NAF World Headquarters
Strategy and Tactics - Necromantic Tournament Roster
Willi - Sep 28, 2004 - 01:56 AM
Post subject: Necromantic Tournament Roster
For an upcoming 100TR tournament (6 games, one skill per game, resurrection after game) I´m not yet sure how to set up the team. What is generally considered better:
2 WW (absolutely sure about them)
2 Wights
2 FG
1 Ghoul
4 Zombies
1 FF
2 RR
or:
2 WW
2 Wights
1 FG
1 Ghoul
5 Zombies
3 FF
3 RR
So please let me know what you think is better, or are they both crap? But what roster then?
Spazzfist - Sep 28, 2004 - 06:22 AM
Post subject:
Having squared off against the necros a fair bit, I would wholeheatedly agree with you that the two werewolves are pretty essential. Next to the wardancer, I think they are perhaps one of the best rookies in the game!
I would be more inclined to go with the first roster. Having the two flesh golems is very important to be able to hold you line. With only one it makes it too easy to punch through your front line by focussing on one of the flesh golems. With two, it makes it soooooo much hareder! Then in the tourney you can start by giving each of those bad boys "guard" and then you have a much more formidable line!
It is just a shame about the low fan factor, as that does often come into play.....
Just my two cents.
Spazz
Melifaxis - Sep 28, 2004 - 08:36 AM
Post subject:
I actually use the first roster and think it works very well 
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 10:03 AM
Post subject:
I like neither. I would go with zero flesh golem. They're basically oversized zombies that cost 4 times the price. Not worth the money if you ask me.
Personally, i like :
2 Werewolves
2 Wights
12 Zombies
3 Rerolls
1 FF
Gives you 16 players, meaning the ability to foul to your heart's content. The most glaring advantage that undead, necro and khemri have over all opposition is their cheap linemen, so it's important to maximize that. Playing an undead, necro or kemri team with 11 players is a huge mistake. Having 3 rerolls is also nice.
I'd go with block on both werewolves, then dirty player for all subsequent skills.
Spazzfist - Sep 28, 2004 - 11:48 AM
Post subject:
Gee Zombie,
Can I play you...... please? 
Go with the first team Willi.
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 11:56 AM
Post subject:
What, are you one of those guys who don't like fouling? Someone who doesn't like fouling should not play an undead race, period! That's their greatest strength and what makes them most fun!
Spazzfist - Sep 28, 2004 - 02:10 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
What, are you one of those guys who don't like fouling?
I have no problem with fouling or being fouled, I just prefer not to make it my game plan to knock one player down and then swarm him with boots to his 'urty bitz. Call me crazy, but I like to have actual running, blocking and passing plays. Oh yeah, and scoring touchdowns once in a while is pretty cool too! Being able to score, just because the other guy has no-one left on the field is not something to aspire to - unless he's a halfling coach, and then he should expect it.
Zombie wrote:
Someone who doesn't like fouling should not play an undead race, period!
Well for the record I do not play an undead race, I just play against them. For the record they seem to do pretty well without going all foul heavy.
Zombie wrote:
That's their greatest strength and what makes them most fun!
Fun for whom?? 
Maybe you should start a poll to see who concurs with your idea of "fun"! And for the record, I think their diversity of the necro teams's strength, speed, stats and skills are their greatest strength. But hey, I am sure you will disagree with me, if only for the sake of disagreeing! 
Spazz
[/i]
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 03:51 PM
Post subject:
I disagree with you, but not just for the sake of disagreeing. I've seen it done very successfully by other coaches, i've done it very successfully myself, and the math are behind it.
Did you know that even with the ref watching you, in the second half if you foul an AV 8 player with a dirty player zombie and only one assist, as long as you're fouling a player worth at least 50k, you're coming out ahead on average?
This is particularly effective in a tournament setting because most people only have 11 or 12 players, so if you can get 5 zombies sent off while taking out 4 opposing players, you'll still have 11 players on the field at the next kick off while the opponent will only have 7 or 8!
Spazzfist - Sep 28, 2004 - 04:31 PM
Post subject:
Wow Zombie,
You are boycotting tournaments and even threatening to sacrafice your NAF membership because of the introduction of some Vault rules, yet you are willing to foul the s**t out of somebody else's team because the math is in your favour???
Whatever turns your crank buddy.....
Spazz
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 04:37 PM
Post subject:
I find leagues that don't foul to be to boring to play in. And that's from someone who's favorite team is wood elves.
If you don't like fouling, you should quit Blood Bowl and go play Barbie or something. Fouling is part of the game and no worse than two turn scoring with elves.
Grumbledook - Sep 28, 2004 - 04:39 PM
Post subject:
every tournament i have taken dirty player i think i managed 0 cas on all the fouls i done with them
don't think i am cut out for fouling
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 04:55 PM
Post subject:
Playing norse, i had 2 dirty players at last year's Death Bowl and 3 dirty players at the Spike! this year (i was out of contention and going mainly for most CAS in the last game, which is the only reason i took the 3rd one).
I think i managed about 8 to 10 CAS through fouls alone in each tournament. I also got a lot of KOs which helped me in many instances. Too bad they didn't count as CAS at the Spike! or i would have won most CAS. I came second in the tournament in that category.
