Talk Fantasy Football

Tournaments bring out, among others, the power gamers and they gravitate to the most "effective" (re: mini/maxed powerful) teams in the game.... The teams that need the most re-work are, unsurprisingly, the teams most protected/coveted by the munchkin ethic.... NO surprises in the top four (gleaned from viewtopic.php?t=23465):

Wood Elves (38 )
Undead (36 )
Orcs (33 )
Dwarves (31 )
Skaven (27 )
Lizardmen (23 )
Norse (21 )
Chaos Dwarves (18 )
Amazons (16 )
Khemri (15 )
Necromantic (13 )
Dark Elves (12 )
Humans (7 )
Goblins (3)
Chaos (2)
Halflings (2)
High Elves (2)
Chaos Pact (1 )
Elves (1)
Nurgle (1)
Vampires (1 )
Ogres (0)

Edited to include "Skaven"... rats!

No Skaven? Surprised at the poor showing of zons

not many ppl use zons compared to the others

Joemanji wrote:No Skaven? Surprised at the poor showing of zons

Ooops!, must've cut them out.... Back to the forum boards!!!!

Your point being what?

1) These figures mean nothing without knowing how many times each race has been taken at all the tourneys in question. There's every chance that the number of wins is perfectly proportional to the number of times each race has been taken (at least with regards to the "Serious" races).

2) Some teams (Orcs, Dwarfs) are much better "Out of the box" than others (High Elves for example), but suffer from slower development in league play. A developed High Elf team can be nigh on unstoppable. There was a team blog that detailed how one league saw Halflings take the league title...a league with some quality coaches! I'd also argue that the loss of single players can hurt these teams much more in league play, something which is less so in tourneys where you get your players back after each game. This applies in a different way to Wood Elves and Skaven - they can play as recklessly as they wish, knowing they're getting their squishy guys back next game. Even within a single tourney you can see powershifts (the most startling example being an Amazon team that after a few matches reliably gains a gang of blodgers with Guard).

3) Some of the races are just easier to be good with. Some of them are very hard to be good with.

4) These figures have been gathered over several years ...which means several rulesets, the rules having evolved quite a lot in the period covered. Just look at the rise in the fortunes of Dark Elves if you don't believe me...not far behind Dwarfs for "recent" wins, and they are - IMHO - a harder race to be good with, while rewarding the player who knows what he's doing. DEs were very well represented at the Dutch Open, as an example, because they recieved a boost with the addition of the runner and Assassin. I wonder how the nerfs already in place in LRB 6 will affect the balance of things. Certainly the changes to the cost of Dwarf rerolls and Wood Elf catcher have potential to reduce those races power.

Thadrin wrote:Your point being what?

....

T'would be counter-productive to explain it to you twice....

Is it really worth it to rework teams for tournament play? I don't have a problem with any team in a league enviroment as the rosters are now and I'm just not sure we want to or can make the rosters work in both leauges and tournaments.S.

Good question... and wisdom may be found in the answer... whatever it is....

Let's face it - it wouldn't be GW related if it wasn't over-priced

Digger Goreman wrote: T'would be counter-productive to explain it to you twice....

I must have missed the first time you tried.
As far as I can see you haven't made a point.
You've listed a bunch of numbers with little context as an implication that some of the rosters which have been balanced for LEAGUE play are apparently more or less powerful in tournament play.
Never was Mark Twain's famous line about Statistics more appropriate.

"Never was Ron mo' wrong, than when he thought he was mo' right... thus ends the lesson of... Ron."