Why do Dwarfs only got 6 positional players?

[Skummy]

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.

Undead get 2 big guys with no negatraits. They were fairly broken when they got 4 wights.

[leblanc13]

Dwarves have access to two troll slayers that have dauntless. They really don't need big guys because they have two team members that can equal the strength of anyone.

Also, the dwarves got a really cool wizard in the rune smith. If you roll a 6 on the runesmith table, you gain basically an additional troll slayer for the game. Also, you can freeboot Grim Ironjaw.

This team has some amazing choices. I don't see a need for improvement on them. They may not be the most flexible team due to their slow movement, but I think that they are fun to play. They were the 1st team I bought when the boxed set came out.

I am pretty tired of everyone bashing the dwarves as well and agree that the reason that no one plays them anymore is that everyone is constantly bashing them. DWARVES ARE GREAT!..THAT'S RIGHT...I SAID IT!

And as a Norse coach I have to say that the Dwarves scare the hell out of me. They all have block AND AV9. Man, my Norse are jealous! Tell me who will win that war of attrition.

[Mirascael]

Well, I really can't say that Dwarves are one of the worse races in Blood Bowl. Of course it's more sexy to get mutations or teleport around with AG 5 Leapers, but I can't think of any other race that can handle all other races as well as dwarves can. If I am not mistaken there is no race that owns them. If you want a team that is on pair with everyone, dwarves are certainly a favourite choice.

[Skummy]

Dwarves have access to two troll slayers that have dauntless. They really don't need big guys because they have two team members that can equal the strength of anyone.

Almost correct. They have two team members that have a 72% chance of being able to block a 5 ST player at even strength, but have an 8 AV and can be hit back with impunity. Oh, and they can't dodge away very effectively if they don't knock the big guy down.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Not to mention that those slayers are almost always the first target for any bashy team and the agility teams' dirty players. When they go down, say goodnight cuz they are almost always fouled into oblivion.

But that's all tactics. Yes dwarves are still capable of winning and they are still fun to play. Hell, I absolutely love keeping elves teams to 1 or no score. Makes my day to see those coaches whine about lack of SPP's at the end of the match.

Like I said, the problem comes when you have to select skills and you look at the sheet, look at your longbeard/runner/slayer/blitzer and think, "Well, I'll never use that skill, or that one, or that one. I guess I'll take guard...again."

[Asperon Thorn]

I am sorry, I can't sympathize with Dwarf Coaches at all. Without a Big Guy they may be "Weak" as they don't have anything over str 3, but they do have a lot going for them.

Here are the facts.

1. At TR 100, nobody that is stronger than dwarves have block. This means that everytime these "Stronger brutalizing players are picking on the poor small dwarves" They are risking a turnover at no cost to the Dwarves.

2. Dwarven linemen have AV9 and Thick skull. Which means, while they are, once again, getting "Brutalized by stronger. . .yada yada" they just aren't going anywhere. They are staying on the pitch.

3. Outside of Chaos teams, no other team has that much access to STR skills. Guard being the prefered route, but potential standfirm, mighty blow, etc can become very common on a developed team (spare me the lecture on the dificulty of earning skills on longbeards. Sauri, and BoB's have the same problem. Not to mention they don't have to waste early skills on critical things like Block, and tackle)

4. A 72% chance of going even with a Big Guy is a better chance (72% of the time) then High, Dark, and Pro Elves have.

5. Runesmith was already mentioned.

Opinions:

Dwarves are the antithesis of Elves. Elves are fast, Dwarves are not. Elves can handle the ball well, Dwarves can't. Elves can't hit, Dwarves can. Elves have no access to STR skills, Everyone on Dwarves can access them. Dwarves are durable, Elves are not. Elves develop fast, Dwarves don't.

Neither needs a big guy. The only reason that Elves got more positions is because they can rarely keep them all on the field. Rarely, like maybe once or twice. It was a safe upgrade for the elves. Dwarves on the other hand can have most or thiers on the field, all the time.

Asperon Thorn

[edit]spelling, etc[/edit]

[ScottyBoneman]

Undead get 2 big guys with no negatraits. They were fairly broken when they got 4 wights.

I dont think they were in that having 2 STR5 guys without negative traits vs 2 teams with 4 STR and 1 STR5 with them is not clearly better. Head to head with the Orcs I can't see how you would call Undead overpowered.

But that is an aside, Undead lost the benefit they gained in the 2 Wights. It is a team that don't have a compensating bonus or a Big Guy, like the Dwarves.

[Skummy]

Asperon - you're taking a Dark Lord type turn here quoting the "facts". No ST 4 player starts with block - it's one of the basic rules of the game. I don't think anyone will dispute that ST 4 is better than block in the long run. Dwarves do have a lot of access to ST skills - but the reason you keep hearing about the "lecure" is becasue it's true. Dwarves get skills very slowly, and rarely get to address their biggest problem, lack of speed and ST. Guard helps, but at high TR levels, 4 ST and block is better than a 3 ST block guard. A 72% chance against a big guy is not a bad thing - but remember that Elves all have a much better chance to dodge away and pick their fights. Runesmith isn't any more of an advantage for Dwarves than a Wizard is for other teams. 50k per game is very pricy.