One of my losses at the Spike! was for a single mistake that i made, where i used a dirty player to assist a blitz on a wardancer and had to use a normal lineman to foul him. I needed at least a stun to score and win. I had 3 assists so only needed a 4 to pass armour and rolled 3. The wardancer got up, blitzed at two dice i choose, stripped the ball off my hands, leapt, picked up the ball in 2 tackle zones, dodged and went for it twice. He scored a few turns later and that was the game right there. Had i fouled with the dirty player like i should, i would have won the game. My opponent totally agreed with that assessment.
Grumbledook - Sep 28, 2004 - 05:10 PM
Post subject:
why take an extra dirty player if your going for most cas
surely guard or mighty blow would have been more productive
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 05:22 PM
Post subject:
I was thinking that it could help in the numbers game. Once you've got the numerical advantage, it's easier to score casualties. Of course i didn't know that i was going to play against undead and that all 3 CAS that i would score (none of them counting, one from the crowd) would regenerate, while my injured blitzer on turn one would not be healed because the apoth rolled a 1!
I couldn't take guard or mighty blow as my only two players with strength access already had one skill (block on minotaur and guard on the blitzer which in hindsight was a mistake). I should however have taken tackle on a lineman but when i thought about it, it was too late.
KarlLagerbottom - Sep 28, 2004 - 05:35 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
I was thinking that it could help in the numbers game. Once you've got the numerical advantage, it's easier to score casualties. Of course i didn't know that i was going to play against undead and that all 3 CAS that i would score (none of them counting, one from the crowd) would regenerate, while my injured blitzer on turn one would not be healed because the apoth rolled a 1!
Zombie-
Unless I am mistaken, a casualty that is regenerated still counts towards your casualties for. Am I missing something here?
-Rob
P.S. I also have seen you refer to things you have seen in your tournament experience, but counting Spike! this site only has two tournaments to your credit. That hardly counts as a wealth of experience in my book.
Grumbledook - Sep 28, 2004 - 05:39 PM
Post subject:
they were from fouls from what i gather
KarlLagerbottom - Sep 28, 2004 - 05:55 PM
Post subject:
Jon-
That might be, but that makes the opponent irrelevant. If he was using guard to help facilitate knock-downs and further more casualties...the opponent is not relevant.
Had he caused the casualties in this way, they would have counted and his objective would have been met. (For taking the skill.) He did not get the numerical advantage that he was looking for, but again had he gotten these casualties from non-fouls...the regeneration would have actually been to his benefit. If these guys come back he has more opportunity to inflict more casualties...thereby getting more for his money with the Guard skill selection.
But...if you are correct, he had fouled to get these other two casualties, and as such undermined his own attempt to rack-up valid casualties for winning that category.
Who knows...
-Rob
Spazzfist - Sep 28, 2004 - 06:20 PM
Post subject:
But casualties caused by fouling do not count towards the total. Not at the Spike! anyways. I don't know how other tourneys are being run.
But bravo Zombie on the "Barbie" comment. That was very clever. Just because I don't agree with you I must now go and play with a little girls' toy. That's quite good.
Maybe I will take you up on that. Maybe I will start an Amazon team or order some of those Shadowforge Blood Bowl bunnies. I can call them the "Barbies"! 
But this has got off topic. Willi, I hope this bantering has been of some use to you! 
I suppose to go back to your call for advice, decide what style of play you want to go for and then work it from there. If you want to take Zombie's advice and go for the tactic of dwindling the numberes of the other team, then you could do that. Just because I do not agree with his style of play does not mean that it is not a viable tactic. but if you want to go for a more standard style of BB play, then I think that your #1 roster is really the best bet.
Zombie certainly makes a good case for the cheapness of the basic line-zombie. At 30,000 gp each, you can hardly go wrong stocking up on a lot of them! Combine that with the obvious strengths of your other players, the necromantics are certainly a formidable team!
One thing I would certainly advise is keep the two werewolves as you suggest and also keep the wights. I found that many a time, my team's lack of block skills bit me on the butt! (played against two dwarves and a norse team!)
Well, I have to go and organize a tea party with my dollies now. 
Spazz
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 07:25 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
P.S. I also have seen you refer to things you have seen in your tournament experience, but counting Spike! this site only has two tournaments to your credit. That hardly counts as a wealth of experience in my book.
When i talk from experience, it's usually with regards to leagues. I've been playing Blood Bowl pretty much non-stop for the last 10 years now.
When i talk about tournaments, it's usually either theoretically, or based on league starts where all teams start at TR 100. I've seen at least 15 or 20 of such league starts.
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 07:30 PM
Post subject:
Rob, i don't buy your theory. If undead players come back, that doesn't make it easier to get more casualties later on. All it means is more opponents on the field, which means i'm losing the numbers game, which makes it harder to manage 2 dice blocks and casualties. Also, losing the game means my opponent doesn't need to put tackle zones on my guys and i get fewer free blocks. My blitzer that got injured on turn 1 (and that my apothecary failed to heal) was the one with guard.
The opponent is not irrelevant. If i had played against a non-regenerating team, the 3 CAS caused would have given me numbers superiority and then i could have used that to score some real CAS.
And yes, Grumble is right, i had 1 CAS from blitzing someone into the crowd and 2 CAS from fouls, therefore none counted.
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 07:34 PM
Post subject:
Spazzfist wrote:
If you want to take Zombie's advice and go for the tactic of dwindling the numberes of the other team, then you could do that. Just because I do not agree with his style of play does not mean that it is not a viable tactic. but if you want to go for a more standard style of BB play, then I think that your #1 roster is really the best bet.
