Looking for good Nurgle resources/advice

[Greyhound]

We'll see if he gets a 3rd skill, as Tentacles 5 STR is great. 4 STR, not so much.

essentially 2 beast of nurgle without the negatrait.

[number6]

We'll see if he gets a 3rd skill, as Tentacles 5 STR is great. 4 STR, not so much.

essentially 2 beast of nurgle without the negatrait.

Yup
No babysitter needed.

[number6]

Regarding LOS positioning. It clearly varies according to team builds.

Imo, never put a Pestigor on the LOS.

If I'm going to put an 8AV figure on the LOS, it will be a toss away Rotter(s). Pestigors need protection to score / position / blitz. Not take beatings in the face. Heck, sometimes Rotters come for free if you Kill something, so why not put them in harms way. Eventually you'll get another.

[Carnis]

ST4 tents is still better than diving tackle against most opponents, so ST4 tents is nothing to be dismissed easily. Imo block/guard/Mb/Tents is probably the best allround NW build there is.

And Smeborg, I believe there are teams better suited to non-aggressive play (and I do play non-bashy teams, dark elves & vampires mostly), but I admit I find it really hard to comprehend what your "stymie" style actually even means. An elven team will do better if its about denying the ball, a basher will remove more players hence remove more liberties and a "stymie" team will have many pestigors with wrestle/tackle available (so, if your opponent opens his cage up, you will be quick to punish).

Also I dont agree that a few MB/claws will make up for the 4-5 goblins & the massive ST/guard advantage orcs have against an underworld team when it comes to bashing.

[sunnyside]

[edited by V_UK to remove spam quote]



Anyway regarding the discussion between Carnis and Smeborg. I'm wondering if Carnis's underlying point is that, with bash teams, there is only slaying. Which is to say that the basic concept of seeking to win games with a bash team without reducing your opponent's numbers is generally a folly. Ultimately victory will be determined by who can be up players on the field.

If that is the case, than we're mostly kidding ourselves with skills like stand firm or warrior tenticiles when it comes to games vs other bash players. You'd primarily want skills that improve your ability to make blocks (block, guard, etc) or your ability to break armor (MB, claw, PO), and than a sprinkling of toolboxish skills here and there.

That said, I've occasionally heard that a weakness of the bash teams is against the agility teams, particularly once an agility team develops a credible one turn touchdown option. I see nurgle as being able to address this. And in such match ups skills like SF are very nice, especially since disturbing presence works even if face down, and a prone player still clogs up routes. Moreover guard in particular is probably largely superfluous against agility teams, and having a lot of MB likely is as well since you only get one blitz (though tents can be a horrible problem for the classic one step back defense)..

So I guess the question becomes: "what teams does Chaos lose to the most at high TV?" If Chaos doesn't have a problem handling Skaven with a couple +MA gutter runners or swarms of side stepping elves, than maybe Nurgle is a chaos variant meant to fix something that isn't broken.

If Chaos does get bumped out by such teams, than Nurgle starts looking good. And the question of what skills Nurgle might want would depend on what Nurgle tends to lose to.

[Smeborg]

sunnyside - I believe you are indeed circling around the "truth". Some thoughts behind my initial idea to develop Nurgle as a pure "stymie" team were:

- To seek an optimal development path (in terms of match results);
- To develop a team capable of playing well against all teams (e.g. against AG and ST);
- To follow ideas suggested by the starting mutations (the main point of difference of Nurgle);
- To ask "why" if I found myself following a development path open to other teams (e.g. Chaos);
- To learn from tournament play; and
- To have fun (not just for me, but for my opponents).

When I set out, I did not know if things would work out. What I have found in practice (4 tabletop leagues totalling about 100 games, 6 or 8 tournaments) is as follows:

- Results are better than with a slayer development strategy;
- CAS conceded are lower than with a slayer development strategy;
- It's a lot of fun.

Of course, however you develop them, Nurgle are a ST team, if you are a decent coach, you will get to lay down plenty of blocks. But my experience of when 2 slayer teams meet (especially if both have Claw), is that the match result is pretty much a coin toss, depending on who racks up the CAS first. In at least 1 in 2 of such matches, you can expect your team to get damaged, often badly. Whereas I have found in practice that a stymie team survives quite well against slayer teams, and gets good results against them. The stymie game therefore appears to work as well against a slayer team as against an AG team (a main reason for adopting the style).

The stymie game is harder work for the coach, therefore it may not appeal to everybody, but I have shown (to my own satisfaction at least) that it produces the best results. And I have played against Chaos often enough to know that Chaos develop better and faster as a slayer team than Nurgle.

Hope that helps.

[Smeborg]

Also I dont agree that a few MB/claws will make up for the 4-5 goblins & the massive ST/guard advantage orcs have against an underworld team when it comes to bashing.