If Dwarves are supposed to be a slow, running team, they need some help at higher TR levels to keep from getting continually pasted by Chaos, Khemri and Orcs, who develop fairly rapidly into teams that just don't let Dwarves get downfield.

[Skummy]

I dont think they were in that having 2 STR5 guys without negative traits vs 2 teams with 4 STR and 1 STR5 with them is not clearly better. Head to head with the Orcs I can't see how you would call Undead overpowered.

But that is an aside, Undead lost the benefit they gained in the 2 Wights. It is a team that don't have a compensating bonus or a Big Guy, like the Dwarves.

Having 2 big guys with ST 5 along with 4 wights and 4 ghouls was pretty clearly overpowered - that's why it was changed. Now that they're forced to field at least 3 zombies/skeletons, I think they're about right.

I think you're missing what I'm saying though - IMO, Mummies are better than the average big guy. The undead team is a vehicle for having 2 big guys on the field at once.

[Asperon Thorn]

Asperon - you're taking a Dark Lord type turn here quoting the "facts".

Shhh Actually I know DL appreciates the dry teasing, if not right away.

No ST 4 player starts with block - it's one of the basic rules of the game. I don't think anyone will dispute that ST 4 is better than block in the long run. Dwarves do have a lot of access to ST skills - but the reason you keep hearing about the "lecure" is becasue it's true. Dwarves get skills very slowly, and rarely get to address their biggest problem, lack of speed and ST. Guard helps, but at high TR levels, 4 ST and block is better than a 3 ST block guard.

I don't see it. Maybe for a corner blitz, but on average, Str 3 guards flanking both sides will see you through str 4 block. This is where the game gets played. The game isn't just running stats, it is using your strengths to exploit your opponents weaknesses. And I don't see Str 4 block automatically defeating str 3 guard, they are just different. Although I do agree that most would prefer Str 4 for the versatility, but Dwarves aren't versatile, no matter what game you play.

A 72% chance against a big guy is not a bad thing - but remember that Elves all have a much better chance to dodge away and pick their fights..

The amount of dodges that an elf player must make to "pick his fights" grows as TR increases. And as that grows so does the chances that it will fail. At high TR an early turn failure can mean that everyone left near an opponent will die. Dwarves cannot say the same thing. Dwarves may get knocked over, or beat up, but they are far less likely to get hurt by failing thier 72% roll.

Runesmith isn't any more of an advantage for Dwarves than a Wizard is for other teams. 50k per game is very pricy.

Maybe, but considering the low player turnover and the low cost of RR's is 50k really that pricey?

If Dwarves are supposed to be a slow, running team, they need some help at higher TR levels to keep from getting continually pasted by Chaos, Khemri and Orcs, who develop fairly rapidly into teams that just don't let Dwarves get downfield.

I don't think they do. Dwarves may not have the speed to compensate, or the str to go straight head to head, but they have the toughness and endurance to see them through. On all of those teams listed, at higher TR's,the average player is still more likely to be taken off the pitch then a dwarf.

Asperon Thorn

[Skummy]

Damn, now how are we going to suck DL back onto the site?

I don't see it. Maybe for a corner blitz, but on average, Str 3 guards flanking both sides will see you through str 4 block. This is where the game gets played. The game isn't just running stats, it is using your strengths to exploit your opponents weaknesses. And I don't see Str 4 block automatically defeating str 3 guard, they are just different. Although I do agree that most would prefer Str 4 for the versatility, but Dwarves aren't versatile, no matter what game you play.

Well, you're also assuming that the guards can get into a position in which they can support one another. I'm actually rather surprised you are arguing that in an absolute value that strength is not better. Which would you take on any given player?

The amount of dodges that an elf player must make to "pick his fights" grows as TR increases. And as that grows so does the chances that it will fail. At high TR an early turn failure can mean that everyone left near an opponent will die. Dwarves cannot say the same thing. Dwarves may get knocked over, or beat up, but they are far less likely to get hurt by failing thier 72% roll.

An Elf team's ability to make dodges reliably generally goes up as their TR increases. Elves also generally have 1 guard per 25 points of TR, as a rule of thumb. And actually if you're using a longbeard to block a big guy and fail, you're going to have that big guy make a check against your 8 AV with mighty blow - and thus have a higher injury chance than most Elves tripping on the floor.

Maybe, but considering the low player turnover and the low cost of RR's is 50k really that pricey?

Yes - especially with negative winnings and the modified winning table that the BBRC is working on.

I don't think they do. Dwarves may not have the speed to compensate, or the str to go straight head to head, but they have the toughness and endurance to see them through. On all of those teams listed, at higher TR's,the average player is still more likely to be taken off the pitch then a dwarf.