Agreed. However i would argue that if he wants a more standard style of play (assuming that not fouling at all can be called standard, as it's not in my book seeing that i foul even when playing wood elves), then he would be better off playing another team, as necromantic are not very well suited to a non-fouling game. It's like playing amazon and never making a single dodge roll because you don't like dodging!
KarlLagerbottom - Sep 28, 2004 - 09:58 PM
Post subject:
Zombie-
I thought you stated that you selected guard to make your team a more effective blocking squad. If this is true then it should help you regardless of the opponent.
Since you played against a team that regenerates, that lets you get multiple casualty opportunities against the same player. (Therefore more casualty opportunities overall.)
In my opinion, if you have guard players, than this gives your team a numerical advantage even if they have 11 players on the pitch. They may have 11 players, but the ratio of assist-able players on your team is greater.
Had you not fouled them, but set-up the guard assisted blocks, you may have gotten the casualties that counted, and won that category.
-Rob
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 10:07 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
I thought you stated that you selected guard to make your team a more effective blocking squad. If this is true then it should help you regardless of the opponent.
No, i didn't say why i took guard. But since you're asking, i took guard after game 2 so that my minotaur could make 3 dice blitzes. It had nothing to do with scoring casualties as i only went for most casualty on game 6 after my loss on game 5 kept me out of any hope for the league cup. Guard was pretty useless overall and i would take tackle instead on the blitzer if i were to do it all over again.
Quote:
Since you played against a team that regenerates, that lets you get multiple casualty opportunities against the same player. (Therefore more casualty opportunities overall.)
No, it lets me be outnumbered and get fewer casualties because of that. You get a lot more casualties from playing 9 against 6 than from playing 9 against 11.
Quote:
In my opinion, if you have guard players, than this gives your team a numerical advantage even if they have 11 players on the pitch. They may have 11 players, but the ratio of assist-able players on your team is greater.
I had a single guard player, and none left after turn one. Besides, why do you keep babling about guard? That's not the point! The point is whether dirty player was useful!
Quote:
Had you not fouled them, but set-up the guard assisted blocks, you may have gotten the casualties that counted, and won that category.
There can't be any guard assisted blocks since there are no guard players! Are you even reading my posts?
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 10:16 PM
Post subject:
I should also mention that having 3 dirty players is pretty useless when playing against an undead team that has 2, as my opponent did! You can't win a fouling war against undead, because their sent off players are worth less than yours and because their injured players are prone to regenerate anyway.
I ended up fouling a lot less than i would otherwise because it turned the ref towards me and helped the undead more than it helped me! And there's not much use in having dirty players if you can't use them!
KarlLagerbottom - Sep 28, 2004 - 10:35 PM
Post subject:
babling? What???s babling...maybe you mean babbling.
You're right though...I misread one of your posts. I had thought you stated the reason that you took guard. MY point is that I believe that Guard is easily as good as Dirty Player. Sure Dp gives you +2 to knocking out prone players, but even a single fast player with Guard can change the complexion of a game. He can potentially use this skill twice per turn without even rolling a single die.
All this without making fouling a major part of a coaches game plan. The whole point of this thread is to discuss possibilities for Necro rosters. On that I agree with Spazz that the team???s flexibility is their strength. Sure the cheap/expendable foulers are AN option, but that is not the only, or even the best way to go...imagine playing with the intention of scoring...the one dimensional foulers are not well suited to adapt to every situation.
Anyway...that's my two cents. Let the babbling come to a close.
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 10:55 PM
Post subject:
I agree that one more guard player is better than a 3rd dirty player (having one dirty player is crucial for any team, having two is better, having 3 is overkill for anyone but undead, necro and khemri). However, like i already said, i didn't have any player with strength access left to give guard to! I had 2 players with strength access; one took block and the other already had guard! If i had one more available for a skill, i would have probably given him mighty blow though. Now that gets your CAS rate up pretty nicely!
Back on topic. Like i said, having one dirty player is crucial no matter what race you play. It can help you get rid of that pesky wardancer or bull centaur or rat ogre or... well, you get the point. Having a second dirty player is great because it lets you foul all you want until your player gets sent off, while still being sure of having a dirty player available for the second half. However, in tournaments you usually get very few skills so there may be something better for your team than a second dirty player.
When it comes to regenerating teams though, going with less than 3 dirty players is arguably a bad move, and going with less than 2 is a huge mistake! You've got really cheap players, which means that you can easily bring a team of 15 or 16 players to a tournament, facing mostly teams of 11 or 12. Trading players 1 for 1 through fouls then gives you an incredible advantage.
Undead have 2 main strengths : mummies and cheap linemen. Khemri have 2 main strengths : mummies and cheap linemen. Necromantic teams have 2 main strengths : werewolves and cheap linemen. Playing necromantic without two werewolves is a big mistake as it ignores one of their greatest strengths. Playing necromantic with only 11 players, similarly, is just as huge a mistake if not more.
You should not ignore your team's strengths. Would you go to a tournament with a skaven team that has zero gutter runner? Would you go to a tournament with a wood elf team that has zero wardancer? Would you go to a tournament with a goblin team that has zero trolls? Would you go to a tournament with an undead team that has zero expendable player? Sure you can, but that's not a very wise choice.
