FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Craftnburn

Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 19:44

Sigmar1 wrote:

I played a match vs. CnB recently where the Wyrms consistently rolled 4+ for all kinds of actions and I just tore him a new one.

Your Wyrms had a pretty good game, but didn't really "tear" that much up; it was that freak of a greater horror you have that tore me a new one!

Kalamona

Joined: Apr 21, 2005

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 22:11

WhatBall wrote:

Chaos Halfling - 2 Loner, WA Chaos Spawn
- I think they are just fine as is. Chaos Spawn are crazed monsters and CFlings are already damn good. With WA, failing it is not as bad as BH or RS, so less need for a RR.

Horrors of Tzeentch - 2 Loner, WA Firewyrm
- I am on the fence with this. WA + Loner on the bombing is really tough. I could see removing the Loner to make them a bit more effective.

Nurglings - 2 Loner, RS Beasts
- I am thinking this is just fine. They are tough enough starting with tents.

Gnoblar - 2 Loner, 1 w BH, 1 with WA. (third with BH, but no Loner)
- I am tempted to remove Loner from the Irongut as well, leaving it on the psychopath Gorger. The two main Ogres should run this team of subservient Gnobs.

Pygmy - 2 Loner, BH Krox
- These Krox were bred and raised by the Pygmies by the fluff. Also following the fluff, the Pygmies commune with nature and their animal spirits. I think being "close" with the Krox would mean no Loner. I think it would make the team just more competitive enough.

Snotling - 3 Loner, RS Trolls
- Let's face it, Snots are pretty darn weak. I think no Loner, but still 3xRS, would be a good change for Snots. They could become even more fun and half decent.

Strigoyan & Flings, just fine with no-Loner BGs.

So you would remove loner to increase carnage. But would it? Remove Loner from the wyrm. It will thow bombs on 4+ to begin with. Are you sure i want to RR that? I am sure i dont.
Remove it from the gnoblars? Already one of the strongest rosters (3 BGs, 4 str2 trapper, 2 str1 with dauntless and G skills - you only have to field 2 gnoblars) Why would you strenghten them further?

Did you think about strenghtening the pro-halflings? I mentioned a couple of times that they are good to begin with, but after TR1500 when other teams have G skills and thrashing the pro-halflings AV6 running around is just not enough. They lack the power to hit back.

I agree to anything that strenghtens snotlings as they are still useless.

And I can remember the big change when Christer took G access from the BGs saying he wants more focus on the stunty players. If it is no longer the case give G access back to BGs and you will have carnage.

Antithesisoftime

Joined: Aug 20, 2014

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 22:19

I think Albion Fae would be better served and more balanced if their Fenbeast had Wild Animal instead of Bonehead.

As for Horrors, the Wyrms are a lot weaker than most big guys, being the only ones that start without Mighty Blow. On the other hand, they do have bombardier. My play style, I use my wyrms for bombing as a last resort, they're better as blitzers than anything, especially at 5ST, 4AG (or in the case of my Wyrm, 5ST, 5AG, Leap, Mighty Blow). Wild Animal is the right Negatrait for the wyrms, but they should get Pro to help mitigate and make them more useful at doing what they do best. Come to think of it, bombing really is a weaker tactic all around as a first thought for the Horrors, especially since all 4 bombers have greater strength than most stunty players.

Pygmies are a lot of fun, but the Pygmies themselves are a bit weak. Their Kroxigars however are just fine as is. Unfortunately, that leaves the team top heavy. I think, in the case of the Pygs, it'd serve them better to leave the Krox as is, and increase the movement of their linemen and jaguar warriors by 1 (more shadowing).

Chaos Flings need nothing. Their spawn are killers out of the box with horns, frenzy, and mighty blow. Do not modify, AT ALL

Nurglings are nasty, and don't need any changes either.

Gnoblar are a team that revolves almost entirely around their 3 big men. Simply removing Loner from 2 out of the 3 would be rather helpful to the squad as a whole, while removing from all 3 would make Gnobs almost as killer as Squigs and Chaos Flings.

Snotlings..... Snotlings......
Leave the trolls alone. The Trolls are good as they are.
It's the wagons that need help. They're fragile, being KOed or worse automatically on any result that puts them on the ground. On top of that, they rarely get more than one drive before being banned. What would help the Snots most in competing with other races, would be to make it harder to ban the wagons, either by giving a free bribe or two, or making the ban roll a bit easier to succeed.

