45 coaches online • Server time: 15:18
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post A Very Steely Setup ...goto Post Is kicking first wit...goto Post UW Goblins - Disturb...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
SirIndigo



Joined: Sep 10, 2015

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 03:07 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:
Craftnburn wrote:
As discussion of new teams in stunty has begun to resurface...

And given that Gnomes haven't shown S access to be completely OP...

I think it's time the Bray's switch back to their original S/M access. 1st Post edited according.


I think Ungors should be the lino and the niche being they don't come with the Stunty skill. Both a good and a bad thing.


A stunty team sans stunty? :O
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 04:28 Reply with quote Back to top

Yeah. It fits a new niche, we don't have a team where the basic lino is stuntyless. It adds more durability but takes away ball stealing. I think one new team eventually should have this, and with Ungors size, I believe they should be the one.
SirIndigo



Joined: Sep 10, 2015

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 04:36 Reply with quote Back to top

6 2 3 7 Horns, SM
Those would be pretty good linemen. I'm not going to pretend to have enough experience to judge if that's too good, but it seems to me like a possibility.
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 04:52 Reply with quote Back to top

Craftnburn wrote:
harvestmouse wrote:
I think Ungors should be the lino and the niche being they don't come with the Stunty skill. Both a good and a bad thing.

I think the concept of Bray's (vs. Ungors) is really more fitting for stunty (It's certainly not much of a Bray Herd without the Brays Wink ) . Furthermore a roster with Ungor linemen would likely be too expensive to maintain (even with the added durability provided by losing Stunty).


Well although I like the concept, I think it's important we have a beastman team. I wouldn't go with the defined roster. I think now we are changing tact a bit and should go the route we did with pro flings (and Albion). That is to have a suggested roster, ask for ideas for the community, close doors and semi finalize, go back to the community.

In short, that wouldn't be my final roster. Also if Ungors were the linos 60k is far too expensive.

6 2 3 7 dodge, horns or maybe 5 2 3 7 dodge, horns is how I'd go with them.

I like the idea of Centigors, but ST3 players are really difficult to balance. Minos are a must. Brays.......yeah I'd either keep them for the stunty or replace them altogether (so yeah a name change). Old Warhammer had lots of interesting and different looking beastmen.......however that would affect the uniformity and might be better as a separate idea.
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 04:53 Reply with quote Back to top

SirIndigo wrote:
6 2 3 7 Horns, SM
Those would be pretty good linemen. I'm not going to pretend to have enough experience to judge if that's too good, but it seems to me like a possibility.


Actually it'd be terrible. Gotta have dodge on the linos. Possibly an FA lino could work, but they need some protection.
SirIndigo



Joined: Sep 10, 2015

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 04:56 Reply with quote Back to top

I totally forgot about dodge. Mentally I was just comparing stats and lack of stunty. Sure there's a downside to lack of stunty, but I think the durability factor is sizable.
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 05:28 Reply with quote Back to top

6 2 3 7 is also about as good as you can go with basic stats too. Durability is a factor, but with stunty you expect a lot of the cas rolls to be KOs. Which means if you play a big roster, you'll usually start drives fully manned even with the stunty skill. I'm sure the roster (not having stunty, or a roster not having stunty) would play subtly different. Particularly when coaches got used to them, we'd just have to see what that entails. I don't know.........I just think Stunty should be about adding new dimensions.
SirIndigo



Joined: Sep 10, 2015

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 06:20 Reply with quote Back to top

well, having stunty causes removal from play to increase by 1/6 after armor break, so I don't think that linemen without stunty would be OP, but that a good statline would be (as you yourself suggested) 5237. It's the speed/toughness balancing act
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 11:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Well if the team had a positional with stunty (say the Bray) that makes the lineman without much stronger than if the team had no stunty. Big rosters with Stunty really do negate a lot of the negative effects of the skill. So a non stunty lineman on a team without any stunty I feel maybe a negative (it's not clear either way). In which case a 6 2 3 7 horns, dodge S/M lineman wouldn't be that overpowered. Remembering that multiple horns isn't value for money. You can only blitz once per turn.

I'd like to see what sort of tactics a team that has less KOs, but cannot run through tackle zones to blitz the ball carrier would do. For me, it's a roster idea that would play (certainly on defence) differently than any other roster.
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 11:54
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

What about swapping dodge for Thick Skull? This gives them a bit of protection, but I think if you're going to make a non-stunty team they should probably be non-dodge too. I see that dodge is currently on most stunty teams to protect them a little, and the players without it really suffer, but that's just another long-standing status quo to break. I don't really see why a non-stunty player with S access would have dodge in his skillset.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 12:21 Reply with quote Back to top

Well we tried taking dodge off of Gnomes. If any roster could survive without dodge it was them. It went down very badly. It's sad it didn't work and I can't say either way as I haven't played them.

I think the only roster you could take dodge off of would be nurglings with across the board Foul appearance and disturbing presence.

Ungors wouldn't have S access. I'm currently very drunk. It should have been A/M access. S access is a Squig thing. My apologies (for the mistake, not for being drunk).
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 13:10
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

In what way did it do badly? I'm not questioning whether it did, but I haven't played Gnomes before. Looking at their roster I think losing dodge they'd suffer massively from being unmaneuverable rather than the attrition being a problem. Beasts wouldn't suffer the same with Ma6 and M access for 2 heads etc. (Gnomes also had no A access). I agree it could cause an issue, but it would allow for a better stat line at a reduced price and I think would be worth giving a go.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 13:18 Reply with quote Back to top

Well out of the bat playability is important. Which made Gnomes nigh on unplayable as a new or low TV team. At high TV, well that's a different story, they're too easy. I still think we need to find a status-quo on them.

Actually I like Gnomes without dodge, they just need something else. Maybe even more AV?

2heads as a first skill, I really really like. Yet, it isn't popular. Also playing my own league, I've been disappointed with how 2 heads works. I think, rather negatively Foul Appearance works so much better for receiving less casualties. FA needs far less coaching skill than 2Heads.

But yeah.............bottom line is, we have a ruleset we can amend. So we can try things and change them later. I hunch though is that if you have a roster without dodge on the lino, you'll need FA to compensate.
the_Sage



Joined: Jan 13, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 16:15 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:
Well out of the bat playability is important. Which made Gnomes nigh on unplayable as a new or low TV team. At high TV, well that's a different story, they're too easy. I still think we need to find a status-quo on them.


That doesn't sound too different from, say, chaos or nurgle. Is it Stunty Legue's goal not to have different TVs have different balance between races?

_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating)
Bakunin



Joined: May 08, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2016 - 17:16 Reply with quote Back to top

Bray Herd Roster have my support with or without a stunty lino. They look like a fit.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits