Talk Fantasy Football

With the exception of the 0-16 Linesmen and the special 0-1 positions, what are some positions that you should probably not max out on when you have a fully developed team?

I can think of only 3 off the top of my head that isn't the thrower.

For the top three -
Dark Elves Assassin
Human Catcher (Either version)
Orc Goblins

I could also see people avoiding the following if they are very risk averse
Vampires - getting all 6 vampires might be avoided, even if you have a team that's played a few seasons
Ogres - Same with the ogres.

In both cases, the positions come with a bit of risk, but I put them in a gray area, unlike the first 3 mentioned, and of course throwers.

Anyway, I'm curious if my conclusion is fair.

Probably don't want 4 WE catchers. Not sure about all 4 Undead Ghouls.

In general all the throwers. Depending in the race pick one up only, in some case even no one.

6 Vampires and 6 Ogres is a lot of TV on the pitch. Some consider it too much and stop at 4 or 5.

dode74 wrote: Not sure about all 4 Undead Ghouls.

I like to have all 4 Ghouls eventually (talking league here), but certainly don't field them all at the same time.

This is interesting. I'm playing Undead for the first time in our local league and can't see a situation where I wouldn't field all four Ghouls whenever possible, just to counteract how slow the rest of the team are.

What's the (greater than my) wisdom that suggests less is more?

Jip wrote:What's the (greater than my) wisdom that suggests less is more?

In league: armour and no apo.

I have been playing in fumbbl in two league (I think you know one of them ) with Undead. In one with two ghouls, the other with four. And I think the balance is just three.

But they're relatively easy to get up to Blodging status, which seems to be really handy against most teams.

I get that they're fragile, but my league team has plenty in the bank to replace them with.

The only issue I have is that, with 2x Mummies, 4x Ghouls and 2xWight, I've only got three Zombies and/or Skeletons to foul with!

dode74 wrote:Probably don't want 4 WE catchers. Not sure about all 4 Undead Ghouls.

It seems, like with the Human Catchers, the penalty to strength doesn't outweigh the benefits.

I guess the follow-up question is, which of the positions mentioned, are just situational and which are subpar?


And again, Ogre's and Vampires, that is a whole separate ball game.

Mmmm.... slann blitzers, maybe?

ulvardar wrote:Mmmm.... slann blitzers, maybe?

Yeah, I was thinking of them. Too expensive to start out, and a bit TV bloaty later on.

Switch the question around a bit. Are there any teams with throwers where you would max out throwers? Pro Elf sorry Union Elf is cheap enough....but I still wouldn't take 2. I can't think of one thrower I'd max out on.

lunchmoney wrote:

dode74 wrote: Not sure about all 4 Undead Ghouls.

I like to have all 4 Ghouls eventually (talking league here), but certainly don't field them all at the same time.

Well ghouls are great value for money..........and the more blodge you have the more problematic it is. Certainly lrb4 I'd go for 4. With the modern TV management.......I'd certainly like to, but 2 would probably be better for per buck.

Thrower: Khemri... the more sure hands, the better....

4 ghouls? Absolutely! AG access and MA7 is very useful.... Depending how the doubles/+Ag falls, ghouls can be specialized... or just put wrestle on one or two for a good ball hawk for just 90k.... They just be soft and crunchy....

Agree with Khemri. With ghouls though, a developed undead side may end up with good other players meaning a 4th ghoul isn't necessarily something you can commit to. I've a ST4, blodge SH ghoul which could be left only for offense, but it seems like a waste of a ST4 player, so he plays as well as a ST4 zombie (who isn't LOS fodder) so I run with 3 rostered ghouls only.

Also had other ghouls not died/been injured I would've kept 4, but once a ghoul dies on an experienced team, and there are useful other players, then a naked ghoul can be more liability than help.