DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
 Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 03:37 |
 
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | I heard that if you ever roll the numbers 3, 1, 4, 1 and 5 on consecutive d6 during a game of BB, a real-life cheerleader will break through your wall and give you a piece of pie  |
OMG I have to get a game going right now!...*clatter* *clatter* *clatter* mmmmm, cherry pie.... *clatter* *clatter* *clatter*.... |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 03:39 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | I play Skaven a fair bit and the deal-breaker for me with the Rat Ogre is this: think about how many extra skills you can have on your four Gutter Runners for the cost of a RO (even a rookie one). It's skilled-up GRs that will win you games, more often then not. |
And really, you only need 2 stud GRs, 1 ottder, 1 ballhawk to have a shot in any given game. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 04:14 |
|
I like the rat ogre personally because I like ramping the variance up sometimes. |
|
|
wintergreen13
Joined: Apr 10, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 04:29 |
|
I don't really know what's best, but if Azure can win a Box major with a team built around its rat ogre, then I am ready to believe it's a good addition to a Skaven team. definitely not required, but in the Box player removal is key and the rogre is a great way to do that. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 05:10 |
|
| wintergreen13 wrote: | | I don't really know what's best, but if Azure can win a Box major with a team built around its rat ogre, then I am ready to believe it's a good addition to a Skaven team. definitely not required, but in the Box player removal is key and the rogre is a great way to do that. |
A Skaven Blitzer with Clawpomb is more reliable than a Rat Ogre for player removal and way better from the TV-efficiency point of view, moreover Wild Animal, Loner and no G regular access are 3 huge drawbacks. |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %23, %2016 - %05:%Jun; edited 1 time in total |
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 05:18 |
|
If it works in practice, but not in theory, there's a problem with your theory. Just sayn. |
_________________
  |
|
kummo
Joined: Mar 29, 2016
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 13:50 |
|
I have 2 skaven teams. One with RO and one without. I play each team a bit differently and i also see opponents adapt whether there is RO or not.
The guy who is in finals with Skaven team in BB2 World Cup (Malek) has RO in his team. There have been arguments that in specific closed environment he is useful in right hands and thus far he/it has been useful either as needed blitzer, roadblock or overall threat.
Woodelf and Skaven are both good teams without big guy(s) but they are also good with them. There have been many games where even rooted tree can be a nuisance against both: bashy and agile teams. Some elf-teams will block, blitz and frenzy opponents players back in contact with the tree and use his/its mighty blow. I'm more of a Delf coach so i can't personally talk about Woodies.. just 2nd hand thoughts.
I play Norse without Yeti.. Claw and strength is useful but i think norse can do well without it too. (Haven't played high tv-norse.. so i can see that orcs and even dwarfs could be handled easier with yeti.. but new norse doesn't want to bloat tv with big guy).
Dunno about that question about Underworld.. i'd like to see that first to see if it really fits that kind of team. I believe that Underworld needs something but dunno if RO is the key to solve it. |
|
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 14:01 |
|
Yeti is a good addition to a Norse team later, but I'm not sure he pulls his weight. He may be a better deterrent than anything else, which is the case with most big guys. |
_________________
Using derivative humor since 2005.
 |
|
Badoek
Joined: May 17, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2016 - 15:15 |
|
We really should mention vindaloo in this thread.
For those who don't know:
The game |
|
|
ph0enyx13
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2016 - 03:20 |
|
It seems like big guys in general are better in leagues than in box |
|
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2016 - 03:50 |
|
Rogre is ace. One more chance for clawpomb. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2016 - 04:01 |
|
| ph0enyx13 wrote: | | It seems like big guys in general are better in leagues than in box |
Ok, so can you draw a conclusion about that? |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2016 - 06:41 |
|
| ph0enyx13 wrote: | | It seems like big guys in general are better in leagues than in box |
Not always (Wintergreen referenced this fellah too)
It really does come down to coach and preference. There's plenty of (successful) teams in box that defy all the expectations people have both of the environment and of how you "logically" build and play a team. There's also plenty of utterly dire ones that follow those expectations exactly.
Ultimately, a coach's preference of play-style and the way a team grows is going to have a massive influence on what is "better". If someone prefers to play with a rat ogre then that's better for them, even if the consensus is not to take it/dump it quickly. |
_________________
 |
|
ph0enyx13
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2016 - 23:19 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | ph0enyx13 wrote: | | It seems like big guys in general are better in leagues than in box |
Ok, so can you draw a conclusion about that? |
That most of the big guys aren't valuable TV wise, but are more valuable than inducements, generally, and are generally good at helping to protect your team from attrition |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2016 - 23:24 |
|
| ph0enyx13 wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | | ph0enyx13 wrote: | | It seems like big guys in general are better in leagues than in box |
Ok, so can you draw a conclusion about that? |
That most of the big guys aren't valuable TV wise, but are more valuable than inducements, generally, and are generally good at helping to protect your team from attrition |
Indeed about the TV part and protecting your team from attrition (or causing attrition, thus saving your team from attrition).
So in a box environment where it is very TV driven, they aren't that common. If your team gets hit hard, then your next match up will be easier.
However that isn't the case with league, where heavy attrition will most likely be disastrous. Thus league teams will be more likely to put up with the extra weight because there the next match up isn't TV driven.
So, although both 'can be' good, they're not quite worth the TV. Which also means they neither are likely to be a clincher on which roster to take. As highlighted gutters/blitzers dancers/ag4 are more likely clinchers (from a competitive stance). |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