Short of playing these 2 teams against each other (which is unlikely, I do not play online) we will not settle this argument! But let's at least have some fun:

- The Underworld team would only need to put 2-3 Gobbos on the field initially (because they would induce Glart for his Claw, and possibly one other Star);
- The Orc team looks quite vulnerable to me against Claw teams. The Troll does not have Block, the Thrower is a rookie, the Gobbo cannot look after himself except by hiding.
- The team has no Piling On, and with only 13 players, cannot afford to foul (whereas the Underworld can). It is not a slayer team.
- With only 13 players playing against 16 + (say) 2 Babes and a Wandering Apoth, I would expect the Underworld to establish a numbers advantage by the 4th quarter of the game, if not before. In my experience Orcs, like Dwarfs, do not like starting drives with less than 11 players.

Just my initial reaction to the roster. I would pick the Underworld to get at least a draw, with chances to win 2-1 or 3-1.

All the best!

[sunnyside]

. Whereas I have found in practice that a stymie team survives quite well against slayer teams, and gets good results against them.

Alright, do you think you could explain why? With skills like SF and tents I can see how it's easier to maintain ones own cages and in particular to compromise the other teams.

However what I don't see is how either, especially if they also have more guard, help to significantly reduce the number of 2D blocks by claw/MB players or reduce the likelyhood those blocks will eliminate your players.

Nor do I think Nurgle really has to play skills to do well men down on the field.

Now, as a Norse player I'm all to familar with my win rating going up as my team value goes down due to casualties. So I can understand how that could do.

But I don't see why a stymie style should suffer fewer or even equal cas compared to a slayer.

[Smeborg]

. Whereas I have found in practice that a stymie team survives quite well against slayer teams, and gets good results against them.

Alright, do you think you could explain why?...

But I don't see why a stymie style should suffer fewer or even equal cas compared to a slayer.

sunnyside - I just report the results empirically, as it were, without claiming to know the complete answer. Some reasons I can venture, though, based on observation:

- Pestigors with Wrestle/Fend are very good at surviving (Pestigors are natural targets). I have used Fend many times to prevent Piling On, or to prevent a second block with Frenzy.

- Warriors with Block/S-Firm are also very good at surviving (better at it, in my experience, than Warriors without S-Firm). Opponents get fewer blocks against them, because they cannot be pushed next to opposing players who are waiting to block them. The Block/S-Firm Warriors also get more counter-blocks (because they stay in contact on a push). This leads to more knockdowns by the Warriors, thereby reducing the number of blocks that they receive. S-Firm leads to fewer Warriors pushed into the crowd. You have the option to use or not use S-Firm if it suits the Warrior and the little blocking war that he is in. Lastly, S-Firm means that the Warrior is rarely out of position, thus has to take fewer risks to avoid unfavourable block wars or the crowd.

- Slayer teams invite M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) from other slayer teams. They have no protection against other slayer teams, apart from some Guard. Whereas a stymie team has some protection against a slayer team.

- Slayer teams can be powerful, but in my experience, a slayer team is easily reduced in potency by removing one or two of its key slayers (for example by fouling) from the pitch. Some of these removals will be permanent. Whereas a stymie team just keeps developing stymie players, and is less vulnerable to the loss of its best ones.

- Slayer teams are good, but only in the right circumstances. Often their ball handling skills are weak. Once a slayer team has to concentrate on the ball, it often tends to do a lot less slaying. The stymie game seems quite good at forcing a slayer team into this situation, against its will, as it were.

Just what I have observed. Hope it helps.

[Smeborg]

Regarding LOS positioning. It clearly varies according to team builds.

Imo, never put a Pestigor on the LOS.

If I'm going to put an 8AV figure on the LOS, it will be a toss away Rotter(s). Pestigors need protection to score / position / blitz. Not take beatings in the face. Heck, sometimes Rotters come for free if you Kill something, so why not put them in harms way. Eventually you'll get another.

number6 - I am a bit wary of "never" in BB advice. Let me explain the situation which leads me (very commonly) to put a Pestigor on the defensive LoS:

- I have an unskilled Pestigor with no SPPs.
- I have 2 skilled Rotters (with, say, Block or Guard). I do not want to risk losing these skills (Decay), but I want to put these Rotters on the field.
- I have 2 Pestigor Blitzer types, ideal for positioning in the wide zones.
- I have 1 Pestigor Runner type. I do not want to expose him to attack on turn 1, I prefer to hide him in the middle, behind the Beast, in a sweeper role.

Now I think in these circumstances (common for me), it makes a lot of sense to put 2 Warriors and a rookie Pestigor on the LoS. The Pestigor is more likely to come back from the dugout than a Rotter is (because of Regen), so I gain a slight advantage in roster depth for the current game. And money-wise, it is cheaper to expose a Pestigor to attack than a Rotter (because although he costs twice as much as a Rotter, the Rotter is two and a half times more likely to be killed or permanently injured, a result of Regen vs. Decay).

Hope that helps.

[Smeborg]

Rotter development
-------------------
I have never got a Rotter to 3 skills, although I have come close on at least a couple of occasions (high 20s). My development strategy for them has so far been Block, Fend, with Guard on a doubles. Quiet but effective.

I have reached the point where I am inclined to go Block, F-App instead (still Guard on a doubles). Since I may never see a 3-skill Rotter, the choice of first 2 skills is all-important. F-App may be more appropriate for the stymie game (I have yet to test it). And it would probably protect the poor little chappies a bit better, improving the chance of getting to the 3-skill dream: Block, F-App, Fend. A couple of those would be rather nice (I might as well dream).

I have had an AV9 Rotter once. He was handy (I used him as line fodder, he got as far as a second skill - Block, and survived longer than any other skilled Rotter that I have had). But as time goes by I wonder if I should take a normal skill over +AV. +AV still has its temptations, though.

All the best.

[Carnis]

I seem to get misunderstood here a bit. While I advocate going all out slayery, because the more the merrier, I agree not going all out slayery can work, but what I don't get is skipping the killer skills altogether as "an optimal strategy". The main points are skipping guard (leads to more blocks) & MB (leads to more KO/CAS/Stun) altogether with the key pieces (NWs) and skipping DP on the rotters. I can see fend/wrestle pesties working, although not necessary versus every kind of opponent (elves would love that kind of pests, easy to push away + not likely to hit you back).

But the flat (one-drive only) advantage of a gangfoul of removing a player at 58% vs losing a player at 31% I cant really figure out why any even slightly basher-oriented team would want to skip on that when you have 40k fodder available. Also skipping MB altogether means losing out on a +100% player removal, and as we all know removing a player from the pitch means permanently removing one of the opponents 11 active pieces (for the half), so reducing liberties by at least 9%. So I really cant fathom an "optimal" strategy that would skip these key elements completely.

*

The underworld orc comparison is a bit silly, but needless to say 11 guard/mb orcs count as 11 guard/mb/claw orcs vs underworld, seeing as they have all but 3 players with AV7. That team's also from a LRB4 league, so piling on is not really an option there so that point is kind of null imo. Still, the underworld would imo not stand a chance in a theorybowl world. Dice can ofc change things a bit.

[mattgslater]

I think what you're missing, Carnis, is that Stand Firm is sort of a compromise between Guard and Mighty Blow, in addition to (okay, as a consequence of) its positional function. It's not as good as either at what that skill does, but it does so much more, and if you couple it with Block and a liberal sprinkling of Foul Appearance and/or a few killer skills, you don't need much Guard/MB to have an optimal impact.

[Smeborg]

Carnis - I don't think we are misunderstanding one another. It's just that I have actually tried in practice a Nurgle team without slayer skills (it appears you have not). The results surprised me and exceeded my expectations. Also, I play in an LRB6 environment (tabletop) with all races represented. I am very fortunate, as this is a lovely test environment, not slanted to any particular style of play. It may, however, be rather different from your league(s).

I suggest the only arguments that would convince you utterly would be either to try a pure Nurgle stymie strategy yourself (sounds unlikely given your views), or to play against a well-coached Nurgle team of this kind (also unlikely, as you do not appear to face any such teams). In the absence of either, I merely ask you to consider that my own practical experience of the stymie style, and my finding that (for me at least) it works better than a slayer style, may have some merit. That's all.

All the best.

[number6]

number6 - I am a bit wary of "never" in BB advice.

True dat, however I guess I should have said "IMO".

Let me explain the situation which leads me (very commonly) to put a Pestigor on the defensive LoS:

- I have an unskilled Pestigor with no SPPs.
- I have 2 skilled Rotters (with, say, Block or Guard). I do not want to risk losing these skills (Decay), but I want to put these Rotters on the field.
- I have 2 Pestigor Blitzer types, ideal for positioning in the wide zones.
- I have 1 Pestigor Runner type. I do not want to expose him to attack on turn 1, I prefer to hide him in the middle, behind the Beast, in a sweeper role.

Now I think in these circumstances (common for me), it makes a lot of sense to put 2 Warriors and a rookie Pestigor on the LoS. The Pestigor is more likely to come back from the dugout than a Rotter is (because of Regen), so I gain a slight advantage in roster depth for the current game. And money-wise, it is cheaper to expose a Pestigor to attack than a Rotter (because although he costs twice as much as a Rotter, the Rotter is two and a half times more likely to be killed or permanently injured, a result of Regen vs. Decay).

Hope that helps.

Your situation, makes sense. However all my Pestigors have become very skilled, so I'm loathe to expose them to too much punishment. On offense I try to work them as a pack, and on defense I make sure they are not tossed out to hang dry and get beaten.
I guess I've done well to protect my Pestigors and expose my Rotters & Warriors to punishment. Or maybe just lucky.
I'm sure anyone can list percentages for being down a player or 2, however in my personal experience it doesn't affect my game drastically, especially when the Beast is tying x2 or x3 players up (as he should).

I've lost Rotters (x2), but no Pestigors to date. I'd could have had x4 additional Rotters, except that x3 of the Kills were on Undead Such is life. However being Bashy has paid off Free Fodder.