You should always maximize your race's strengths. And if you don't like those strengths (e.g. you don't like fouling), then you should pick another race. Dwarves are best at playing the clock and scoring 8 turn TDs. If you don't like stalling, don't go to a tournament with dwarves trying to make 2 turn TDs with passing plays! Just pick another race instead. If you don't like fouling, don't go to a tournament with a regenerating race fielding only 11 players! Pick another race that better fits your tastes.
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 11:12 PM
Post subject:
Basically, it comes down to this. You say A is viable, i say B is more viable. I provide reasons why A is not so good (overpriced FG, lack of replacement players) and why B is better (30k dirty players being a great asset that any team would love to have). Then you just come back saying "but A is also viable".
Unless you can provide reasons why A is better in some way, or problems with B, i don't see any reason why someone should go to a tournament with A. More to the point, i don't see any reason why we should encourage someone to go with A in a "strategy and tactics" forum like this one.
Zombie - Sep 28, 2004 - 11:20 PM
Post subject:
Just to be clear, i do try to score with such dirty player heavy teams. In fact, i often try to score as soon as possible, if only so i can replace sent off players by new bodies. I always try to win, and win by as many TDs as possible. But i truly believe that with regenerating races, this is the best way to do it.
Besides, 2 werewolves and 2 wights can do plenty of passing and scoring. After all, werewolves do have 8 MA and catch! But don't forget that they also have frenzy and claw and can rack up casualties just as fast as mummies! Use them to their full potential!
Spazzfist - Sep 29, 2004 - 06:34 AM
Post subject: !
Zombie wrote:
Agreed. However i would argue that if he wants a more standard style of play (assuming that not fouling at all can be called standard, as it's not in my book seeing that i foul even when playing wood elves), then he would be better off playing another team, as necromantic are not very well suited to a non-fouling game. It's like playing amazon and never making a single dodge roll because you don't like dodging!
Now here is where your argument goes out the window Zombie. Just because somebody does not agree with your idea of how a team should be played does not mean that he should have to play another team. I have played against necros before (and not a dirty player in sight) and they gave me a real hard time! Now I know that I am leaving myself open for a cheap shot here, but I did win the Bunker Dungeonbowl league and was (almost) undefeated in the Bunker's Spike! league before that, and so do speak with some experience. Played properly a necro team without dirty players can be a really solid team!
The necro team has many advantages and strengths. What I feel to be it's greatest strength is it's flexibility. Some teams (like dwarves) are made to block, they are too slow to do much else, and their skills dictate it. The Wood elves are too lightly armoured to get into protracted combats and need to keep dodging and moving. But the necro team can do it all: they have the S3 M8 werewlves with catch (and frenzy) and the M7 ghouls with dodge both of whom make excellent catchers; they have the S4 Stand firm Blockers; the M6 A3 blitzers with block, and then the super cheap linemen to fill in the gaps. They can punch holes, they can do running plays, they can pass and fake out with werewolves running deep. I have seen this many times in facing them, and no player on the team should be underestimated. In a league their lack of an apothecary can be nail-biting, but in a resurrection tourney they have no fear!
As for your argument about the Amazons, they are meant to dodge because of their low armour value and their dodge skill. To not dodge with them is not only suicidal, it is not making use of the skills that they have. This does not equate to the undead team. Just because you can have more zombies does that mean that they are meant to be sent off for fouling? Provided your opponent does not foul you back (which they would be foolish to if you had so many dirty players) then you are going to be caugvht on a 4+ after the first attempt.
And forgive me if I am not as willing as you to do the math, but perhaps you could explain to me how your math supports this idea that fouling is a sound strategy. For the sake of the argument, say that you are able to get an assist or two and punch through the armour every time (which you won't). The odds are greatly in the favour of the injury only being a stunned result. The number "7" is the most common rolled on 2d6, so that part is simple. But then you might get caught and sent off. Do it again and your chances are 50/50 of getting caught but your chances of injury are not improving. Couple this with a turnover suffered, and then also consider the extra players that you are so fond of are not going to come on until the next half or touchdown, and it seems like a pretty dodgy theory to me. One that lacks flexibility as well.
So this strategy you suggest could be viable but only if the dice were improbably in your favour. You yourself admit that it is only based on theory (in a tournament) so I think maybe we should wait until you have tried it more extensively or maybe hear from someone else who has tried it and they can tell whether or not it has worked for them.
Spazz
Zombie - Sep 29, 2004 - 10:46 AM
Post subject:
I agree that Necro can do it all, should do it all, and would do it all if played by me. They are indeed a flexible team. But you can do all that AND foul. If you don't, you're denying yourself one of the greatest strengths of the team and shooting yourself in the foot. You have yet to give a valid reason (or any reason at all for that matter, as you haven't addressed the issue at all) why fouling with them doesn't increase your chance of winning.
Zombie - Sep 29, 2004 - 10:52 AM
Post subject: Re: !
Spazzfist wrote:
Provided your opponent does not foul you back (which they would be foolish to if you had so many dirty players) then you are going to be caught on a 4+ after the first attempt.
I've already told you that even at 4+ send off, in the second half as long as you foul a player worth at least 50k you're coming out ahead. I could show you the whole table i made which contains dozens of entries if you want, and explain the math behind it.
For now, suffice it to say that you obviously forgot the biggest use of the dirty player skill, which is not to give +2 to armour, but rather to give +2 to injury. Also, the chance of getting sent off with the eye on you is not 1/2, but rather 5/12.
