 is illegal, what is the cause? [DC, DC, DC | ML, MC, MC, MR | ST, ST, ST]

The same happened on a 4-5-1 formation [DL, DC, DC, DR | ML, MC, MC, MC, MR | ST]

Players with this color are greyed out for some reason in the formation! Does anyone know what caused the 80% / 20% Possession?

---

4-3-4 is illegal simply cause there's no goal keeper :D

Even if the MR was suspended, shouldn't he be automatically replaced? And in case there was no possible substitute, shouldn't he loose the match 3-0 ?

So Illegal formation is when more than 2 players are not on their positions?
Strange that this illegal formation is able to hold up...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flinger

4-3-4 is illegal simply cause there's no goal keeper :D

Even if the MR was suspended, shouldn't he be automatically replaced? And in case there was no possible substitute, shouldn't he loose the match 3-0 ?

---

Presumably the red cards occurred during the match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D3thf0rge13

So Illegal formation is when more than 2 players are not on their positions?
Strange that this illegal formation is able to hold up...

---

No. Please re-read the first post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razz

No. Please re-read the first post in this thread.

---

So if my opponent has a defender on position of GK, striker on position of a defender, DMC in midfield and MC on striker position he'll have normal ball possession?