Talk Fantasy Football

Heya lads,

here's my skaven team http://bloodbowl-ireland.org/team/id/214

I've decided to go without a rat ogre, and to attempt to keep the TV down, in order to take advantage of inducements, and also because I don't think I need a rat ogre.

To that end, I'm also going with plenty of wrestle, to help against bash teams, which a rat ogre would normally help with.

I've got 4 gutter runners, 1+AG, 1+MV, 2 with block, 2 with wrestle.
They'll be getting dauntless, tackle, strip-ball, only defensive skills, except for the +MV runner who'll probably get sprint to make a 1-turner easier.

I rolled 11 on a naked line-rat. Should I give him +AG? I'm torn because I already have 4 runners for picking up, or throwing the ball. And +AG is 40K of tv, whereas another wrestle or block would only be 20k. And +AG has to get a protective skill, block or dodge, to go with it imo anyway.

Should i just go with wrestle instead?

And what do people think of the compact TV, high wrestle, no rat ogre approach?

I'd take the AG. For a team like Skaven it can be very usefull, it's one more threath for your opponent to eliminate. Try to get him at 16 spp's asap (shouldn't be too hard) and grab Block or maybe Wrestle. This player might be running the ball so I'd prefer Block to keep him on his feet.
I like wrestle on linerats, very usefull skill for players that get hit a lot (and expert ball sackers) IMO.
The Rat Ogre is a lot of TV for it's worth, but it does add an extra dimension to the team. I think it's down to personal preference. Otoh should you get a Rat Ogre and should you roll a double for a skill on him you've got a superb player and definately a better team then one without a RO! For me it's definately one of the last additions to the team though.

Need a better term for the guy who tackles the carrier. You'd have to be crazy to tell a football player that he's a real "ball-sacker," you know?

I guess if the center in Rugby is called a "hooker"... but I'm still not calling that linebacker a "ball-sacker."

I'd take the +AG (for the reasons TRV stated). Also, the skaven team can work well with or without the Rat Ogre. There is nothing wrong with taking (or not taking) one.

mattgslater wrote:Need a better term for the guy who tackles the carrier. You'd have to be crazy to tell a football player that he's a real "ball-sacker," you know?

I guess if the center in Rugby is called a "hooker"... but I'm still not calling that linebacker a "ball-sacker."

A ball-sacking hooker? What?

Lads, can we please keep this on topic. I'm still interested in any opinions on the first post.

Oh, sorry. I'd keep him. Skaven don't have big TV issues, and while a Wood Elf is probably not worth 90k hard money, a Wood Elf and 20k cash (what you got) is well worth 90k in TV. I would try to use him as an outlet, keeping him out of TZs. On a normal roll at 16, I'd give him Block or Wrestle, depending on how blocky the league is and how well my offense is going*. On a double, I'd give him Dodge or Horns, with basically the same criteria (Horns if I'd have taken Wrestle, Dodge if I'd have taken Block). But I'd be praying for a stat increase, any stat increase.

* I don't believe in building more than one offensive specialist per team, so any time I think offense with a skill selection, I make sure that it has some defensive application (or is going to that one guy). Obviously, Block and Dodge both meet that criterion, so in that case thinking offense on skill-building is okay.

Ok, thanks a lot guys, that's unanimous so Topic finished.

So, as you were with the naming convention topic. Mattgslater, you definitely don't want to use 'hooker', he's not a blitzer, or ball handler, despite the name!

mattgslater wrote:Need a better term for the guy who tackles the carrier. You'd have to be crazy to tell a football player that he's a real "ball-sacker," you know?

No I don't. Must be because I'm not a native speaker or something? I don't watch american football either, it's not even on tv here.

I guess if the center in Rugby is called a "hooker"... but I'm still not calling that linebacker a "ball-sacker."

And I'm not calling anything a linebacker.

Ah. I was just saying that the terms sound a little, uh, unfortunate. Not that American Football doesn't have its share of Dick Butkisisms....

Fully with you on the suckiness of the term "Linebacker" for Blood Bowl. For that matter, BB-applicable American Football theory suffers for that term too: a 3-4 ILB and a 3-4 OLB are two physiologically different positions, in a way that's not quite as true for a 4-3 defense. I like the conventions we've been working on (midfielders inside, flankers or wingers outside) much better.

A wag in our league coined the term "ludicrous ball sack" recently. It has become quite popular.

In answer to your main question: take the +1AG on the Linerat. The more dodginess you can get on the Skaven team, the better - then they can start playing like Elves with ST access and mutations.