Spazzfist - Sep 29, 2004 - 12:05 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
I agree that Necro can do it all, should do it all, and would do it all if played by me.
Ummm... okay.... so are you really all that?
Zombie wrote:
They are indeed a flexible team. But you can do all that AND foul. If you don't, you're denying yourself one of the greatest strengths of the team and shooting yourself in the foot.
Like I said I have seen the team VERY effectively played without fouling. While I have said that fouling could be useful I think it is a far stretch to suggest it is their greatest strength. But then that would mean that you are wrong, and that could never happen.....
Zombie wrote:
You have yet to give a valid reason (or any reason at all for that matter, as you haven't addressed the issue at all) why fouling with them doesn't increase your chance of winning.
Zombie, Zombie, Zombie..... You are so fond of accusing other players of not reading your previous posts, yet now you have chosen to ignore what I have said (and not said). I said that it could work, and I said that it was a possible strategy if you should choose to play that way. I think it lacks tactical flexibility, but then hey, rigidity seems to be your thing. Of course, if you can remove the players by any means it will increase your chances of winning. I never said that it didn't nor couldn't work.
All that aside, Zombie, your other "strategy" is becoming clear - in that you will not ever concede that you may be wrong, or that there may be another valid opinion besides your own. People get tired of arguing with you and then you deteremine that they have stopped arguing because you must be right.
Argue all you want. I say that your option is possible, but lacks imagination and flexibility. It is one option, but so far it only seems to be your opinion that it is the best. But how many times have you actually pust this team to the test in a tournament? Oh that's right you haven't yet....
Let someone with experience playing the Necros in a tourney talk Zombie.
Do us all a favour and just agree to disagree and then leave it alone!
Spazz
Zombie - Sep 29, 2004 - 12:39 PM
Post subject:
How does it decrease flexibility? You can play your game the same way you normally would, except that at the end of every turn, you reserve one player for a foul action. That's all i'm proposing here. No ganging up, no making this the primary objective, just something else that's added on top of everything else. I don't see any decreased flexibility from that.
I do admit when i'm wrong. I've done so numerous times in the past, including in this very forum. But first you'll have to provide decent arguments. So far you've not really provided any argument at all.
Arguying about exprience is ridiculous since i was probably playing Blood Bowl long before you even knew it existed. Hey, maybe before you were even old enough to learn it. You're just resorting to personal attacks because you're starting to realize that you have no real arguments to present.
Spazzfist - Sep 29, 2004 - 01:40 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
How does it decrease flexibility? You can play your game the same way you normally would, except that at the end of every turn, you reserve one player for a foul action. That's all i'm proposing here. No ganging up, no making this the primary objective, just something else that's added on top of everything else. I don't see any decreased flexibility from that.
Simply because you are eliminating the punchy strength of the golems, their access to strength skills, and you advised to only go with "dirty player" that does not seem like a very limited game function (at least things like "sure hands" have more thsan one use on the field.
Zombie wrote:
I do admit when i'm wrong. I've done so numerous times in the past, including in this very forum. But first you'll have to provide decent arguments. So far you've not really provided any argument at all.
Whatever.
Zombie wrote:
Arguying about exprience is ridiculous since i was probably playing Blood Bowl long before you even knew it existed. Hey, maybe before you were even old enough to learn it. You're just resorting to personal attacks because you're starting to realize that you have no real arguments to present.
Uh huh. This is a pretty grand assumption seeing as you know nothing about me. Not only do you assume that I have not been playing for very long, but you also assume that you are older than me. Wrong on both accounts.
I have been in the hobby for 17 years, and have been playing BB since the first edition. Just so you know.
I don't know why you have to be so beligerant about this. But I do not want to argue this one anymore.
Go with team #1 Willi!
Spazz
Zombie - Sep 29, 2004 - 01:57 PM
Post subject:
The golems are a whole other discussion. Even if i wanted to play Necro with zero dirty player, i still wouldn't take any golems, simply because in my mind they are grossely overcost players and therefore not worth having in such a limited money environment as a TR 100 tournament. I'd rather have extra ghouls, zombies or rerolls.
As for the lack of other skills, it's true that this limits the team's flexibility. But having 3 rerolls helps in this regard. Also, keep in mind that the dirty players should be targetting the other team's skilled players, so the opponent will also lose in flexibility. You still come out ahead flexibility-wise.
The example that you bring up is sure hands, and that happens to be a perfect example to illustrate my point. Sure hands has two funtions : providing a reroll for picking up the ball and protecting you from strip ball. The team i'm proposing has one more reroll, which takes care of the first aspect. As for opponents with strip ball, well dirty players can take care of those!
Willi, if you want to win, go with team #3!
Zombie - Sep 29, 2004 - 02:03 PM
Post subject:
Spazzfist wrote:
Not only do you assume that I have not been playing for very long, but you also assume that you are older than me. Wrong on both accounts.
The first assumption was a decent one to make since the vast majority of the online Blood Bowl crowd has only starting playing recently (by recently i mean in the last 4 or 5 years). As with all assumptions however, it can be false!
How do you, however, assume that you're older than me? I said "probably" and "maybe". You state as a fact that you're older than i am. What makes you so sure of that?
Zombie - Sep 29, 2004 - 02:08 PM
Post subject:
Spazzfist wrote:
Let someone with experience playing the Necros in a tourney talk Zombie.
