Why do Dwarfs only got 6 positional players?

Dark Lord (retired) · Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:25 pm

yes but team development isn't really part of a tournament is it?

Sure they are great at tournies. They have alot of skills. but that's not what we're discussing here.

Personally I think tournies are Fanatic's the BBRC's main concern...though why they refuse to seperate league and tourney rules in the LRB, I don't know.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:34 pm

Dark Lord wrote:yes but team development isn't really part of a tournament is it?

I think tournaments are representative of what many coaches play in face to face leagues (as opposed to on-line). In my experience coaches tend to play the same 2 or 3 races switching between them as they fancy.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:18 am

Then why aren't Dwarves more common in table top leagues?
You only have to look around the net to see that their popularity is waining.

Blammaham · Post by **Blammaham** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:23 am

I think dwarfes are simply hampered by their slow grinding defencive style of play, frankly playing good defence isn't sexy it just wins games. I love dwarfs as a team but I think losing access to the big guy really hurt in the teams flash and mass appeal. I don't really know if giving them 2 more blitzer would help that much, I think they need somthing unique and cool to get the dwarfs back onto the table top. Personaly I've always been in favour of a special secret weapon allowance for the dwarfs for a death roller. I know that discussion has already taken place, its too bad such awsome models are collecting dust in cabnets everywhere. It would also give them one more positional player, just to throw this baby back on topic.

.S.

leblanc13 · Post by **leblanc13** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:38 am

Although I am against adding any more positional players to a dwarf team I would not give them any more blitzers, but allow them to take 0-4 runners as this gives the dwarves a little more speed without giving them too much more block.

Xeterog · Post by **Xeterog** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:36 pm

If there is a decline in the # of dwarf teams now (I don't know if there is or not, as I dont have a local group to play with), it is probably because any new player to Bloodbowl will get advice or hear something like this about dwarfs

"Dwarves are boring"
"No one plays against dwarf because they are too bashy"
"Dwarve can only win by stalling, which is beardy"
etc.

Almost all I see lately is people bashing dwarves, their play style, and their players. Why would anyone want to start playing them with such negativity abounding everywhere you look/read?

The reality of it is that dwarves are fun to play (at least for me)..a good 2-1 game can be just as exciting and fun as a 5-4 skaven scorefest.

On the matter of additional players, I first and formost want the big guy back in some form--almost every team has access to one in some way amd the dwarves need it to keep up in the power battle.

If not a big guy, then 2 more blitzers would be great. 2 more runners would not be good at all, IMO, as they are too fast, only have 8 av, and don't have block. (I don't care about the Norse...the Dwarves were the ORIGINAL (almost) all block team darn it, and should stay that way!!).

Or add some other positional player, but I'm not sure what that would be...
Maybe an 'Iron Breaker'--basically an additional blocker type on par with a Black Orc Blocker. But I haven't liked any of the ones I've seen proposed. Personally, I'd like to see them with str 4 and block/thick skull, but that apparently is a 'bad thing" (str 4 and block starting off)...or like a longbeard, but instead of tackle, AV 10. Just don't know.

Smeborg · Post by **Smeborg** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:31 am

I played in a league which was won by a Dwarf team. And I know of at least one tournament which was won by Dwarfs.

They are not the easiest side to play (because of their low MA). It takes a degree of coaching experience to be competitive with them.

But they are a fun side, and it's not hard to see why they're popular. And I'm confident they will remain so.

Cheers

slackman · Post by **slackman** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:01 am

afaik, the elves were given more positionals becuase of the big guy problem. the dwarves were given an ogre at this time. however, they have recently lost said ogre (along w/ orcs) but neither of those two races really needs an ogre to remain competetive. a developed dwarf team, with guard/MB on virtually every player, is going to do just fine against any similarily rated team. and no one can argue that dwarves start off weak, with all the skills on their "linemen".

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:45 am

I've got to agree that dwarves got hosed. Every team that didn't get a big guy got 2 additional positional players. BG's are valuable - a ST 5 player is a significant benefit to the team. I don't see why dwarves should be treated differently.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:44 am

Because all the elf playing, dwarf hating pansies kept screaming and stamping their little feet complaining that dwarves were too good already ("see how they mangle my precious little elves, who cares if that's the way it's supposed to be balanced, I want those smelly, hairly, little nasties to loose their BG and get nothing for it"). OK so that's just pariphrased, but you get the idea.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:41 am

Yeah, Torg is right. Basically, the Elves yelled louder and dwarves have no senator in the BBRC.

As for those who replied just contradict, could you please provide some shred of eveidence for your claims that dwarves are a popular team that frequently develop guard and mighty blow on all of their linemen?
I at least pointed to some examples of what I was saying. Anyone can compare the season 2 and 3 results of the MBBL and see what happened to the dwarves. You can also use the search engine here to see the MBBL commish say that those 3 coaches felt they didn't need a big guy to be competitive...then flip over to MBBL season 3 and see that they all have a deathroller "big guy" now.

And Gortex, I don't think dwarves are really boring to play. They are boring to develop. What other skills for the longbeard are there besides Guard and Mighty Blow? Compare that to any other lineman.
In the old days you were still limited in what you could build a longbeard into but you weren't pigeon holed into Guard and Mighty Blow like you are now. Same with Blitzers, what do they get? Strip Ball. Usually followed by Guard or Mighty Blow. Troll Slayers...same same same.
The whole team has become a no brainer. You can't develop any sort of personality with them. All developed Dwarf teams look the same.

Prove me wrong. Show me a Dwarf team on the net with at least 2 Longbeards who don't have Guard and/or Mighty Blow. Show me a Dwarf team with a Blitzer who doesn't have Strip Ball and/or Mighty Blow.
(double rolls don't count so don't even cop out like that)

Xeterog · Post by **Xeterog** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:47 pm

True, Guard is the way to go with the longbeards on their first skill. But I've taken skills like Break Tackle before mighty Blow in the past. I think I'm going to start taking dodge on doubles instead of Stand firm for them now ( I used to do this alot, but everyone says take stand firm, so I fell into the hype).

I've seen some dwarven coaches take passblock for the longbeards!

Blitzers, I have a hard time with them. I like to take MB first, then maybe tackle (I like tackle more than strip ball)...but they can be developed into a catcher type for the runners to throw to if you wanted.

Slayers--Multiblock as a first skill..it's fun to use and definitly not a sure thing

..after that they can get predictable..mblow/pro/guard/tackle etc.

Runners are where the most variety happens with a Dwarf team..

Dwarves have never had much variety in their skill choices. That didn't change with the loss of the Ogre. But that fits in with what I imagine is the mentality of Dwarves...they like things nice and stable and are generally very resistant to change in any way. So, if you want variety in a team skills, dwarves wouldn't be very high on the list to begin with...play another team..like skaven

I wish that there wasn't a 'rule' against 0-3 positinal players...maybe 0-3 Blitzers, and 0-3 Runners would be a good thing!

Havoc · Post by **Havoc** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:43 pm

Are secret weapons coming back in next rules review? What are the proposed rules? Are deathrollers going to stay the same (=bad)?

I (who started this thread) nearly always play WE but I still think dwarfs might be to weak, or at least to one-dimensional.

Havoc · Post by **Havoc** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:45 pm

Yes, why can´t a team have 0-1 or 0-3 of a position?

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:18 pm

Skummy wrote:I've got to agree that dwarves got hosed. Every team that didn't get a big guy got 2 additional positional players. BG's are valuable - a ST 5 player is a significant benefit to the team. I don't see why dwarves should be treated differently.

Accept, of course Undead now.