Posted by adambomb on 2009-10-30 06:40:18
i dunno...i like same race match-ups....dwarf vs dwarf or orc vs orc can be quite tactical
Posted by pubstar on 2009-10-30 08:01:23
Tactics are alright, but it always starts to feel like checkers after a few turns. I'd prefer a match where one of my checkers is a werewolf, and one of his is a vampire ;)
Posted by maysrill on 2009-10-30 11:20:54
mirror matches are more skill-based, since it's more equal in terms of personnel.
Posted by RC on 2009-10-30 12:31:59
Its like ag vs ag or basher vs basher. Most av breaks and the least doubble ones winns.
Just try and make your team "non- standard" and it won't matter who you play.
Posted by Juff on 2009-10-30 14:17:34
"Its like ag vs ag or basher vs basher. Most av breaks and the least double ones wins."
A broad generalisation. With same team matchups, it boils down to the choices the coach made when building the team, and the choices they make playing the match. (dice also have a tiny effect :p )
Basher/Basher, you'll get more AV breaks by having your Guards and MBs in the right place, and with a blocking pattern that maximises blocks made and limits blocks received.
Agility/Agility, the double ones are the killers, sure. Making your oppo roll more dice will increase the chance they hit those snakes.
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2009-10-30 15:28:17
I never used to like mirror-matches all that much ...
... then I played in a couple of XFL's and watched some more and have come around to appreciating them ... alot.
Sure, Dwarf v Dwarf can be tiresome, but any game involving Dwarves is already bereft of excitement.