Funny that you should attack my limited tournament experience because i've only been in two so far. I just checked and the Spike! was your first tournament!
This isn't meant as a personal attack. I just thought it was pretty ironic.
Spazzfist - Sep 29, 2004 - 02:46 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
...Also, keep in mind that the dirty players should be targetting the other team's skilled players, so the opponent will also lose in flexibility. You still come out ahead flexibility-wise.
Okay, I can see your point on this one.
Willi - Sep 30, 2004 - 06:28 AM
Post subject:
Ok. Thanks everybody for input (especially Spazzfist and Zombie, I liked your discussion).
To sum it up there seem to be 2 main possibilities: Take lots of players and foul a lot or take more positional players and play the non-fouling style.
I havn´t decided yet which option to take but I promise to report how the tourney went and which roster I used (but that will only be in December).
Thanks again everybody
Spazzfist - Sep 30, 2004 - 06:49 AM
Post subject:
Willi wrote:
Ok. Thanks everybody for input (especially Spazzfist and Zombie, I liked your discussion).
Never guessed you would have sparked such a heated debate, eh?
I would be very interested to hear how your team makes out. Good luck to you.
Spazz
KarlLagerbottom - Sep 30, 2004 - 07:03 AM
Post subject:
Willi wrote:
Ok. Thanks everybody for input (especially Spazzfist and Zombie, I liked your discussion).
To sum it up there seem to be 2 main possibilities: Take lots of players and foul a lot or take more positional players and play the non-fouling style.
I havn´t decided yet which option to take but I promise to report how the tourney went and which roster I used (but that will only be in December).
Thanks again everybody
Be careful Willi...you might not want to publish your choice. I'm sure ZOMEONE will tell you its wrong regardless of what it might be.
As a matter of fact that someone might even tell you that your interpretation of the debate is wrong.
-Rob
Spazzfist - Sep 30, 2004 - 07:08 AM
Post subject:
Actually, I think I would be more interested to hear how the tournament went for you if you went with Zombie's ruff and tumble style of play.
Not only would I be curious to hear about how the team fared in wins/losses but also a general feeling of how your opponents felt about the team.
Zombie may like the theory and numbers game, but I am more a hands-on experience kind of guy.
Spazz
Sputnik - Sep 30, 2004 - 08:33 AM
Post subject:
hehehe, I would also like to encounter Zombies proposed team more than any of the others!
I actually played against two very similar lieups and found it quite amusing!
Quote:
Actually, I think I would be more interested to hear how the tournament went for you if you went with Zombie's ruff and tumble style of play
However, this is still a bit tricky, so be warned. Just taking someone's lineup doesn't make you play with these players as originally intended. Sometimes a lineup includes certain aspects you want have in there because of personal preference, but someone else would play totally different with said lineup and wouldn't need whatever you thought would be essential. 
Why don't you make a couple of teast games against someone who takes the same race against both lineups. then you can evaluate a bit better for yourself what the strength of each proposed lineup is and which suits your personal style of play better.
Have fun!
Sputnik
Old_Man_Monkey - Sep 30, 2004 - 08:34 AM
Post subject:
You're such a diplomat, Chris!
Spazzfist - Sep 30, 2004 - 08:41 AM
Post subject:
Sputnik wrote:
I actually played against two very similar lieups and found it quite amusing!
Could you explain what you mean by this Sputnik?
And what you said also reminds me of advice that I once received: "do not act out of your nature, as you will not be prepared to receive the consequences." what I mean by this is that even though Zombie's team is viable, I would probably not do very well with it as it is not my normal style of play.
Thanks Sputnik!
Zombie - Sep 30, 2004 - 10:55 AM
Post subject:
Willi wrote:
To sum it up there seem to be 2 main possibilities: Take lots of players and foul a lot or take more positional players and play the non-fouling style.
Even if you don't foul a single time you're still better off taking more players. For the price of a reroll, you can have 2 extra zombies. For the price of a flesh golem, you could have 4 zombies. That's a very small price to pay to have extra reserve.
Spazzfist - Sep 30, 2004 - 11:46 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Even if you don't foul a single time you're still better off taking more players. For the price of a reroll, you can have 2 extra zombies. For the price of a flesh golem, you could have 4 zombies. That's a very small price to pay to have extra reserve.
I would tend to agree with that. You cannot count on regeneration, and there is nothing worse than being lower than your opponent with they players on field. Zombie's previous point is very valid - the zombies are dirt cheap, and this is one of their main advantages. Foul or not, it would be wise to capatalize on that.
Wait a minute...... did I just agree with Zombie??? 
Spazz
Sputnik - Oct 01, 2004 - 01:53 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
I actually played against two very similar lieups and found it quite amusing!
Could you explain what you mean by this Sputnik?
Well, I could go into this in detail in form af a game report, but I won't. My best advice to anyone is to test rosters against the same opponent and the same team to see the differences. Again, personal preference and own style of play makes you chose one golem, two of them or none at all, 12 players, 13, 14, skill choice etc.
I encountered two Necro teams with tons of zombies and no golems at all. One had no ghoul, one had one included, so "similar" to Zombies suggested lineup. Both times the zombies were in for the fouling game, too. Base line is that the weres are really good. However, if you concentrate on them and hunt them down at any price, the opponent is left with zombies and two wights. It then becomes more a game where you have to rely on luck for the last turns to get anything going.