All the other races currently feel fine as are.

mister__joshua

Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 22:24

FUMBBL Staff

m0gw41 wrote:

Loner on Big Guys:
I really don't think we should blanket remove loner, stunty should be about the stunties, not hordes of semi-reliable big guys running amuck, picking up balls with ag2 etc. I also think the decision making process about when and how to use loner big guys or not is one of the things that separates good stunty coaches from the not so good ones.

I don't think removing loner would take focus away from the little guys. The Bigs already have their own individual negatraits. In situations where you suggest Bigs will become a focus, I think they are anyway (on teams like Gnoblars). I'm not sure I agree that it adds to decision making either, it just makes the decision different. Loners rarely get a re-roll as it is. Players that get too good from the removal of loner can be balanced in other ways easily enough.

Kalamona wrote:

Remove it from the gnoblars? Already one of the strongest rosters (3 BGs, 4 str2 trapper, 2 str1 with dauntless and G skills - you only have to field 2 gnoblars) Why would you strenghten them further?

Did you think about strenghtening the pro-halflings? I mentioned a couple of times that they are good to begin with, but after TR1500 when other teams have G skills and thrashing the pro-halflings AV6 running around is just not enough. They lack the power to hit back.

I agree to anything that strenghtens snotlings as they are still useless.

And I can remember the big change when Christer took G access from the BGs saying he wants more focus on the stunty players. If it is no longer the case give G access back to BGs and you will have carnage.

Are Gnoblars really one of the strongest rosters? You've played more than me so I'll take your word for it, but I've had them in this year's EC and of the (so far) 7 races I've tried I think they've been the weakest out of the box. Maybe they build up strong.

Motskari

Joined: Dec 03, 2005

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 22:29

Kalamona wrote:

And I can remember the big change when Christer took G access from the BGs saying he wants more focus on the stunty players. If it is no longer the case give G access back to BGs and you will have carnage.

This.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 22:39

I'd rather not 'generally' boost the big guys in Stunty. I see a lot of players that play with heavy big guys and not much else. I'd rather see a balance of players that can make a difference in the game. Otherwise we're moving to 1 dimensional CRP style. Getting away from that is one of the major drawing points of Stunty (for me at least).

Also, as big guys gain a lot of skills, you see a few mb/blockle players. On a big guy that can't be knocked out and no loner, would be a bit too much.

So generally, I'd keep them. I agree snotlings need a boost, but my impression was that speed and the lack of ability to cover players who gained the ball were their main weakness. No loner Trolls maybe the answer, so I wouldn't be opposed to it in principal. As long as the team had many factors, rather than becoming a 'troll brigade'.

Horrors, I say no. Otherwise you're merging 2 different types of players into 1 a bit and they have 4 bombers more often. FW should be a multi purpose player that can do a variety of things very well, but with the negative aspect giving to them in the neg traits.

I think the Chaos Spawn on Flings needs a massive revamp. Right now it's too much like a minotaur (which it replaced). Reality is, it's not and shouldn't be. One thing I was thinking was that Spawn come in all shapes and sizes. So giving 3 slightly different spawn profiles, but you still only can take 2. Adds a new aspect to stunty of choosing the big guy to suit your gaming.

Another thing I'd like to see with big guys is blurring the big guy player types. You have the frenzy/wild animal and the high av/Bonehead Really stupid type of player. I'd like to mix these up a bit to make a middling type of big guy. Frenzy/RS/Low movement/high AV as an example.

The Fenbeast originally was going to have Really Stupid; as it needs to be controlled. However, this was a bit too negative so it was given bone head instead. Wild animal doesn't really fit the profile. However, it's blurring the archetypal line I was describing above. So I think we should look at a variety of neg traits for these big guys.

Shinomune

Joined: Apr 04, 2009

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 23:27

mister__joshua wrote:

Kalamona wrote:

Remove it from the gnoblars? Already one of the strongest rosters (3 BGs, 4 str2 trapper, 2 str1 with dauntless and G skills - you only have to field 2 gnoblars) Why would you strenghten them further?

Did you think about strenghtening the pro-halflings? I mentioned a couple of times that they are good to begin with, but after TR1500 when other teams have G skills and thrashing the pro-halflings AV6 running around is just not enough. They lack the power to hit back.

I agree to anything that strenghtens snotlings as they are still useless.

And I can remember the big change when Christer took G access from the BGs saying he wants more focus on the stunty players. If it is no longer the case give G access back to BGs and you will have carnage.

Are Gnoblars really one of the strongest rosters? You've played more than me so I'll take your word for it, but I've had them in this year's EC and of the (so far) 7 races I've tried I think they've been the weakest out of the box. Maybe they build up strong.

