On the dwarfen roster replace the ogre with?

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:47 pm

Really haven't found Leader to be a big change.

The BBRC is 98% removing the Ogres from 3 of the teams and will considering their removal from Orc, Norse, and Chaos.

Leaving them to play for Human and the 2 of the Mixed Race teams only if all that goes through.

Galak

So if you end up here is this okay guys:

No Big Guys (7): Amazon, Dark Elf, Dwarf, High Elf, Khemri, Necromantic, Vampire

Kroxigor (2): Lizardman, Lustrian

Minotaur (4): Chaos, Chaos Dwarf, Chaos Pact, Norse

Nurgle Beast (1): Nurgle Rotters

Ogre (5): Chaos, Chaos Pact, Human, Ogre, Old World

Rat Ogre (1): Skaven

Treeman (3): Halfling, Old World, Wood Elf

Troll (5): Chaos, Chaos Dwarf, Chaos Pact, Goblin, Orc

So 5 teams with access to 2 Big Guys, 9 teams with access to one Big Guy, and 7 teams without access to a Big Guy.

Would this make the world a better place for you all???

Galak

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Apr 29, 2003 8:26 pm

It would for me.

I would also like to see the Wood Elves lose the Treeman to align them with the other elves (they are usually listed as the best elves anyway).

Fluff wise should the Lustrian team have an Ogre when neither the Amazon or Lizardman team does?

Regardless of the two above points this would certainly be an improvement and help stop the ogres in every team situation.

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:07 pm

I think the khemri team deserves an asterix on that list, to remind people why they dont need any bg's.

I also agree with both of Munkey's points.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Tue Apr 29, 2003 11:18 pm

well you'd have to put asterisks next to all of them in that case, because none of them need big guys. they're balanced just fine as is imo.

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Tue Apr 29, 2003 11:42 pm

Well i was referring to the 4 st 5 guys which no other team has, i personally think gobbos and flings need big guys, just that they dont need ogres.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:00 am

sure but gobs and flings weren't on his list of teams with none.

and no, i don't think anybody wants to take all bg access from the stunty teams, just the ogres.

Dark Lord (retired) · Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:36 am

Thadrin is absolutely right. The system he suggested is a home run! The big guy needs to replace a blocker or blitzer position and it needs to lose the trophy and leader rerolls.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:40 am

Mestari wrote:
Zombie wrote:I'm saying that dwarves can do enough bashing without an ogre, which means that they don't need an ogre, because all an ogre does is bash. If this still isn't clear to you, i don't know how to say it.
And Orcs/Chaos can't bash enough without BG?

If you had read my other posts, you would know that the reason i think the ogre has to go is 100% because of fluff, but the reason he shouldn't be replaced is because he makes little difference on dwarf teams anyway.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:48 am

Dark Lord wrote:Thadrin is absolutely right. The system he suggested is a home run! The big guy needs to replace a blocker or blitzer position and it needs to lose the trophy and leader rerolls.

well if you're going to lessen the effectiveness of the leader reroll, i definitely suggest you revert it back to skill status. as it is now the ONLY reason it's remotely worth a doubles roll is if you have a big guy on your team. Otherwise there's always a better way to use it.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:55 am

Zombie wrote: If you had read my other posts, you would know that the reason i think the ogre has to go is 100% because of fluff, but the reason he shouldn't be replaced is because he makes little difference on dwarf teams anyway.

You just dislike dwarves and want to unjustly punish them

But on a sidenote, I could live with the list that Galak posted.

Post by **Thadrin** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:37 pm

Changes I'd make:
* Why not allow "normal" Chaos the ogre. I remain unconvinced that the modified mixed race rules are any good (no way to have a team of only two races without floods of linemen, multiple big guys...ick.)?
* Chaos Dwarfs access to one or other, not both.
* it should COST to have a big guy on your roster. The Big guy should occupy a position slot. Especially so if you are going to allow Wood Elves to have a Treeman.

Otherwise I could live with that list.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:50 pm

Thadrin wrote:Changes I'd make:
* Why not allow "normal" Chaos the ogre. I remain unconvinced that the modified mixed race rules are any good (no way to have a team of only two races without floods of linemen, multiple big guys...ick.)?

I would have zero problem with Chaos having an Ogre ... really I don't care who does and doesn't have Ogres outside of the Halfling, Goblin, and Dwarf teams.

* Chaos Dwarfs access to one or other, not both.

Don't see why the choice matters.

* it should COST to have a big guy on your roster. The Big guy should occupy a position slot. Especially so if you are going to allow Wood Elves to have a Treeman.

The MBBL and all 5 leagues using the MBBL2 rule base haved moved to On-Pitch Take Root with version 2.4 of the PBeM tool. I'm betting you see a LOT of Wood Elf teams retire their Trees in favor of a lineman soon in those leagues.

Galak

Post by **Thadrin** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:18 pm

Galak wrote: Don't see why the choice matters.

TBH it doesn't, I was just thinking each team should have one big guy type and only one. Guess it really doesn't matter if they can choose (though the Mino on my league's CD team is a real pain in the arse. Literally.

Galak wrote: The MBBL and all 5 leagues using the MBBL2 rule base haved moved to On-Pitch Take Root with version 2.4 of the PBeM tool. I'm betting you see a LOT of Wood Elf teams retire their Trees in favor of a lineman soon in those leagues.

I still have problems with the idea that a "Full" roster is always going to have a big guy - even a wood elf roster with 16 players will ALWAYS have the Tree, even if he never actually does anything...because they CAN have him.
Its not the usefulness of the actual player...though admittedly that idea is more aimed at the likes of the Norse with their 5 frenzied players or Chaos getting four warriors AND the ogre/mino.

Still, I'm being picky I guess. I just dislike big guys for the enormous impact they can have.

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:21 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:
* it should COST to have a big guy on your roster. The Big guy should occupy a position slot. Especially so if you are going to allow Wood Elves to have a Treeman.
The MBBL and all 5 leagues using the MBBL2 rule base haved moved to On-Pitch Take Root with version 2.4 of the PBeM tool. I'm betting you see a LOT of Wood Elf teams retire their Trees in favor of a lineman soon in those leagues.

Galak

That doesn't address the statement that a team should give something up to have a Big Guy, specifically a Blitzer type postitional player. I think that's a very good addition idea. I wouldn't even argue that a Big Guy is a benefit to a team. I just want the decision to put one on a team to be something a coach thinks about, if not agonizes over.

rwould · Post by **rwould** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:31 pm

I like the proposals from Galak. Big guys are too prevalent and easy to get.

I do think that the BBRC should change back the Trophy/Leader re-rolls to what the rulebook says (ie Big Guys CANNOT use them) which would also make a difference to their effectiveness, especially for rookie big guys and make it harder for them to get SPP's.

However would there also be amendments made to the Dwarf team to compensate them for the loss of big guys? They have the least skill position players of all the races, and other races received compensation skill players in useful positions to make up for it and so I would think it would be fair to increase Dwarf Blitzers to four for each team.

Oh, and Zombie. You do a good job of accusing others of not listening yet fail to read the message in their answers to your points.

Richard