The extra zombies were a nice addition in both games and I was outnumbered both times early, but the many zombies do have trouble scoring, and in the end the one with more TDs wins, not the one with the most zombies on the pitch.
In a tournament with more than four games you either get fast teams finishing you off in the first half before they lose too many players, or you get slow teams like orcs or dwarfs where your bench won't come into consideration much and your lack of anything except zombies might become a problem after a while. Pushing it to the limit in a six game tournament with said roster is quite hard, and it might work half of the time, but not six times in a row, from my limited experience. So if you go for not being last after six gamnes, well....
And if you don't know what exactly to do but your opponent knows and is prepared, then you play uphill before even touching yout turn marker for the first time. The number of zombies won't be helpful at all if you are lost at the board.
People sometimes tell you stories about how a team should be played and how that lineup or that lineup will work. They will construct theoretical apects to point out strength and how their masterplan works brilliantly. They will point out why you failed, too. Most of these people consider rolling a "1" bad luck, but if they roll a "6", that was brilliant tactics. So in the absence of them giving you a demonstartion how successful you can be with that setup, take their ideas to your board, find out yourself whether their ideas hold any merit and get your personal opinion from testing. That really helps!
Sputnik
Zombie - Oct 01, 2004 - 02:00 AM
Post subject:
Sputnik wrote:
or you get slow teams like orcs or dwarfs where your bench won't come into consideration much and your lack of anything except zombies might become a problem after a while.
Could you explain that? From my experience, it's against bashy teams that having numerical superiority helps the most, and it's also against those teams that having lots of reserves is most important.
Sputnik - Oct 01, 2004 - 02:36 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
Could you explain that? From my experience, it's against bashy teams that having numerical superiority helps the most, and it's also against those teams that having lots of reserves is most important.
Sure.
Slow teams like dwarfs, CDs or Orcs might go for long, grinding drives. Thus, every player your Necros lose is gone for that drive=basically that half. Any replacements won't help you until the half ends or the TD is scored in turn 8. Your necros have less AV, less block skills, only ST3 (like the dwarfs, granted) and you have to carefully position them since they are too slow to cover ground if needed. You will have a hard time getting one of the opponents players out by blocking, and fouling might get you sent off as well, leaving you with less and less players as well. The opponent might be a bit more successful against your zombies due to no block/AV8 on your side. Your necros lack a cage breaker or the strength/skills to go 1-on-1 too much. Against Orcs with some BOs and a big guy, even one zombie more is still a tough matchup.
Having a dirty player helps, but let's face it: you will get one skill after a match in a tournament most of the time. And your weres with frenzy should get block as a priority so as to successfully knock players over, not eating too many of your rr by just blocking with a both-down result, and it helps them not being knocked over themselves when being blocked. The weres are your best players, IMO you should really skill them up first since they will do most blitzing/blocking and have to be proctected a bit more due to no reg/apo. Which leaves you with a dirty player after game 3. Fouling AV9 guys without a DP however makes it less effective.
An Orc player with only ten Orcs for the second half, but with a big guy and some BOs will still have a good chance to pull this game off IMO.
As I posted earlier: it might work from time to time to go with this lineup, but I am not sure whether therewith you will suceed six games in a row in any given tournament without really being lucky.
Sputnik
Zombie - Oct 01, 2004 - 10:52 AM
Post subject:
Granted, this would work better if you could have 4 skills by the time you play against tough teams. Here, a tournament like the Death Bowl where you get 2 skills before the tournament even starts helps a lot.
However, i'm not sure i agree with your point about drives lasting whole halves. I say if they want to do that, let them! Sure they'll have you outnumbered in the first drive, but they'll be in trouble in second half!
The typical dwarf game goes like this. Opponent receives and scores in 2 turns. Dwarves receive and score in 7. Dwarves receive and score in 8. 2-1 win. In this case, we'd get necros receive and score in 2 turns. Dwarves receive and score in 7. During first half, 3 dwarves are fouled off, 2 zombies sent off, 4 zombies CASed (2 regenerate). This is pretty much a worst-case scenario. Second half starts with 8 dwarves vs 11 necros. Dwarves can't score in 8 turns and probably even lose the ball.
I still think that this roster is better equipped to face dwarves than wood elves. After all, you can outnumber wood elves 11 to 3 and still lose!
Kolja_TBBF - Nov 12, 2004 - 05:35 PM
Post subject:
Here's what I think is a good roster:
2 WW
2 Wights
2 Ghouls
6 zombies
3 RR
5 FF
That gives 12 players, which is vital in the tourney setting, and 3 RR which is vital in general. 12 players is great for keeping from being outnumbered (bad for a team with MV4 players) and also to allow for a dirtyplayer to foul a bit.
Another option is:
1 Golem
2 WW
2 Wights
2 Ghouls
5 zombies
2 RR
3 FF
Also 12 players but with a bit more strength for facing orcs, etc. The trade off of the RR and the Golem is a tough call.
