Skill selection for all positions

as practised by leading coaches for that roster

• Amazons
• Chaos
• Chaos Dwarves
• Dwarves
• Dark Elves
• Elves
• Goblins
• Halfings
• High Elves
• Humans
• Khemri
• Lizardmen
• Necromantic
• Norse
• Nurgle's Rotters
• Ogres
• Orcs
• Skaven
• Undead
• Vampires
• Wood Elves

These lists were compiled as follows:

• For each race, the Ranked teams with the most games played (on 21 to 28 May, 2007) were looked up.
• From that list, the three teams with the most games played (and at least 100) which had a Win% of at least 55% and no greater than 70%† and which had played their most recent match in 2007 were consulted.
• For each of those teams, the Past Players list was examined, and notes taken on skill selections.

(† For the reasoning behind these criteria, see the discussion in this forum thread.)

The method for the review of the Past Players lists was more art than science. According to the judgement of the reviewer, some unusual choices were dismissed as 'tournament picks' (eg, Dirty Player on a Blitzer), others as 'experiments', and not mentioned in the review. Others were deemed 'utility skills' (skills taken when nobody else in the team has them), or 'sometimes' picks, and included.

Where skills are shown in a list with commas, those earlier in the list are more popular. Note that much less common choices are often included in brackets, and that the notation '(sometimes)' is used to indicate a rare but non-unique skill selection which has no clear conditions for its selection.

Differences in development patterns for players with stat ups are only listed if they actually make a difference. For example, players with +MA generally develop in the same way as any other player of that position, so no differences are mentioned.

Also note that the review has not attempted to determine how often doubles, +MA rolls or other stat ups were turned down. Statistically, this would be possible, but it would be impossible to deduce the circumstances in which they were rejected - which is what a coach really needs to know.

Unavoidably, the bias of the reviewer will have slipped through in places. If you notice this, remember this is a wiki: make your own review of the Past Players lists in question and edit, while trying to maintain the same style.

If you disagree fundamentally with the skill choices listed (that is, you think they're not the best choices, not that the reviewer has misread the Past Players list(s)), then you need to get a team into the top three according to the criteria listed, and do it your way! Then demand that the review in question be updated.

Back to strategy main page.