games

[Heff]

Ogres do indeed suck mightily. You have six unreliable players and TV bloat like you would not believe + a load of walking casualties. Bloodbowl is about planning for failure. I always ask "Is the ball safe if this fails" with Ogres its "Is the ball safe WHEN this fails" hence they teach you to play with caution. Then you still lose. You start winning (Occasionally) when you know when to take chances not when you take chances all the time.

Dwarves are THE WORST team to learn on. They have all the skills and are like playing with training wheels, you think you can play but take em off and you fall over. I think the best non stunty team to start on is zons. They are cheap, they have positionals that you have to use. Throwers throw catchers catch. There are 4 blitzers who are great and dodge which you have to learn not to use too often. At the same time you can use dodge to re-position when you are completely out of position. Re-rolls are cheap and finally players die and it teaches you not to get attached.

[DixonCider]

funny how the thread started about having a rough day seem instantly better when having a game go well, and turned into a team preferences thread.

[garion]

Ogres do indeed suck mightily. You have six unreliable players and TV bloat like you would not believe + a load of walking casualties. Bloodbowl is about planning for failure. I always ask "Is the ball safe if this fails" with Ogres its "Is the ball safe WHEN this fails" hence they teach you to play with caution. Then you still lose. You start winning (Occasionally) when you know when to take chances not when you take chances all the time.

Dwarves are THE WORST team to learn on. They have all the skills and are like playing with training wheels, you think you can play but take em off and you fall over. I think the best non stunty team to start on is zons. They are cheap; they have positionals that you have to use. Throwers throw catchers catch. There are 4 blitzers who are great and dodge which you have to learn not to use too often. At the same time you can use dodge to re-position when you are completely out of position. Re-rolls are cheap and finally players die and it teaches you not to get attached.

yeah, I have to strongly disagree with you again here. I don't see how ogres teach you caution. You have no chance at all. It doesn't matter what you do, you will lose unless your opponent really sucks or your dice are amazing.

I'm not going to talk dwarves with you as you hate them so much there is no explaining how they are really sluggish at low TV and they have major weaknesses.

Zons however are not good to learn good positional play with. They are the easiest team in the game to use and auto win against almost all races at low to mid TV in the hands of even an average coach. Though dwarves and Chaos dwarves do destroy them with ease. All you do with zons is man mark everyone and walk the ball in. Then laugh as your opponent can’t do anything but push your players around all game. Your players are all sooo cheap you can get a deep bench and all positionals, apo and 3 or 4 re-rolls very quickly. Throwers are largely pointless though you may as well take 1 just because they are cheap. Catchers are good for A access. You never throw or catch with them though. So the positional names are very misleading. You just plod down the pitch very slowly out bashing almost all teams at low to mid TV because of your impossible to knock down man marking tactics. Sure at high TV they struggle when every opponent carries a bunch of tackle. But until that point your are playing with the most broken gimmicky team in the game.

[outcast]

They are the easiest team in the game to use and auto win against almost all races at low to mid TV in the hands of even an average coach.

...I don't necessarily agree with this but it may explain my attachment to them! (that, and the bikinis)

[Heff]

Now see I agree with your assessment of zons. But when you start you are not a half decent coach but a rotten one who will ride his luck. Then you need all the crutches that zons provide. You need to learn that a long pass with AG3 to an AG3 catcher is a quick way to be 1-0 down. That having dodge does not mean you should use it. That throwers are crap, that even though you have a sack full of re-rolls you can only use one a turn. And that losing your blodge guard SF is not the end of the world. Mostly you have to learn to enjoy losing a LOT.

As to Dwarves my main objection if I am being serious (and why would I do that) is that they are BORING crutches, boring to play, boring to play against and boring to watch.

[sann0638]

(that, and the bikinis)

and there we go

[Dr. Von Richten]

As to Dwarves my main objection if I am being serious (and why would I do that) is that they are BORING crutches, boring to play, boring to play against and boring to watch.

This I can agree with. They're not overpowered (good, but limited as well) but they are indeed very boring.

I'd always thought Orcs and Undead make great 'learning' teams, as the former are strong and tough (so you're unlikely to get destroyed) but slow (so you need to learn positioning) and the latter have amazing hitters to cage behind and also enough speed to do a running game while regen protects you.

But then, I started the game with Chaos (ages ago, in '95 or so) and still love them even at low TV, so what do I know?

[DixonCider]

But then, I started the game with Chaos (ages ago, in '95 or so) and still love them even at low TV, so what do I know?

