Playing in the hole

Cephme · Post by **Cephme** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:31 pm

Hi folks. We are just about to start our second season and I am considering which team to play. I have two teams that are about tr 140 (most teams in the league are between tr 130 and 150) an amazon and a khemri that are moderately well developed. We have the option to bring back our team from last year (for me khemri) our team from the preseason tournaments (amazon) or bring in a brand new tr 100 team (about a third of the league will be doing this). So my question is, are their any teams that particularly do well when benefitting from handicaps? I was thinking WE might (lots of stuff to help the tree, get a second tree/third WD etc). Chaos Dwarves looked like a good option too (drugs on BC's 3rd BC, numbers advantage and bash etc). Can you make an argument for any other teams? Basically if I were to do this I would be playing for the all star game and next season so was also considering pro elfs or even skaven. Thoughts?

Ravage · Post by **Ravage** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:56 pm

I dont think any one team really benefits more or less from most handicaps... it really more depends on your opponent. If they have a lot of niggled players and you get a virus, for example, that's going to be much better than a virus against a team with no nigglers. But one race getting "Buzzing" over another one really doesnt seem to me like it make all that much difference. And picking a race choice based solely a single handicap result like "That Boy's Got Talent", where WE's could take a 3rd WD or something, to me doesnt make much sense.

Cephme · Post by **Cephme** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:00 pm

True, but going throught the table yesterday it seemed like several would be very useful for the WE, but not so much for others. Hence the question.

In the end, the real question is can the handicap table make that much of a difference? I could always play the other "old" teams but am a bit bored with them so was looking for something new, preferably with a bit more speed, an am wondering if I am killing myself by being down the much. Guess it is time for some games on fumbbl. I am sure I can find opponents who will want to play lower strenght teams.

Ravage · Post by **Ravage** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:24 am

sounds to me like you're bored of the "old" teams and are looking for a change. stop trying to "convince" yourself of playing WE's and just admit you want to make the jump. It's ok.... really

Cephme · Post by **Cephme** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:36 pm

He he.

Well trying to make the call on WE, Elves, High Elves, or skaven. Other than making sure I start with an apoth (giving up a rr is not TOO big a loss in these cases) any other thoughts on a "in the hole" roster.

PS I tried CDs last night on fumbbl. The were ok, and will be fun for there, but I don't think develop quickly enough for playing out of the hole.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:32 pm

I think you can get a lot of good out of handicaps with wood elves. I still wouldn't start at tr 100 with an apoth in a long term league, though. Just make that the very first thing you buy.

SharazJack · Post by **SharazJack** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:52 am

wesleytj, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on not starting with an apothecary. While I normally wouldn't, in a league with experienced teams and a new AV 7 team with expensive players it is something to consider. It also depends on the teams you might face early on.

I started an Elf team recently in a somewhat experienced league (TR 120-130) and had a bit of bad luck on the casualty front. After 3 games, all of my money has been spent replacing casualties. I still have only 11 players and no apothecary. Hopefully I will have better luck after my next game. On the positive side my record is 3-0.

Ravage · Post by **Ravage** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:08 pm

maybe it's just me, but if you were going into games with 10 players and had the money to replace one, I would have gone for the apo first and waited to get yourself back to 11. especially with elves, it isnt hard to score when playing man down.

Irishragan · Post by **Irishragan** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:53 pm

It is against Dwarves.....at least for me when I play with elves against them. Then again in my opinion, Dwarves just beat on Elves early on.

SharazJack · Post by **SharazJack** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:56 am

Ravage, that would work except for the seriously injured.

Otherwise that is a good plan. Even with only 5 or 6 men on the pitch at the end of the game, I can still outmanuver my opponents. Also, I have been having bad rolls for winnings. The only thing keeping me alive were my bonuses for winning and the gate. At least I can count on the gate bonus with my high fan factor (currently a 10).

Actually, I find Dwarf teams to be more of a problem later. Early on I don't have many players with dodge and Dwarfs are easily outrun. My first game against Orcs was bad because the blizzard hurt my main advantage, the passing game. My latest game against Norse was the worst. His blocking was almost flawless, I had a terrible time breaking through his armor, and to add insult to injury the one player who died was the result of a failed dodge roll.

To get back to the main topic, I prefer the new Elf team to the others because of the cheaper linemen and skilled catchers and blitzers. I don't have any experience with Skaven so I am only comparing the elf teams.

Ravage · Post by **Ravage** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:45 pm

i think dwarves are definitely more of a problem later. with lots of guard and tackle DOING something (negating the dodge skill you earned, whereas early on you dont have any Dodge for tackle to counteract), it's problematic to your developed-team tactics. earlier in an elf team's life, norse are far more problematic with block on everyone: at least dwarves only have it on some of their players. and dwarves are oh so easy to outrun with elves