Galak's revised rosters

Boss · Post by **Boss** » Fri May 02, 2003 9:32 am

Greeting bloody bowlers.

My league is starting from scratch on monday and I need to make sure that the list of teams here "http://www.midgardbb.com/GWTeams/RevisedGWRosters.html" is the 'officially' experimental rosters. Meaning those that will be discussed in october (barring further revisions) ... 'cause I can see that these have been altered since the most recent publication.

The guys I am playing with are really gung-ho for the 'official' part. Well, apart from the guy who wants star players to be a regular feature again

Looking at the rosters the Necromantic team looks nasty. Maybe the lack of an apothecary can make up for the powerful roster.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri May 02, 2003 9:42 am

The page is as official as it gets EXCEPT for the Necro team.

By the way, my league just finished a 6 game season with three of those Necro teams and they really didn't do that well and were not really that tough at all. Sean NewBoy plays one of them ... he can comment on the "power" of that Necro team.

Anyway, I'm waiting for the Annual that Deathwing is mailing me to post the a new Necromantic roster.

The roster for the Necro team that you see there is the one the BBRC will consider if the Undead is not removed in October. If they are removed the Necro team will most likely be the one in the 2003 Annual which is not posted on the site at this time. If someone wants to post the 2003 Annual Necro team I'll get this fixed.

Other than the 2nd Necro team that I need to post ... these are the latest understanding of the rules to come from the BBRC and other sources.

Galak

Boss · Post by **Boss** » Fri May 02, 2003 11:15 am

Thanks man
I think the Annual has the Werewolf differently ... an 8338 version with Frenzy, catch, razor sharp claws. Maybe even regeneration. 2 of them too. I think maybe there's only 2 ghouls though ... or maybe it's the wights. Hmm - I dont think this post should be used as a reliable source of documentation

. I took the annual on loan from a friend of mine yesterday, but dont have it handy right now.

I haven't played the Necro-team myself. Just looking at the stats - it looks quite decent with both speed and strength ... few teams get both like this one. Though no apothecary makes it very risky if the top spp getters have zero chance to get healed.

Boss · Post by **Boss** » Fri May 02, 2003 12:52 pm

Another thing

Galak, you're on that BBRC ?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri May 02, 2003 1:51 pm

nope ;]

StillGas · Post by **StillGas** » Fri May 02, 2003 2:01 pm

On the subject of the Experimental rosters, is the ogre team in the 2003 annual the one which has been superseeded by the ogre options on Galak's site? I.E. should it be ignored? It has 0-8 ogres and 0-8 goblins, both with standard stats (can't remember if ogres keep bonehead).

StillGas · Post by **StillGas** » Fri May 02, 2003 2:03 pm

Boss wrote:Thanks man
I think the Annual has the Werewolf differently ... an 8338 version with Frenzy, catch, razor sharp claws. Maybe even regeneration. 2 of them too. I think maybe there's only 2 ghouls though ... or maybe it's the wights. Hmm - I dont think this post should be used as a reliable source of documentation . I took the annual on loan from a friend of mine yesterday, but dont have it handy right now.

I haven't played the Necro-team myself. Just looking at the stats - it looks quite decent with both speed and strength ... few teams get both like this one. Though no apothecary makes it very risky if the top spp getters have zero chance to get healed.

Pretty accurate...0-2 werewolves as above but no regen....0-2 ghouls and 0-4 wights.

Moonsong · Post by **Moonsong** » Fri May 02, 2003 3:47 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:If someone wants to post the 2003 Annual Necro team I'll get this fixed.

0-12 Zombies 4 3 2 8 Regenerate 30k
0-2 Ghouls 7 3 3 7 Dodge 70k
0-4 Wights 6 3 3 8 Block, Regenerate 90k
0-2 Flesh Golems 4 4 2 9 Stand Firm, Regenerate,Thick Skull 120k
0-2 Werewolves 8 3 3 8 Fetch...sorry, Catch, Frenzy, Razor Sharp Fangs 120k

Talafar · Post by **Talafar** » Fri May 02, 2003 4:00 pm

Wasnt it also recomended in a BB mag letters page, that they be allowed to hire an apothecary for the non-regen players?
Not sure if its official tho...

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri May 02, 2003 4:05 pm

I'm not a big fan of situational apothecaries, but losing any of the four players that don't have regenerate would really be a tough thing to overcome in this roster.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri May 02, 2003 5:13 pm

Thanks Moonsong.

In addition to that bit of help from Moonsong, I JUST got an email from JJ with the final testing request for the Ogre teams for Season 3 of the MBBL.

I have posted the revised Ogre rosters on my site along with the Necro changes, so Boss .... that site should now be completely up to date for everything that is official and experimental at this moment in time as best I am aware of it.

http://www.midgardbb.com/GWTeams/RevisedGWRosters.html

Remember gang ... if a team is marked as Experimental ... feedback is highly desired still on the team ... more feedback on actually playtest results are critical and the more stats (like average TD earned/given up, Cas earned/suffered ; win rates, etc ... the better).

Galak

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Fri May 02, 2003 5:18 pm

From just looking at it, I kinda like the #2 Ogre roster.

darthnoir · Post by **darthnoir** » Fri May 02, 2003 8:03 pm

Moonsong wrote: 0-2 Flesh Golems 4 4 2 9 Stand Firm, Regenerate,Thick Skull 120k

So the Flesh Golems lost Break Tackle?

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri May 02, 2003 8:14 pm

Talafar wrote:Wasnt it also recomended in a BB mag letters page, that they be allowed to hire an apothecary for the non-regen players?
Not sure if its official tho...

That will never be official ... of that much I'm 100% sure.

and yes Darth on both of the roster being tested, the Flesh Golem lost Break Tackle.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri May 02, 2003 8:15 pm

Boss wrote:Another thing

Galak, you're on that BBRC ?

Nope