Are any of the big guys as good as the Ogre?

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:05 pm

I've less a problem with the Bull Centaurs than I do with Mummies. At least the Bulls have a 4 strengh.

Seriously though, shouldn't the price of a big guy have a direct attachment to his worth? Most people don't think that the Kroxigor and the Rat Ogre are the best two big guys in the game, but they are the most expensive. Just based on price, the Troll should be the worst, but he has been either 3rd or 4th on everyone's list. Does anyone but me think that this is an indication there might be a problem with some of these negatraits?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:12 pm

I think the prices are set right. Having played against a well skilled rat ogre they are def the best, wild animal can be really bad, but he is fast has good ag and is strong. The troll probably is the worst of the lot, ive seen them eat plenty of gobbos, or just stand there and do nothing a lot of the time.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:53 pm

BullBear wrote:Also, why Bull Centaurs aren't considered BGs is a little baffling.

Probably because no-one would take the ugly mini's if they had a negatrait

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:58 pm

I like the centaur minis, just painting some now. Also the fact they are st4 would be why they aren't big guys.

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 11:19 pm

When Mummies get neg traits and are big guys, and bull centaurs go up to str 5, then they can be big guys as well.

I like my minotaur, he is great at what I want him to do (killing recivers in the backfield). Lots of dead/injuerd gutterrunners and elfs. In one game alone, he took all four Elf catchers out. I also like treemen in a treehugger team. While I would not start with one, they would be a good second or third buy, just so I could have a strong line.

The best big guy, is totaly up to your tatics and the situation. The reason why ogers are usualy considerd the best, is because they are the most versitile. They can do many diffrent things for diffrent teams. While not best at any given item, they are the best all around big guy.

So my rating would be:
1. Mummy (no neg traits and can use team rerolls)
2. Oger (versitility)
3. Minotaur
4. Rat oger
5. Treeman
6. Krox
7. troll

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 11:29 pm

Fronko wrote:Why would you put the Kroxigor above the ogre?

To some, +1MA more than compensates for +1AG, because MA is more useful to a big guy than AG. The prehensile tail helps a lot as well. Actually, now that i think about it, i'd change my vote now and place him above the ogre.

Fronko wrote:Why do you guys rate the treeman so lowly? I´m playing woodies and think about getting one soon. Is there a reason I shouldn´t?

The treeman has two negative skills: take root and 2 MA. Personally, i find that 2 MA is the most negative of the two, as it affects you on the field and keeps you from getting up every second try.

Bob-the-Fish · Post by **Bob-the-Fish** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:12 am

1 Ogre:
He's strong, tough, possibly the best neg-trait, available to the most teams, cheaper than RO and Kroxigor. TTM is a fun additon without the risk of eating your own players and with a better AG than a Treeman.
2 Rat Ogre:
Despite WA, he can have a great impact on a game and once he gains som skills, can be down right brutal. Highest AG and high S wit access to mutations.
3 Kroxigor
After reading some of your posts, I decided that just because I have never seen a Kroxigor do any Lizzie team any good, he does have potential. That AG 1 is a killer though. The addition of MB will certainly help.
4 Troll
Dirt cheap.

5 Minotuar
To much of a liability early on unless you get lucky. Though horns and MB are a fun combo. I player CD with a MIno so I have some experience with him.
6 Treeman
Just not as good as the rest. Not bad, just not as good.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:48 pm

Skummy wrote:Seriously though, shouldn't the price of a big guy have a direct attachment to his worth?

Yes, in theory i would think that taking into account price and the negatraits involved all big guys should be equally good.

Trouble is when talking about such a large investment in only one player a difference of maybe 30k to the price is not much to pay to get a better player in the long term. Which is why i've bought an ogre not a troll for my orc team, only took one extra game to save up.

This means essentially that the negatratraits must be used as a balancing factor for the most part. Opinion seems divided on WA at the moment but I would have to say that Treemen and Trolls are definately worse than Ogres.

Of course the final difference is the teams that the big guys can play on, for example a Kroxi does not have to be balanced with an Ogre because he only plays for lizardmen, as long as this team is balanced overall it doesn't matter how directly comparable he is to other big guys.

Trolls on the other hand must compete directly with Ogres for inclusion in all teams which is why in my experience they are so little used.

So perhaps the problem is that some big guys are available to too many different teams rather than they are not balanced.

Whoops that was a bit of a rambling post, i'll try to be more concise next time

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:59 pm

Yes, in theory i would think that taking into account price and the negatraits involved all big guys should be equally good.

Really? I know that when a human blitzer costs 90k and a wardancer costs 130, it's because the wardancer is a better player. Shouldn't the price of the BS's reflect this as well, once all the negatraits are factored in?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 5:01 pm

Their higher strength makes them better players. That and they come with mighty blow. Big guys tend to get the most cas, specially as they can usually 2 dice block anyone and they have mighty blow.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 5:43 pm

Sorry if that was poorly articulated, but I was saying that the more expensive big guys should be noticeably better than the cheap big guys. If you pay 30k extra for a regular player, you expect him to be a good deal better. If there is a 30k differential between the big guys, I'd also expect them to be substantially better. From the rankings people have done, I'm not sure that this is the case.

Anduin · Post by **Anduin** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:38 pm

Never having used a BG...(Why can't the Amazons have a Krox)...

It seems like the best BG's I've played against are

1. Krox

2. Rat Ogre

Trees are definately the worst (except maybe for halflings)

Anduin

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:40 pm

Skummy wrote:
Yes, in theory i would think that taking into account price and the negatraits involved all big guys should be equally good.
Really? I know that when a human blitzer costs 90k and a wardancer costs 130, it's because the wardancer is a better player. Shouldn't the price of the BS's reflect this as well, once all the negatraits are factored in?

If cost was directly linked to how good a player was, then the high elf and dark elf throwers would be the same in price. While you and I, may think this is how it should work, GW does not.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:49 pm

I know that the Human and Orc throwers are the same price, while the Orc has one less movement as well. I still don't have to like it.

I can deal with the fact that some big guys are better than others. Fine, okay. But shouldn't the price reflect the utility?

Bob-the-Fish · Post by **Bob-the-Fish** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:36 pm

It seems to me that GW used some of the "40k point value" logic when determining the cost of some players. They say that the cost is based on the value of the player to his specific team and not really comparable to other players in similar positions on different teams. Not that this makes any sense in BB as all the teams and positions are quite similar, but maybe that's where GW is coming from.