Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:58 |
 
|
Complain all you want about Games Workshop, Jarvis and new editions...
I still hold that keeping the new teams out of CRP was the best thing they did this edition. Too bad we screwed up and let them through anyway. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 22:05 |
|
but they only did that becuase they couldnt make money out of it fouly, if they had figures to go they would have been in... |
_________________
 |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 22:23 |
|
After a long hiatus, I'm gonna give in and get back into the game... and I'm very much interested in Chaos Pact. After reading and spectating quite a bit, tho, I'm really starting to wonder if you can play them in an "interesting" way.
I really want a fun team, not just stack Cpomb players, but, can it realistically be done? What would an "interesting" Chaos Pact team look like, in your opinion, at, say, TV 1500? By interesting, I mean taking advantage of the varied skill access and players. How would it compare to the usual bashy builds? |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
maneetti
Joined: May 15, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 22:25 |
|
I think Pact is great minmax blackbox team.
@ 1600TV, you can easily gather up good team with couple clawpomb killers and a decent BC in a form of dark elf.
It feels unfair when you face em, but try to build suck a team, that's the hard part. It just pays up in the end. |
|
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 22:40 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | I really want a fun team, not just stack Cpomb players, but, can it realistically be done? What would an "interesting" Chaos Pact team look like, in your opinion, at, say, TV 1500? By interesting, I mean taking advantage of the varied skill access and players. How would it compare to the usual bashy builds? |
Actually I have been contemplating on this matter early in 2011. Interesting ideas and interesting replies I still think. However, I never really got to build that team.
I know of a far more developed team, but they don't seem to have been played for ages. There's 7x Dump-Off and 5x Nerves of Steel on it... and a DE renegade who only got 4 SPP out of 15 games! Of course it also has a win record of 2/1/16... |
_________________
.
 |
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 22:47 |
|
| maneetti wrote: | I think Pact is great minmax blackbox team.
@ 1600TV, you can easily gather up good team with couple clawpomb killers and a decent BC in a form of dark elf.
It feels unfair when you face em, but try to build suck a team, that's the hard part. It just pays up in the end. |
1600 is too high.
search out Kill All Your Heroes, and you'll see they did best around 1300-1400 max, and often lower than this. at 1600 you actually meet ST and skull, which is hard for minmax pact to counter. |
_________________
 |
|
Beerox
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 22:52 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | 6338 GSMP 50k for Pact Marauder
6338 G 50K Human Lineman
This cannot be defended.
...
|
This is indefensible, yes. The passing access as a cherry on top is laughable.
This team makes less sense than any. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 23:08 |
|
| Quote: |
6338 GSMP 50k for Pact Marauder
6338 G 50K Human Lineman
This cannot be defended.
|
11 players, 6338 no skill: 550 TV
11 players, 6338 no skill: 660 TV
This cannot be defended either.
I like the thought of removing S access.
OR perhaps reducing linemen to 0-8
I don't know if minmaxing is the real issue. It seems for minmax to be effective it requires either lots of blodge or 4-5 cpombs. Maybe those combos are the problem?
On top of that TV-matching makes minmaxing so much worse, because it removes the incentive to grow. I mean, being TV-efficient might not help you if you meet someone with more raw power.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
Starfire
Joined: Aug 08, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 23:23 |
|
I support taking Strength access, given that they are no stronger than other humans, and passing, but mutation really have to be left on them as they live in the realm of chaos and are exposed from birth. Could make them 60k just for good measure
Otherwise, ideas about improving the Big guys sound interesting |
|
|
PaddyMick
Joined: Jan 03, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 23:30 |
|
| plasmoid wrote: |
11 players, 6338 no skill: 550 TV
11 players, 6338 no skill: 660 TV
This cannot be defended either.
|
how come? your paying for the access right?
if it's unbalanced at the start it will soon correct itself, and some starting teams have always been considered better than others |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 23:37 |
|
| Dalfort wrote: | | but they only did that becuase they couldnt make money out of it fouly, if they had figures to go they would have been in... |
Even a blind chicken finds a kernel of corn every once in a while. Their decision was the right one, even if their reasons were poor. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 23:47 |
|
| PaddyMick wrote: | | plasmoid wrote: |
11 players, 6338 no skill: 550 TV
11 players, 6338 no skill: 660 TV
This cannot be defended either.
|
how come? your paying for the access right?
if it's unbalanced at the start it will soon correct itself, and some starting teams have always been considered better than others |
+1
@fouly their decision was flawed because of its basis. I can accept you think that the teams shouldnt have been included, I like their inclusion because I always loved the Lowdown Ratz fluff (even the Dugout in-fighting rules), Slann were ALL lineman teams in 2ed and Pact was an attempt to justify the Chaos All-Stars mixed race roster, 2ed had rules for mixed race but like most other things in 2ed they were over complicated. Although I loved the wages rules from BB Companion, and Fanz, and Referees on the pitch. |
|
|
cameronhawkins
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 23:47 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: |
As for comparisons; that's what you call balance. |
| PurpleChest wrote: | 6338 GSMP 50k for Pact Marauder
6338 G 50K Human Lineman
This cannot be defended.
|
Sure it can. They're on different rosters. One of those teams can hire rookies with Block, Dodge, and Sure-Hands. Should that count for nothing? Different teams pay different costs for different things. It's always been that way. Players are sometimes priced based on their potential for growth, rather than their initial strengths. I can't see much argument against that.
It's a popular fallacy that players on one roster need to be have their pricing affected by the players on another roster. Such a system is only meaningful if all players were available to all rosters, such that one player's superior abilities would make another similarly-priced player obsolete. (Note that this kind of rostering was somewhat possible in earlier editions.)
Skills, stats, and do not exist in a vacuum; they have to be priced based on the other strengths and weaknesses of the team, in the interest of creating a team that is not too under or overpowered. That's why Stunty teams (we have a whole division that proves this) would get brutally powerful if they had access to General skills, whereas elsewhere, those skills are ubiquitous. It's why players like the Dwarf Runner are even viable–– because MA6 is gold on a Dwarf team, even though it's slow by some standards.
Any one of us could easily create an extremely overpowered team made entirely of existing 'balanced players' (if such a concept has any meaning). What argument could be made against such a team? Only what I have just stated. |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 23:54 |
|
If I recall the roster formulas used, usually skill accesses are free per TV and are balanced by other means if necessary.
This thread smells clawpomb again... |
|
|
|
|
| |
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
