Should Golems Stay... or Should They Go Now?

[Digger Goreman]

I started the team without Golems (a first for me) but had a full compliment by game 5 (the team has 8 games played, now).... Our league house rules require half the team, rounded down, be linemen.... We play with 1,500,000 Spiralling Expenses with 50k steps... so money is often a concern, especially when giving incentives to "efficient" teams like Norse and Lizardmen... (essentially front loaded with block and with St4+speed)....

I sacked a +Ma/-Ma wight that would be missing next game and bought his replacement, emptying the coffins.... Still, if my other Wight weren't MNG, I'd be butting up against SE....

So, here's the question for debate: Given the above restrictions and the team rundown, below, "Would it be better to run a 15 man, full-Golem, team (dealing with Spiralling Expense and possibly other concerns)?" or "Would it be better to fire the Golems and reduce the squad to 11-13 players, relying on Zombies instead (and saving over 140k in expenses)?"

People with undead minds would like to know....

Grave Desecration (Necromancer) Rerolls 3
Fan Factor 7
Bank 0K
Team Value 1,420,000

7x Zombies: One with Block and another with Kick
2x Ghouls: One stock and one "Block/Fend"
2x Stock Wights: one MNG
2x Stock Golems
2x Werewolves: one Blodger and one Block/MiB

[mattgslater]

The latter, but it breaks my heart. Fire the Golems, or even better, switch to Vanilla Undead and run just 3 Ghouls. Khemri would fare even better: 4x TG, 2x BR, 1x TR, 6x Skel.

Those rules are made for the elf teams, Chaos Pact, Norse, Skaven, Dwarfs, Khemri, and Amazons. Necromantic get singularly screwed there. Well, I guess Orcs, Nurgle, and Chaos Dwarfs all get beat up a bit too.

[solarflare]

"If they stay there will be trouble!"

Ummm... under this rules set, fire the golems...

[mattgslater]

Waitaminnit... I was wrong. You can just run 5 AG3 guys, and keep both Golems.

2x Golem: 220
2x Were: 240
2x Wight: 180
1x Ghoul: 70
6x Zed: 240
3x TRR: 210
1.16M gold

Keep 'em if you really want 'em. Don't overreact. Just get used to playing down one skill player, and be very, very judicious with your skill selections. Don't take sweet gimmicks like +MA (on anybody), instead focusing on power skills and stats you can't turn down (one +AG skill player, all +ST rolls). Be ready for this basic truth: you're broke unless you go down a positional, then you'll make the money back to replace him. If your Wights and Weres are looking good and the Ghoul dies, you may not want a new Ghoul, and instead just run 12 men. Especially if you have Block Golems and some Guard spread about, and can run a credible offense with only four AG3/MA5+ carriers.

[Smeborg]

Digger - I played a few years ago against a well-managed Necro team with no Ghouls. They were tough opponents:

2 Golems
2 Wolves
2 Wights
8 Zombies
3 Re-rolls

That's an underlying TV of just 117. If money becomes a genuine problem later, you have the option to drop a Zombie and/or a Re-roll for a potential underlying TV of just 106.

The advantages of the no Ghouls roster are:

- Resilience during a match due to no AV7 and everyone having Regen.
- Good SPP and skill retention due to everyone having Regen.
- Better chance of inducing the excellent Necro Stars (W Cheney and Setekh) also with Regen.

Under this roster, one or both Wights become the ball handlers (Runners), a perfectly workable solution (they get SPPs and retain them). The team becomes somewhat slower but also somewhat bashier, with Zombies taking such skills as Dauntless and Guard (on doubles).

Hope that helps.

[juck101]

I would think on a team with regen you dont need money over 15 players. You might even create a spare with the magic spell on a death. Im not sure I see the concern and would keep as it is. You can probably play with 13 no worry and in that case just ditch a ghoul and make sure you have enough zombies. Enjoy

[Darkson]

Still, if my other Wight weren't MNG, I'd be butting up against SE....

I've no opinion of the golems, but I thought you had to include players with MNG in SE?
SE is worked out in step 3 of the "Update roster", removing the cost of MNG players is in step 8.
Or was that something else we did wrong?

[mattgslater]

Missing players most definitely count for SE in the game they get hurt in, but not in the next game.

[Darkson]

Well, d'uh!
That's it, no more posting after 24hrs without sleep...

[Digger Goreman]

Some good thoughts, all, but SE is not the worst thing in this league.... I guess I should've included how the challenge system works, mathematically:

Games are worth less if you are the TV overdog (i.e., when giving up inducements)....