Maybe. I still want to see it Sad

Motskari

Joined: Dec 03, 2005

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 23:36

Thing that have bothered me personally in stunty is that he who rolls most doubles with his bigguys, gets the best team. Block and tackle with them is much more valuable than any double skill that you can obtain in the big leeg.

And we won´t have players like Izo Jumi these days:

https://fumbbl.com/p/player?player_id=2805456

Craftnburn

Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 23:39

harvestmouse wrote:

...you're merging 2 different types of players into 1...FW should be a multi purpose player that can do a variety of things very well, but with the negative aspect giving to them in the neg traits.

That was exactly the idea when designed. Both the Wyrms and the Flamers were meant to be a sort of "2 positionals in 1". But by choosing bombs you give up blitzing/blocking and vice versa. Speccing Horrors games though I see very few Bombing attempts with the Wyrms, which means they're really just "slightly odd" BGs. I'd like to see their bomb abilities boosted to make it more of a viable alternative. (especially since fluff wise, Firewyrms SHOULD be belching Fire!)

m0gw41

Joined: Jun 12, 2012

Posted: Mar 03, 2015 - 23:48

mister__joshua wrote:

I don't think removing loner would take focus away from the little guys. The Bigs already have their own individual negatraits. In situations where you suggest Bigs will become a focus, I think they are anyway (on teams like Gnoblars). I'm not sure I agree that it adds to decision making either, it just makes the decision different. Loners rarely get a re-roll as it is. Players that get too good from the removal of loner can be balanced in other ways easily enough.

At high TV no-loner BGs with doubles would rule, I would just buy more rr to account for their negatraits and build my turn around them. As it stands I need to build a turn around stunties first, which is the way it should be. And loners quite often get a rr, often out of frustration...

Antithesisoftime wrote:

I think Albion Fae would be better served and more balanced if their Fenbeast had Wild Animal instead of Bonehead.

100% no way. They would be unplayable without mobile Fen Beasts. How the heck would you stand them up?!

Kalamona wrote:

And I can remember the big change when Christer took G access from the BGs saying he wants more focus on the stunty players. If it is no longer the case give G access back to BGs and you will have carnage.

Won't someone think of the little guys! I wasn't around in the G access BG era but surely it was just a massive stunty mincing machine?

MisterFurious

Joined: Aug 11, 2010

Posted: Mar 04, 2015 - 00:03

It'd be cool if wagons and doomwheels exploded like a bomb when they fell over. Then it becomes kind of risky to knock one down (or not so bad when you fail a GFI into a bunch of guys).

Antithesisoftime

Joined: Aug 20, 2014

Posted: Mar 04, 2015 - 00:55

m0gw41 wrote:

Antithesisoftime wrote:

I think Albion Fae would be better served and more balanced if their Fenbeast had Wild Animal instead of Bonehead.

100% no way. They would be unplayable without mobile Fen Beasts. How the heck would you stand them up?!

Instead of rolling a 2+ to have an action, you need a 4+ with Wild Animal, however, a Fenbeast still has to succeed on a second roll to stand up as it is. On the flip side, you roll a 1 with Bonehead, and your Fenbeast suddenly becomes completely useless to the team until the next time he succeeds on a Bonehead roll. With Wild Animal, at least the Fenbeast would still have his tackle zone, and his ability to assist on a block. With a team of 1ST Fairies, I'd much prefer my Fenbeast to always have a Tacklezone. Yeah, the Fenbeasts may be a little less mobile with Wild Animal, but they can still stand there, help their little guys, and defend them from harm more easily. Would it help if the Fenbeasts were given an MA of 3 to go along with the switch from Bonehead to Wild Animal?

Sigmar1

Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Posted: Mar 04, 2015 - 01:16

WA on Fenbeasts is a horrible idea, MV3 or not.

_________________
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!

Shinomune

Joined: Apr 04, 2009

Posted: Mar 04, 2015 - 18:59

They are really become overpowered if the Fenbeasts lose Bonehead for Loner? I know that they're 6ST MB in Stunty, but also MA2. And without them if they fail Bonehead, Faes losing both Strenght and Disturbing Presence.

_________________

harvestmouse wrote:

It's a selfish, attention seeking little boy; who is terrible at the game.

m0gw41

Joined: Jun 12, 2012

Posted: Mar 04, 2015 - 19:52

Disturbing presence isn't lost unless the player leaves the field, they are disgusting whether they are standing up, lying down or boneheaded. Switching bonehead for loner is interesting but I think traditionally all BGs need a negatrait of some kind.

_________________