I started with chaos also

http://bbloc.calgarygamers.net/index.ph ... &obj_id=37

have tried to play a mix of other teams since then, may pick up some chaos dwarfs to give them a try next

[JT-Y]

Spring is in the air and the pastures are full of new born baby Heff's, frolicking and bleating:

[Heff]

Spring is in the air and the pastures are full of new born baby Heff's, frolicking and bleating:

Oy JT leave them Kids alone!

[Dr. Von Richten]

I started with chaos also

http://bbloc.calgarygamers.net/index.ph ... &obj_id=37

have tried to play a mix of other teams since then, may pick up some chaos dwarfs to give them a try next

Ooh you have a Mino with Str 6, which is awesome even if Block would be more reliable. Me like!

Also Chaos Dwarfs are a great love of mine, but that is not (primarily) for how they play, it's for the models. You cannot go wrong if most of your players are wearing Silly Hats ... of Doom!

[DixonCider]

but on most players I am getting three dice on a blitz, think that is the most reliable. I am sure someone has the math to show how wrong I am though :p

[Dr. Von Richten]

but on most players I am getting three dice on a blitz, think that is the most reliable. I am sure someone has the math to show how wrong I am though :p

Two dice with Block has a 1/36 chance of fail, 3 dice without Block has a 1/27 chance of fail. QED.

Not that this matters, +Strength is so much cooler and also makes Tentacles better. Besides, if optimization was the only thing important, Blood Bowl would be Boring Bowl, IMO anyway!

[ChenZhen]

Also Chaos Dwarfs are a great love of mine, but that is not (primarily) for how they play, it's for the models. You cannot go wrong if most of your players are wearing Silly Hats ... of Doom!

Totally agree. I love the look of that team so much! Then again about 60% of my enjoyment of this game is miniature based. I have a team of the big hatted ones that will get painted one of these days

More on topic, I had "one of those games" with 'Flings vs Lizards.

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3548513

I'm planning on playing 'Flings next season in our local league (see signature below). My brother-in-law is planning on playing Lizards. If every match goes like our test game, I'll be a happy coach!

[Cestrian]

Your team is coming along nicely DC. Any thoughts of adding a WE or a runner to the roster soon? Good luck in your league!

@Heff: Having read the posts you directed me to, I have to say my instant reaction was rant rather than rational argument. There were well argued (and valid) points made in your posts, but my mind remembered the use of "ginger tw*ts" and the insult to the dwarf player's parentage more. The inclusion of these phrases are indications of fury and anger, emotions which do not (typically) lead to rational or sane thoughts, thereby de-valuing your argument and allowing people to dismiss it as a rant / madman's raving. I have never read a scientific paper de-bunking another paper's findings which ends with "you lying [rude word of choice]," (as much as the author may have wanted / been justified to) for this reason.

Rant and raves can be dismissed as the thoughts of a madman, arguments have to be argued.

If you do feel the need to include an insulting word, fall back on your archaic olde English which people don't understand, e.g. quim, nethra yayeh, fud etc. Berk and Twit are surprisingly good as they now mean fool, but in their original meaning were something else entirely.

KISSES!

(See? Now everyone thinks I'm a completely insane, devaluing my argument completely. Game, set, match. )

Hucker73, whilst not a man of science myself, I am a philosophy graduate who has done a fair amount of history of science and philosophy of science, so feel the need to defend ranting.

Firstly, ranting isn't necessarily illogical. Reading through Hess's rant, the majority of it actually talks about specific, objective facts about the Dwarf roster (ie. the stats, skills, tactics). These are hardly indications of a lack of logic. In fact they're the opposite. You could of course argue that he's skewing the facts to suit his ends, but again, that's not necessarily illogical. (For the record I don't think he is skewing the facts.)

Secondly, with regard to having never read a scientific paper that calls people 'ginger tw*ts' and the like, no, nor have I. However, in science papers, and philosophy and history papers for that matter, there are acceptable mechanisms for doing so. For example, accusing someone of being illogical in philosophy can be akin to telling them they're stupid (unless it's some contested/properly hard point of logic). In science the accusation of being dogmatic is similar.

Thirdly, I don't think using emotive language in making arguments is necessarily a bad thing (which is the implicit implication I think). It could, in fact, be said to deepen the complexity of the argument. Yes, there is something to be said for sober argument, but by adding in emotive language it increases the intensity with which that argument comes across, heightening the awareness the reader has in the importance of the subject to the writer, and therefore adding in emotive reasons for accepting an argument. Of course, you might say we should keep emotions out of decision making. But without emotive reason it could be, in certain circumstances, logical for everyone to play with dwarves at a tournament (due to how good they are, certain restrictions in place at the tournament etc.), and how rubbish would that be? Very. Very rubbish.

So, yay for ranting!