If you are ahead by ____ then a win is worth ____:
0-49k --- 7 pts
50-99k --- 6pts
100+ --- 5 pts
150+ --- 4 pts
200+ --- 3 pts
250+ --- 2 pts
300+ --- 1 pt

Conversely, if you are ahead by ___ then a loss is worth ___:
0-49k --- -7 pts
50-99k --- -8 pts
100+ --- -9 pts
150+ --- -10 pts
200+ --- -11 pts
250+ --- -12 pts
300+ --- -13 pt

Ties are half a win, in points, for the underdog... half a loss, in points, for the overdog... and half a win for both if the difference in TV is less than 50k.... (This is our way of getting the overdogs to man up and try to win the game)

So it is often critical to play the best line up you can at the thinnest margins.... That's why I talked about "efficient" teams....

So, yes, I could play with one ghoul... and I kinda like the suggestion since the other ghoul is a nothing rookie.... Or... I could drop 220k worth of Golems and even some zombies to keep my team mean and lean.... But would it be mean and lean enough...? This is the conundrum....

As you can probably see, there is a large metagaming/management component to our league....

ps: We also play with the "bank", so one can only keep up to 100k without counting the excess toward TV....

[Smeborg]

Digger, it seems to me that your league rules encourage you to sail very close to the wind in TV terms. I would be seriously tempted to go with the most extreme of the rosters I suggested:

2 Golems, 2 Wolves, 2 Wights, 7 Zombies, 2 Re-rolls, no AC/CL, TV 106.

I would also avoid skill duplication where appropriate, for example only 1 S-Hands and 1 D-Player on the team. One Wight becomes the Runner (starting with, say, S-Hands, KoR). Leader might be an appropriate first double on a Zombie.

My experience of Ghouls is that they spend a disproportionately large amount of time per game in the dugout. This increases their marginal TV cost, especially under your house rules.

Low value inducements (1 or 2 Babes) disproportionately favour Regen teams (because the KO box is where the bodies accumulate). High value inducements are also good for Necros, due to the relative excellence of their stars.

All the best.

[MKL]

Hail venerable Digger!

I second Matt's or Smeborg's rosters: keep the Golems and cut one or both Ghouls.
The way I play, the Golems are the backbone of the team, while the Ghouls are very useful (but not essentials) all-rounders.

[mattgslater]

He's fifty. Hardly "venerable" as you suggest.

[Pakulkan]

Hail venerable Digger!

I second Matt's or Smeborg's rosters: keep the Golems and cut one or both Ghouls.
The way I play, the Golems are the backbone of the team, while the Ghouls are very useful (but not essentials) all-rounders.

Absolutely agree. Play based on Golem Stand Firm + Werewolves Frenzy is basic.

[Digger Goreman]

He's fifty. Hardly "venerable" as you suggest.

Venerable: commanding respect because of great age or impressive dignity; worthy of veneration or reverence, as because of high office or noble character....

Though overstated, perhaps, MKL is being anywhere from kind to honest.... And, if nothing else (and even though this unworthy is merely aspiring to such), he reminds me where a beneficial path can take me....

Thank you, MKL, namaste....

Btw, Matt, given your dedication and knowledge of BB... I consider you "venerable" also....

Enough of that....
*********************

The lineup for the next game is nearly unavoidable.... I could cut a rookie ghoul and/or a rookie zombie for anywhere from 4-11k of savings.... That would give me 12 players for this game 6z/1gl/1wt/2fg/2ww and 13 next game with a returning wight.... Consequently I could have the team at TV131 for now and TV140 next game.... I've run no-ghoul and 1-ghoul teams in the past (the one ghoul usually as an interim to two) so that's not too bad.... Maybe that's what I'll do when the wight returns... go back to one ghoul.... Given a blodge/fender, I'd really miss out if I cut them both....

For better/worse, the zombie corp is nearly marking time through 8 games.... They have accounted for only 2 total casualties and taken up two MVP awards... therefore, one has kick and one has block.... Positionals have garnished 3 additional zeds... but no matter how often they block, Nuffle has not favored them this season....

A fair amount of my team's scoring production comes off of fast penetration cum turnover plays.... That's where I might miss that second ghoul.... The dead ghoul and wight had accounted for 6 of my team's 17 TDs.... The remainder of production, period, has rested in the arms/claws of four team members, otherwise: the remaining skilled ghoul has 5 TDs and a completion, one TD from the MNG wight, and the wolves have accounted for 5 TDs, 7 Cas and an Interception.... In the best of all situations, my wights blitz and the wolves and ghouls recover and head downfield.... If the opponent has me stretched out a bit, then the wolves tend to blitz and the ghouls recover....

Complicate everything with trying to score as many league points as possible, which is enhanced from being an underdog (and winning), or at least being on parity.... So, not from a usefullness point of view (I know how to use Golems well) but from a cost efficiency point of view: Will I give up too much usefullness if I drop them out...?