84 coaches online • Server time: 22:21
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Is kicking first wit...goto Post Black Box Rehabgoto Post UW Goblins - Disturb...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: May 31, 2016 - 14:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Actually thinking about it. Stunty teams used to have catchers and no throwers.......so yeah.......I don't think I'd listen to the 'can't have catchers without throwers' argument. To be honest this is the first time I've heard of it. Maybe you got some stick with trying to stick them on halflings?
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: May 31, 2016 - 14:56 Reply with quote Back to top

"0-2 Runners 7 3 3 7 Block, Sure hands P/G
0-2 Catchers 6 3 3 7 Block, Catch A/G"

The Runners are fast but have no regular A access while the Catchers are slow but have AG access.
Catchers should be the fastest players of the team or at least as fast as the Runners.
They don't make much sense in my opinion, especially for Norse, they don't seem to be a team generally interested in passing the ball, they are a running team clearly.
0-2 Runners 7 3 3 7 with Block and access to G,A,P would be better
This way Thrower (P access), Catcher (A access), Runner (MA 7) are merged into one player but with greater efficiency.
To make up for the greater efficiency they don't start with Sure Hands, to slow down a bit their skill progression.
If A access is too strong it could be removed, in this case then I'd add Sure Hands.

Long story short:
No Catchers,

0-2 Runners with Block and access to A,G,P

or

0-2 Runners with Block, Sure Hands and access to G,P

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!
Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: May 31, 2016 - 19:18 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:
Actually thinking about it. Stunty teams used to have catchers and no throwers.......so yeah.......I don't think I'd listen to the 'can't have catchers without throwers' argument. To be honest this is the first time I've heard of it. Maybe you got some stick with trying to stick them on halflings?



Slann have Catchers without Throwers or even anybody that can get P skills without a Double. So that rule is kinda useless.

I think you have some good solutions to the Norse roster issues.
I have often thought the way to "fix" them would be to give the Throwers A skill access along with G and P access.

OR to keep the Throwers the same... bring back some type of Catchers and keep the Runners. The RUNNERS and Catchers would each get A and G skill access.

If Norse just had a little more Agility Access (4 players instead of 2 or NONE) to go along with their bare modicum of Strength Access (5 players)... they could be much more competitive. Also more varied and less cookie cutter.

2 Throwers
2 Catchers
2 Runners
2 Berserkers
2 Ulfwhatyamacallits
1 Yeti
0-16 Linemen

And I don't want to hear the too many positionals argument. Why does that make any sense anyway? Why is that even worthy of consideration? Because GW said so? But then they prove they don't know anything about this game time and time again. So their "roster rules" are probably just as CRP as many other ideas they cling to and come up with.

Sure there is more variety here than any other team (except Pact if seen a certain way)... but Orcs get just as many positionals IF they want them (4 BOB + 4 Blitzers + 4 Goblins + 2 Throwers + 1 Troll).
Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: May 31, 2016 - 19:20 Reply with quote Back to top

But aren't they a running team because there is nobody fast to Pass to with the Catch skill? I think so.

But I like you suggestion of making BOTH ma7.
and I could get behind combining the Thrower, Catcher and Runner into 4 players of the same Position.

And since Marauders and Slann Blitzers and Elf Throwers of all types have violated the previous "GW rules" on skill access to 3 groups... why not Norse.


MattDakka wrote:
"0-2 Runners 7 3 3 7 Block, Sure hands P/G
0-2 Catchers 6 3 3 7 Block, Catch A/G"

The Runners are fast but have no regular A access while the Catchers are slow but have AG access.
Catchers should be the fastest players of the team or at least as fast as the Runners.
They don't make much sense in my opinion, especially for Norse, they don't seem to be a team generally interested in passing the ball, they are a running team clearly.
0-2 Runners 7 3 3 7 with Block and access to G,A,P would be better
This way Thrower (P access), Catcher (A access), Runner (MA 7) are merged into one player but with greater efficiency.
To make up for the greater efficiency they don't start with Sure Hands, to slow down a bit their skill progression.
If A access is too strong it could be removed, in this case then I'd add Sure Hands.

Long story short:
No Catchers,

0-2 Runners with Block and access to A,G,P

or

0-2 Runners with Block, Sure Hands and access to G,P
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 01:09 Reply with quote Back to top

Ok, well the thing about Norse and Zons are those less than spectacular stats. I'm happy for the Norse Catcher to have MA7, but we're moving more away from that cookie cutter grind............which isn't a terrible thing I guess.

A access on a Runner for me is a definite no. It's a newish positional that's struggling for an identity. We need to give it a definitive one.

For me that is:

*In place of a thrower on teams that can't produce throwers, or wish to.
*Reduces armour to a bear minimum for maximum speed.
*Has throwing potential, thus has Pass access.
*Is exceptionally good at ball retrieval (sure hands)

With Norse, they wear literally no armour anyway. So you can't reduce the armour on them.

Lastly, Norse need at least a pair of A access players. Not so much at low TV, but at higher/mid TV they're very important.

Great point about the Slann catcher Catalyst!
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 01:13 Reply with quote Back to top

Catalyst32 wrote:
harvestmouse wrote:
Actually thinking about it. Stunty teams used to have catchers and no throwers.......so yeah.......I don't think I'd listen to the 'can't have catchers without throwers' argument. To be honest this is the first time I've heard of it. Maybe you got some stick with trying to stick them on halflings?



Slann have Catchers without Throwers or even anybody that can get P skills without a Double. So that rule is kinda useless.

I think you have some good solutions to the Norse roster issues.
I have often thought the way to "fix" them would be to give the Throwers A skill access along with G and P access.

OR to keep the Throwers the same... bring back some type of Catchers and keep the Runners. The RUNNERS and Catchers would each get A and G skill access.

If Norse just had a little more Agility Access (4 players instead of 2 or NONE) to go along with their bare modicum of Strength Access (5 players)... they could be much more competitive. Also more varied and less cookie cutter.

2 Throwers
2 Catchers
2 Runners
2 Berserkers
2 Ulfwhatyamacallits
1 Yeti
0-16 Linemen

And I don't want to hear the too many positionals argument. Why does that make any sense anyway? Why is that even worthy of consideration? Because GW said so? But then they prove they don't know anything about this game time and time again. So their "roster rules" are probably just as CRP as many other ideas they cling to and come up with.

Sure there is more variety here than any other team (except Pact if seen a certain way)... but Orcs get just as many positionals IF they want them (4 BOB + 4 Blitzers + 4 Goblins + 2 Throwers + 1 Troll).


Why am I playing Norse with so much AG access when I could play zons for the only AG skill that really matters? Barring the Yeti, I'd be surprised if a revamped 1500 TV Norse team looks much different than a 1500 CRP Zon team.
mdd31



Joined: Oct 23, 2014

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 01:34 Reply with quote Back to top

ArthurWynne wrote:
Note: This is not any kind of proposal. Repeat, this is not any kind of proposal! I know that Christer will never change the rules and the chances of GW doing so are slim -the chances of them listening to me when doing so are nil. This is solely for my own use in my local tabletop league -and hopefully a learning exercise in roster design.

But, with that out of the way I don't think many people here will disagree that the LRB 6 Norse team is a mess. The idea of a very aggressive bash team, that can move the ball better than most bash teams but can't take the same kind of abuse they dish out, was a good one I thought, but the implementation is poor - AV 7 is too fragile and Block spam is a poor way to distinguish a team, since it's a skill that every team wants anyway, leaving them without a leg to stand on at higher TV. It's not even unique to Norse at rookie level -Dwarves do it better and even Chaos Dwarves get in on the action.

I do, however, like the idea of Norse as a spammy team -and I like the playstyle of Cyanide's Frenzy-spamming Khorne team, whose biggest sin in my opinion was the poor fit between fluff and mechanics -that roster simply didn't say "Khorne".

So I basically combined them.

Reworked Norse:

0-16 Linemen 6 3 3 7 Frenzy, Thick Skull G | SAP 50 000
0-2 Thrower 6 3 3 7 Pass, Strong Arm, Thick Skull GP | AS 70 000
0-4 Berserker 6 3 3 7 Jump Up, Block, Thick Skull GS | AP 80 000
0-2 Ulfserker 7 3 3 7 Frenzy, Thick Skull, Juggernaut GA | SP 100 000
0-1 Yhetee 5 5 1 8 Loner, Frenzy, Claw, Disturbing Presence, Wild Animal S | GAP 140 000

Apothecary: Yes
Rerolls: 60 000

Fluff-wise, the idea is that the Norse are strong and burly fellows, who disdain armor -hence they all have AV 7, but have Thick Skull. That means they're equivalent to AV 8 in terms of removals, but will take more stuns.

The linemen are undercosted in terms of Galak's formula, but I believe their cost is fair in the context of the team -if Pit Fighters aren't worth 60k, these guys definitely aren't.

The thrower gets Strong Arm instead of Sure Hands, reinforcing the "strong and burly" theme and creating a fairly unique thrower - I like Norse having a passing option and have wished that the Norse thrower were a bit more attractive. It should be so with the ability to launch Short Passes where other AG 3 throwers must make do with Quick Passes -and doubly so on this roster since he doesn't have Frenzy.

Berserkers are the "money" players on the team -they start with Block instead of Frenzy and are 0-4 instead of 0-2, this is to give back some of the reliability and hitting power I've taken away and ensure the team isn't too weak at rookie level.

Ulfserkers replace ulfwerners, but are more like the maligned Runners in terms of role - I never liked that the Necromantic Werewolves are fast blitzing types while the Norse Werewolves are ST 4 AG 2 Blockers, so these are not real werewolves, but humans in wolf pelts emulating werewolves -hence they have the same GA access, high speed (but not MV 8 since they're just human) and Frenzy. They can be built as catchers, blodging ball carriers or surfers depending on the team and coach.

The Yhetee is unchanged - he is a nice big guy.

I've tried to stick closely to the formula, but following it to the letter made the team too expensive - so correct pricing is the number one thing I would like feedback on.

Following from that, what starting rosters would you use? I've listed a few below, but have I missed any viable variations? Are any of them the no-brainer best choice, or are any players wrongly costed in your opinion? Is the team as a whole simply too strong or too weak?

Starting Roster 1
4 Berserkers 320
1 Ulfserker 100
2 Throwers 140
4 Linemen 200
4 Rerolls 240
Total 1000
Variant: Replace the Ulfserker with a Lineman and an apothecary

Starting Roster 2
4 Berserkers 320
6 Linemen 300
1 Yhetee 140
4 Rerolls 240
Total: 1000
Variant: replace a reroll with an apothecary.

Starting Roster 3
4 Berserkers 320
1 Thrower 70
6 Linemen 300
1 Apothecary 50
4 Rerolls 240
Total: 980

Variant: replace a Berserker with an Ulfserker to hit 1000 even.


Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for your advice!


Personally I commend you for trying contribute to the community in a positive way but as you can see, posting to the forums is always a BAD idea because you will only be met with negativity and hatred.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 02:03 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:

Lastly, Norse need at least a pair of A access players. Not so much at low TV, but at higher/mid TV they're very important.

Amazons have Catchers with access to A but they are not taken because they have MA 6.
A access is good, but it must be on a MA 7 player.
There is a great difference between MA 6 and 7.
MA 7 means being able to score in 2 turns without GFIs.

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 04:00 Reply with quote Back to top

Regarding the A access Norse players. I think you're both wrong. Norse are all about the impact. You need to make an impression early. Blodge ss dt catchers were immensely helpful to my game at higher tr.
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 04:28 Reply with quote Back to top

I'm playing every team like Norse then.
Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 04:53 Reply with quote Back to top

mrt1212 wrote:
Catalyst32 wrote:
harvestmouse wrote:
Actually thinking about it. Stunty teams used to have catchers and no throwers.......so yeah.......I don't think I'd listen to the 'can't have catchers without throwers' argument. To be honest this is the first time I've heard of it. Maybe you got some stick with trying to stick them on halflings?



Slann have Catchers without Throwers or even anybody that can get P skills without a Double. So that rule is kinda useless.

I think you have some good solutions to the Norse roster issues.
I have often thought the way to "fix" them would be to give the Throwers A skill access along with G and P access.

OR to keep the Throwers the same... bring back some type of Catchers and keep the Runners. The RUNNERS and Catchers would each get A and G skill access.

If Norse just had a little more Agility Access (4 players instead of 2 or NONE) to go along with their bare modicum of Strength Access (5 players)... they could be much more competitive. Also more varied and less cookie cutter.

2 Throwers
2 Catchers
2 Runners
2 Berserkers
2 Ulfwhatyamacallits
1 Yeti
0-16 Linemen

And I don't want to hear the too many positionals argument. Why does that make any sense anyway? Why is that even worthy of consideration? Because GW said so? But then they prove they don't know anything about this game time and time again. So their "roster rules" are probably just as CRP as many other ideas they cling to and come up with.

Sure there is more variety here than any other team (except Pact if seen a certain way)... but Orcs get just as many positionals IF they want them (4 BOB + 4 Blitzers + 4 Goblins + 2 Throwers + 1 Troll).


Why am I playing Norse with so much AG access when I could play zons for the only AG skill that really matters? Barring the Yeti, I'd be surprised if a revamped 1500 TV Norse team looks much different than a 1500 CRP Zon team.


Why ask me why you do what you do? That is a question for yourself. But I get it... that is the kind of question someone asks when they want to crap on an idea.

A Norse team with 4 AG access players is HARDLY a Zon team with the changes being bandied about. You may as well ask why 4 Elf teams? Why Slann... they are just av8 Skaven with Leap instead of Dodge? Why Nurgle... it's just Chaos with AIDS... or Orcs all over again? Why Goblins AND Halflings? Why so many different kinds of Big Guy... they are all just ST5 Loners with negatraits?

Why indeed? Why have all the slight variations on current teams in Secret League? They are all just the same as some other team if you skill them all the same way rather than seeing a way to make each of them unique. Blah, blah, meh, meh, meh, blah, blay, bleh, BURP.
Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 04:56 Reply with quote Back to top

mdd31 wrote:
ArthurWynne wrote:
Note: This is not any kind of proposal. Repeat, this is not any kind of proposal! I know that Christer will never change the rules and the chances of GW doing so are slim -the chances of them listening to me when doing so are nil. This is solely for my own use in my local tabletop league -and hopefully a learning exercise in roster design.

But, with that out of the way I don't think many people here will disagree that the LRB 6 Norse team is a mess. The idea of a very aggressive bash team, that can move the ball better than most bash teams but can't take the same kind of abuse they dish out, was a good one I thought, but the implementation is poor - AV 7 is too fragile and Block spam is a poor way to distinguish a team, since it's a skill that every team wants anyway, leaving them without a leg to stand on at higher TV. It's not even unique to Norse at rookie level -Dwarves do it better and even Chaos Dwarves get in on the action.

I do, however, like the idea of Norse as a spammy team -and I like the playstyle of Cyanide's Frenzy-spamming Khorne team, whose biggest sin in my opinion was the poor fit between fluff and mechanics -that roster simply didn't say "Khorne".

So I basically combined them.

Reworked Norse:

0-16 Linemen 6 3 3 7 Frenzy, Thick Skull G | SAP 50 000
0-2 Thrower 6 3 3 7 Pass, Strong Arm, Thick Skull GP | AS 70 000
0-4 Berserker 6 3 3 7 Jump Up, Block, Thick Skull GS | AP 80 000
0-2 Ulfserker 7 3 3 7 Frenzy, Thick Skull, Juggernaut GA | SP 100 000
0-1 Yhetee 5 5 1 8 Loner, Frenzy, Claw, Disturbing Presence, Wild Animal S | GAP 140 000

Apothecary: Yes
Rerolls: 60 000

Fluff-wise, the idea is that the Norse are strong and burly fellows, who disdain armor -hence they all have AV 7, but have Thick Skull. That means they're equivalent to AV 8 in terms of removals, but will take more stuns.

The linemen are undercosted in terms of Galak's formula, but I believe their cost is fair in the context of the team -if Pit Fighters aren't worth 60k, these guys definitely aren't.

The thrower gets Strong Arm instead of Sure Hands, reinforcing the "strong and burly" theme and creating a fairly unique thrower - I like Norse having a passing option and have wished that the Norse thrower were a bit more attractive. It should be so with the ability to launch Short Passes where other AG 3 throwers must make do with Quick Passes -and doubly so on this roster since he doesn't have Frenzy.

Berserkers are the "money" players on the team -they start with Block instead of Frenzy and are 0-4 instead of 0-2, this is to give back some of the reliability and hitting power I've taken away and ensure the team isn't too weak at rookie level.

Ulfserkers replace ulfwerners, but are more like the maligned Runners in terms of role - I never liked that the Necromantic Werewolves are fast blitzing types while the Norse Werewolves are ST 4 AG 2 Blockers, so these are not real werewolves, but humans in wolf pelts emulating werewolves -hence they have the same GA access, high speed (but not MV 8 since they're just human) and Frenzy. They can be built as catchers, blodging ball carriers or surfers depending on the team and coach.

The Yhetee is unchanged - he is a nice big guy.

I've tried to stick closely to the formula, but following it to the letter made the team too expensive - so correct pricing is the number one thing I would like feedback on.

Following from that, what starting rosters would you use? I've listed a few below, but have I missed any viable variations? Are any of them the no-brainer best choice, or are any players wrongly costed in your opinion? Is the team as a whole simply too strong or too weak?

Starting Roster 1
4 Berserkers 320
1 Ulfserker 100
2 Throwers 140
4 Linemen 200
4 Rerolls 240
Total 1000
Variant: Replace the Ulfserker with a Lineman and an apothecary

Starting Roster 2
4 Berserkers 320
6 Linemen 300
1 Yhetee 140
4 Rerolls 240
Total: 1000
Variant: replace a reroll with an apothecary.

Starting Roster 3
4 Berserkers 320
1 Thrower 70
6 Linemen 300
1 Apothecary 50
4 Rerolls 240
Total: 980

Variant: replace a Berserker with an Ulfserker to hit 1000 even.


Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for your advice!


Personally I commend you for trying contribute to the community in a positive way but as you can see, posting to the forums is always a BAD idea because you will only be met with negativity and hatred.


That is what you get when you post stupid crap. Yes. But then you also LEARN why your idea was so stupid in the 1st place. And if any of it had merits someone would also mention that... in fact that has happened in this very thread. Rolling Eyes

And nobody HATES anybody for posting ignorant ideas. Criticism is not hatred. What kind of childs mind would think that way? The criticism should EDUCATE him as to why the idea is crap and it has done so IF he is adult enough to accept it. And if he is not posting a bad idea he should defend his great idea to enlighten the claudes and neanderthals among us that threw our poo at his glorious idea he came up with after playing 68 games of Blood Bowl.
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 05:10 Reply with quote Back to top

It's like you're mad I caught you masturbating in public. I'll show myself out.
fidius



Joined: Jun 17, 2011

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 07:48 Reply with quote Back to top

mrt1212 wrote:
It's like you're mad I caught you masturbating in public. I'll show myself out.


That word is a conversation-ender in pretty much any context. Laughing

The main reason Norse have trouble competing at high-TV is their AV7, and AV7 is only a problem in a MB-spam environment (aka high-TV Blood Bowl). At the same time clearly Norse can be twinked at low-TV because Linemen are undercosted and Block is so good.

I think Norse should play like a band of poorly-equipped but aggressive raving drunkards -- hard-hitting, out of control, and feeling no pain. In game terms these elements are represented by Block (offense), Frenzy, and Block (defense). The first two are good representations but the latter doesn't cut it imo. I like the idea of "Hardiness" (numb to cold, numb to reality) for Norse, and the only skill currently in the game that goes there is Thick Skull, which is sub-par (especially because it still stuns, and I imagine Norse wouldn't stun easily). The other option is AV8, which is where GW went with Marauders -- thinking, I guess, Chaos armour? Not sure really.

In "pet rules" terms I'd like to see a Norse team with offensive Block only, same Frenzy as now, and a "Hardy" skill that reduces stuns and cancels the MB modifier on injury rolls. Also I think Linemen could stand to gain S access for fluff reasons, although in that case the kill skills in S would have to be dumbed down.

Finally the names do need to be changed to Berserkr, Runnr, etc. If Khemri can have a total joke naming convention then Norse can, too.
ArthurWynne



Joined: Sep 23, 2015

Post   Posted: Jun 01, 2016 - 13:40 Reply with quote Back to top

Catalyst32 wrote:
And if he is not posting a bad idea he should defend his great idea to enlighten the claudes and neanderthals among us that threw our poo at his glorious idea he came up with after playing 68 games of Blood Bowl.


Dude. This is totally uncalled for. I didn't come here to ram my "glorious idea" down everyone's throats, I came here spesifically because there are people here who know far more than me about Blood Bowl, whose advice I wanted.

The reason I haven't participated in the discussion after it started is that there didn't seem to be much to say - everyone agreed that my idea was terrible from first principles and started talking about other ways to improve the team.

You, Catalyst, took the time to explain why the idea was bad and the proposed team is far too weak, so thanks for that.

But I would rather try to improve this variant of the team than work from the premise that Norse are supposed to be a Block spam team, because I find that to be a completely uninteresting mechanical identity for a team to have. (It works for Dwarves because they have a lot more going on that makes them what they are.)

To be clear, this is not really a proposal for making Norse perform better. (Although that wouldn't go amiss at high TV). It is a proposal for making them play differently, in a fashion that I consider to be more interesting. Again, this is purely for my own purposes and not anything that any of you will ever have to use or play against. Consider it a theoretical exercise, if you care to.

A serious flaw of my roster, as I understand it, is that it has far too little Strength access now. If the Linemen and Throwers had Strength access, would that help? And if the Berserkers were only 70k?
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