BBRC

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Mon May 19, 2003 10:11 pm

Dwarf Blocker 0-2 5 3 2 9 , block, thick skull,& mighty blow 80k

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Mon May 19, 2003 10:56 pm

Let's not forget that even if the Dwarves lose their Ogre then they'll also be probably gaining wider secret weapon access than most....

Dark Lord (retired) · Mon May 19, 2003 11:12 pm

What makes you say that? Sides, with AG 2 secret weapons aren't too easy to use.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon May 19, 2003 11:17 pm

Link to my (shot down) idea for Dwarf Blocker/Iron Breaker

viewtopic.php?t=6108

Jhykron · Post by **Jhykron** » Tue May 20, 2003 4:10 am

Pardon me if this is blindingly obvious, but is there any reason why there must be an even number of position players on every roster? For example, supposing one were to give the Dwarves more position players (which I'm not sure is necessary, BTW), all the suggestions boil down to either 1) increasing a position allowance to 0-4 or 2) adding a new position at 0-2. Why not instead change both the blitzer and slayer lines to 0-3? This, incidently, would have the side effect of leaving only -one- useless figure in those absurdly designed booster packs instead of three.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue May 20, 2003 4:16 am

It's an unwritten rule.

And as for the the booster packs, they will be rereleased in a more sensible form, with the positions that you actually need to complete your team.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Tue May 20, 2003 4:18 am

This is only speculation but basically the reson you have even numbers of positions allowed is so you can build back ups, or a "second string". If a team was allowed 0-1 throwers, and they built a powerful offence around passing playes what would they do when their 57 point thrower was killed?

That's probably not the only reason, but it's a big one IMO. (another reason I really dislike the 0-1 kicking position.)

Jhykron · Post by **Jhykron** » Tue May 20, 2003 4:47 am

Zombie wrote:It's an unwritten rule.

And as for the the booster packs, they will be rereleased in a more sensible form, with the positions that you actually need to complete your team.

Bah... those bloody unwritten rulee (shakes head).

As for the boosters, I'm somewhat amused it only took GW 9 years to figure that one out. Sheesh!

Jhykron · Post by **Jhykron** » Tue May 20, 2003 4:52 am

Dark Lord wrote:This is only speculation but basically the reson you have even numbers of positions allowed is so you can build back ups, or a "second string". If a team was allowed 0-1 throwers, and they built a powerful offence around passing playes what would they do when their 57 point thrower was killed?

That's probably not the only reason, but it's a big one IMO. (another reason I really dislike the 0-1 kicking position.)

Well, that would explain the lack of 0-1's, but not necessarily 0-3, 0-5, etc.

But now that you brought the subject up, do those kickers actually stand a good chance of becoming official? Odd that every team would get one... not every team gets dedicated throwers, catchers, runners or blockers, so why kickers?

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Tue May 20, 2003 4:56 am

Don't know about the official status.

As for why not 0-3, 0-5...Most people use positions in tandem or as small teams. Ya know, 2 blitzers for offense, 2 for defense, etc. So if you only had 3 blitzers you'd be stuck with an oddball or a 3rd string which isn't really necessary. 0-3 translates to 0-6. 0-5 translates to 0-12 linemen. See? Like I said, that's just speculation but it makes sense to me.

Jhykron · Post by **Jhykron** » Tue May 20, 2003 5:09 am

Dark Lord wrote:Don't know about the official status.

As for why not 0-3, 0-5...Most people use positions in tandem or as small teams. Ya know, 2 blitzers for offense, 2 for defense, etc. So if you only had 3 blitzers you'd be stuck with an oddball or a 3rd string which isn't really necessary. 0-3 translates to 0-6. 0-5 translates to 0-12 linemen. See? Like I said, that's just speculation but it makes sense to me.

Funny, everyone I've ever faced has every Blitzer and Blocker available on the field at all times. Most of the turnover between O and D seems to be in passers, catchers, runners, etc.

Seems more like an arbitrary convention turned to tradition. But that's not necessarily a bad thing...

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Tue May 20, 2003 5:23 am

I think giving dwarves a couple more mv5 guys would open the team up.. right now with the whole team moving 4 they have no other tactic but to build a cage.

Jhykron · Post by **Jhykron** » Tue May 20, 2003 5:38 am

gken1 wrote:I think giving dwarves a couple more mv5 guys would open the team up.. right now with the whole team moving 4 they have no other tactic but to build a cage.

Nah, cage is a trap, and the dwarves don't have a passing game to fall back to plan B if it doesn't work. I prefer trying to screen out a corridor down the sideline.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Tue May 20, 2003 6:53 am

gken1 wrote:I think giving dwarves a couple more mv5 guys would open the team up.. right now with the whole team moving 4 they have no other tactic but to build a cage.

heh heh heh

Not even close.

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Tue May 20, 2003 8:32 am

I certainly don't agree with that, Gken1. Dwarfs can use extra speed, but they don't necessarily need it.

And extra Agility certainly should not be added to the Dwarf team either.

That's why I'd either support the Iron Breaker or the extra trollslayers ideas. They allow you to replace muscle (Ogre) with muscle.

Of course this entire discussion would be entirely unnecessary if the Deathroller was rewritten such that it could be a worthy replacement of an Ogre! (I think this is the best solution, incidentally I already have a painted deathroller

)