That's only if Dwarves can be hit reliably. The only thing they've got going for them is Thick Skull, and a 50% shot to stay on the field isn't all that impressive against lots of ST 4 players.

[Asperon Thorn]

Damn, now how are we going to suck DL back onto the site?

I would only be worried if this wasn't the same offboard debate that he and I have all the time. He'll chime in momentarily and slambast me for my insolence.

Well, you're also assuming that the guards can get into a position in which they can support one another. I'm actually rather surprised you are arguing that in an absolute value that strength is not better. Which would you take on any given player?

Am I wrong to assume that guards can get into position to support one another? I have always freely admitted that my Dwarf experience is severly limited, but I have played against them with numerous teams. I have also played quite a bit of CD's and with 5 CD's and only two with guard, they seem to have no problem supporting each other.

Of course I would pull Str over a skill, as a skill roll. But that isn't the choice here. The choice is between a team that has STR 4 and no skills vs a player that has str 3, two skills, and a racial characteristic (a good one at that.) By playing dwarves you have made that choice, and chose the latter. To expand on your question, would I give a longbeard guard over STR 4, then no. But if you have a bunch of STR 4 longbeards, is the fact that they are not very strong an issue? No. So, assuming you don't get a lot of 12's, you make the best of it and get guard which effectively gives you a bunch of str 4 longbeards, and with enough even some Str 5, and if you can get some sickeningly good positioning str 6 or str 7. If you have 3 sauri, and three longbeards match up head to head and all have one skill, the three longbeards are at the advantage, even if the Suari took Guard over block. They are either without the unified STR that the dwarves have, or they don't have block skill and are very susceptable to bad dice.

An Elf team's ability to make dodges reliably generally goes up as their TR increases. Elves also generally have 1 guard per 25 points of TR, as a rule of thumb. And actually if you're using a longbeard to block a big guy and fail, you're going to have that big guy make a check against your 8 AV with mighty blow - and thus have a higher injury chance than most Elves tripping on the floor.

How do you figure that? Elf teams ability to dodge only gets slightly better. As elves get more dodge, everyone else gets more tackle. (In the case of dwarves, they already have it.) And using Mightyblow vs Longbeard armor is preferable to Mightyblow adding to elf injury, or bringing av 8 down to av 7.

Yes - especially with negative winnings and the modified winning table that the BBRC is working on.

When that becomes official I will worry about it. No use belly aching early.

That's only if Dwarves can be hit reliably. The only thing they've got going for them is Thick Skull, and a 50% shot to stay on the field isn't all that impressive against lots of ST 4 players.

Thick Skull, and AV 9 And that is huge. No other team has such a dependable line. Not lizards, not Chaos, not orcs. All those teams can, for the most part, out muscle Dwarves, but over the long haul dwarves can hurt them more. Maybe more Dwarf coaches should look into putting DP on thier blitzers and putting all that guard to REAL use.

Asperon Thorn

[Skummy]

All the 4 ST players also have AV 9. I'm just not impressed by the supposed Dwarven wrecking ball/running game offence. By the time an average Dwarf team gets a couple of players with guard, the average Chaos or Orc team already has a guard or two of their own. It doesn't really start to be a great skill until you get 3 or more people on a team with it, and with Dwarves that can take quite a while.

With your Saurii example, you're giving a very limited range of tactics. Yes, the longbeards have an advantage in that one particular setup. There are many other alignments in which the saurii have the benefit. And if even one of them has guard, then the longbeards are going to start getting hit with 2 die blocks.

I guess we just have a fundamental difference of opinion that's only going to be settled with long term testing. Though I can point out that Dwarves haven't been doing so well since they lost their Ogre.

[Asperon Thorn]

You are right, we can go round and round all day.

Honestly for me it doesn't matter if they have an Ogre or don't they. It is just one more guy to dodge away from with my Dark elves, and it is just a point of which I am not punching my hole as a bashy team. I don't think ogres add versatility to thier game, and I don't think they make up for any lack that the dwarves have.

What I fervently believe is that the loss of an Ogre does not justify giving dwarves two more position players. That solution worked for elves because the survivabity of the average elf went way way down when they lost thier big guys. When was the last time you have ever seen an elf team field all 8 position players? or the last time they have even been able to? Even on fumbbl where elf teams pick and chose matches in which they won't get that hurt, I rarely see a team that can field all 8. Dwarves don't have that problem.

Asperon Thorn

[Skummy]

Honestly for me it doesn't matter if they have an Ogre or don't they. It is just one more guy to dodge away from with my Dark elves, and it is just a point of which I am not punching my hole as a bashy team. I don't think ogres add versatility to thier game, and I don't think they make up for any lack that the dwarves have.

Yeah? One guy in my leage spent about 10 games making an effort to get the ball in his Ogre's hands. If you've never seen an Ogre running back with Block, Sure Hands and Break Tackle, you've got something to look forward to when the Ogre team goes official. The one I'm thinking of got doubles twice as well, so he followed up with Dodge and Pro. He was incredibly annoying to play against.