Kolja
Grumbledook - Nov 13, 2004 - 11:27 AM
Post subject:
wasn't that golem roster the one i beat you with when i used a 900k team ;]
ok you got the last laugh in the actual tournament when i rolled get the ref, though from the times I have played against necro teams, I have found if they get the early cas they are very hard to go against
if they don't then I don't seem to have much trouble against them
and zombie assuming you fouled 3 dwarfs off don't forget they also have thick skull and are going to be harder to get the assists against them, they may well have got your weres as well, so while they might not win, they still have a great chance at a draw
and well setting up a roster for draws in your average tournament imho is silly
must admit though playing against golems is a right pain, worth their money is another question though
Mordredd - Nov 13, 2004 - 01:57 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
When it comes to regenerating teams though, going with less than 3 dirty players is arguably a bad move, and going with less than 2 is a huge mistake!
Really? I've never taken any on my Undead team in a tournament. Do you think if I took your advice I'd do better next time?
I've only played a few games with a TR100 Necro team so I'm still quite undecided on the best way to go with them. I've not been particularly impressed with the Flesh Golems but I really wouldn't want to be without the Werewolves, Wights or Ghouls. I am actually quite surprised that people seem to be overlooking the Ghouls so much, they really are very useful players. I'd use them as throwers/runners linking to the Werewolves as catchers/blitzers.
I'm not convinced that the Zombie horde and foul tactic will come off too well. You lack the strength to get enough easy victims by sheer force and don't have enough block skill and mobility to do it by skill. And it would be too easy to tie your dirty players down.
I think I'd go for Kolja's first roster, because 1 Flesh Golem by himself would not be enough of a strength boost for my liking. I'd prefer the third re roll.
Zombie - Nov 13, 2004 - 02:19 PM
Post subject:
You don't have the strength and you don't have the skills, but you do have the numbers, and that's the most important thing when playing the numbers game (obviously). Having a team of 15 or 16 players against a team of 11, you are going to have more than your opponent come second half, there's no way around it.
And i agree, ghouls are pretty good players and you need both of them in a tournament environment.
longfang - Nov 14, 2004 - 12:54 PM
Post subject:
I wish everyone submitted posts as helpful as Sputniks 
LouisX - Nov 15, 2004 - 06:45 AM
Post subject:
What's happened to LF's original post ? It summed up what most thought about this thread...
No need to write 4 pages to explain us you don't have anything intersting to say about necros Zombie. i never played them at 100 TR but doing what you suggest would be as usefull as shooting yourself in the foot.
Deathwing - Nov 15, 2004 - 08:46 AM
Post subject:
LouisX wrote:
What's happened to LF's original post ? It summed up what most thought about this thread...
It was self edited after advice was sought and given as to whether it was 'over the top' or not. You know Del!
LouisX - Nov 15, 2004 - 08:56 AM
Post subject:
It's such a wonderful world
juck101 - Nov 15, 2004 - 03:29 PM
Post subject:
skele/zombie team sounds a laugh but against a decent player i cant see the 30k boys cutting the mustard. at the end of the pick necro if you want were's and if not take undead as they offer something else. - personaly i cant cope without block and dodge on my stars, thus im better with wood elf.
only ever play to your strengths - or if you can paint play with some decent figs 
Hoshi_Komi - Nov 15, 2004 - 04:04 PM
Post subject:
don't know how much this applies to necros but whenever I take my khemri team to tourneys I turn down the extra blitz-ra and both thro-ras for bodies and play with a 14 or 15 man roster.
Mordredd - Nov 16, 2004 - 06:21 AM
Post subject:
How does that work for you, having no sure hands for picking up the ball?
And do you go in for massive amounts of fouling or is the deep bench just for absorbing the punishment that Skeletons seem to inevitably take?
Francesco - Nov 16, 2004 - 04:02 PM
Post subject:
I never played Necros in tournament but in league I use this setting:
2 Wight
2 Werewolf
2 Ghoul
5 Zombie
3 RR
8 FF
Of course in tournament you can easily drop 6 FF for another 2 Zombies.
Zombie - Nov 16, 2004 - 06:17 PM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
How does that work for you, having no sure hands for picking up the ball?
And do you go in for massive amounts of fouling or is the deep bench just for absorbing the punishment that Skeletons seem to inevitably take?
It works pretty well for him. Gken is the undisputed king of Khemri. I think he's won 3 tourneys with them, in like 3 or 4 attempts.
He's also famous for picking lots of dirty players.
If khemri can do it, i'm pretty sure necromantic can as well.
Doubleskulls - Nov 16, 2004 - 07:09 PM
Post subject:
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Khemri have the bedrock of 4 mummies who can win the blocking war, freeing the skeles to foul.
Necros will find it much harder against the bashy teams because a much higher proportion of their team will get tied into blocking.
Zombie - Nov 16, 2004 - 07:37 PM
Post subject:
True, the lower strength does make a big difference, especially in freeing up AG2 dirty players.
But a necromantic team does have AV8 instead of AV7, and two players with frenzy + claw. Both of those help achieve numerical superiority, and with that come free players (maybe not the right players though, i'll conceed that).
I think it's at least worth a try. If i manage a way to go to the Underworld Cup this weekend, i'll try it and tell you how it went.
Hoshi_Komi - Nov 16, 2004 - 08:31 PM
Post subject:
well the first skill i take is sure hands on the blitz-ra. the numbers just let me do whatever I want...tie up whoever I want with skeletons. I am always able to set up 11....which I can't say for my opponents.
and it does let me foul away whenever I want too...with the eye, without the eye.
2 for 3 with Khemri.... I don't count the Chaos Cup as a win...2nd place there.
Zombie - Nov 17, 2004 - 05:21 AM
Post subject:
Hey, you got the win, take it!