47 coaches online • Server time: 11:19
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 14:34 Reply with quote Back to top

It seems people that want positionals on fling teams are the coaches that don't use them. Most of hard core fling coaches I have spoken with about this really don't want fling positionals.

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 14:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Maybe adding positionals would encourage some people not playing Halfling to play them and if the hardcore Halfling coaches don't like the positionals, they are not forced to use them.
I would play them more if they had some variety, they are a boring roster, no variety, I really don't understand what's wrong with adding some positionals to a tier 3 roster, it would not break the game.
On top of that, they suck, so 2 drawbacks.
ArthurWynne



Joined: Sep 23, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 14:48 Reply with quote Back to top

If you think Flings should have positionals you have 100% missed the point of why they are the way they are.

You might make them cheaper somehow, you might give them a rostered chef, you might buff Sneaky Git or something else that gives them an incidental leg up. (And I don't play flings so I don't know which, if any of those would be good changes.) But giving Flings positionals is absolutely the wrong approach. It would ruin the joke.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 14:52 Reply with quote Back to top

So, Goblins with positionals don't ruin the joke, while Halflings with positionals ruin the joke.
Sounds flawlessly logical.
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 14:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Their simplicity is their beauty, I don't see boring, I see a clean elegant challenging roster.

Also adding a positional is very tricky, as most would be ignored. As they would add bloat to a team that doesn't want it. We don't want more pointless additions to the game like the goblin ooligan.

A certain type of person wants to play with flings. I very much doubt adding a positional would see you take up the challenge as the core will always be slow and squishy.

TL/DR - don't clutter up a beautiful roster for the sake of change. Make a new roster rather than spoil a favourite of many.

_________________
Image
ArthurWynne



Joined: Sep 23, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 15:02 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka, the joke isn't "Stunties are bad". Halfings and Goblins are different rosters.

The joke with Goblins is that they cheat outrageously and try all sorts of zany things to even the odds.

The joke with Halflings is that they earnestly give it their best effort... they're just really unsuited to play Blood Bowl.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 15:09 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
Their simplicity is their beauty, I don't see boring, I see a clean elegant challenging roster.

I see a really boring roster lacking variety. Also, adding positionals would not make the roster suddenly OP and no more challenging. Just less boring and more playable.
Garion wrote:
Also adding a positional is very tricky, as most would be ignored. As they would add bloat to a team that doesn't want it. We don't want more pointless additions to the game like the goblin ooligan.

The Goblin ooligan is pointless, but a MA 6 runner/catcher multirole Halfling with AG 4 would not be ignored. Easier 1TTD is not a thing to ignore.
Just an example to show that positionals can be useless or useful.
Garion wrote:
A certain type of person wants to play with flings. I very much doubt adding a positional would see you take up the challenge as the core will always be slow and squishy.

True, but for sure it's better to have 2-3 faster and/or more agile/skilled players amongst a core of sucker players than playing only with sucker players.
This is plain logic, simple to understand for everybody. Coaches not liking the roster "tainted" by positionals can just play with the 0-16 sucker Halflings.
ArthurWynne wrote:
MattDakka, the joke isn't "Stunties are bad". Halfings and Goblins are different rosters.

The joke with Goblins is that they cheat outrageously and try all sorts of zany things to even the odds.

The joke with Halflings is that they earnestly give it their best effort... they're just really unsuited to play Blood Bowl.

So adding a runner/catcher positional suddenly would turn the Halflings into a super pro Blood Bowl team?
Really?


Last edited by MattDakka on Aug 05, 2018 - 15:44; edited 1 time in total
ArthurWynne



Joined: Sep 23, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 15:19 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:

So adding a runner/catcher positional suddenly would turn the Halflings into a super pro Blood Bowl team?
Really?


Of course not, just like giving Khemri an AG 3 Runner wouldn't suddenly turn them into an elf team either.

But it would ruin their "all AG 2" schtick and pointlessly clutter their design.

In the same way, Halflings are functionally an all-lineman team. That's part of the identity of the roster. If you change that, they're not really Halflings anymore -they become a "real" team that just happens to be bad.
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 15:22 Reply with quote Back to top

Adding an ag4 starting positional would drastically alter the team dynamic. Instead of trying to elevate a fling to legendary status you would have 2 Or 4 players that would be ready made stars. This would spoil their innate charm and challenge.

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 15:32 Reply with quote Back to top

ArthurWynne wrote:

Of course not, just like giving Khemri an AG 3 Runner wouldn't suddenly turn them into an elf team either.

Khemri has positionals though, and a degree of variety (Tomb Guardians, Blitzers, Throwers, Linemen).
Halflings only 2 kinds of players.
ArthurWynne wrote:
In the same way, Halflings are functionally an all-lineman team. That's part of the identity of the roster. If you change that, they're not really Halflings anymore -they become a "real" team that just happens to be bad.

Goblins in 3rd edition had only 0-2 Trolls and 0-16 Linemen, then they got changed and now they have positionals (not regular positionals, I know, but still no-linemen players).
I don't think they lost identity (they improved their flavour in my opinion) or they are a "real" team now just because they don't have only Trolls and Linemen. Personally I like Goblins more now than when the roster was 0-2 0-16.
Garion wrote:
Adding an ag4 starting positional would drastically alter the team dynamic. Instead of trying to elevate a fling to legendary status you would have 2 Or 4 players that would be ready made stars. This would spoil their innate charm and challenge.

AG 4 MA 6 was an example, how much is good the positional can be modified (for example MA 6 AG 3 with Sprint instead of MA 6 AG 4). The point is having some degree of variety, without making the team too strong.
Even a simple MA 6 Sure Hands Halfling would be good, considering his team mates suck.
Maybe I have been misunderstood, I wasn't suggesting to give Gutter Runners to Halflings, just some positionals to make them a bit better and to have some variety in the roster.


Last edited by MattDakka on Aug 06, 2018 - 14:02; edited 1 time in total
Christy



Joined: Jul 19, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 17:04 Reply with quote Back to top

I would be against any serious positionals for Halflings. It defeats the point. However Goblin positionals are not serious positions either really. Just more chaos.

I don't think anyone good at the sport aside from Treemen can be added to a Halfling roster but you could easily have more varied linemen as it were to reinforce the character of the team.

For instance Halfling veteran "He's seen it all and been beaten up by every race in the business, many Halfling teams rely on their experience and more importantly they tell a good story during the post match feast.

30k - 5-2-3-6- Pro, Niggling Injury (feel free to vary Pro but I like the idea of a Halfling veteran starting with an injury). Not really a position, just someone who reinforces the idea that halflings get beat up a lot. I am sure better things can be done on the theme.

Edit: 3 Ag not 4.
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 20:14 Reply with quote Back to top

I really don't think flings need help.

Flings and goblins are, historically, in the game so you can play vs the new guy in your league, or vs a new coach, and not crush him 7-0 with elves or whatever. They were there to temper the skills of an already experience coach, and the "balance" of the team is actually negative.

Now you can make an argument that the game has changed since those old days, and that some changes are due, but exactly what those changes are is pretty unclear. That said, I think that (a) rostered chefs and bribes are not necessary, and are a hangover idea from older editions where people could roster the chef; and (b) referencing tournament rules is disengenuous, as while everyone might get 6N+1D or w/e the skillset is, tier 3 races are allowed some extra stuff not just because they are worse, but because their skill access sucks so badly that simply giving them the same deal as everyone else would just widen the gap; that to me isn't an argument for changing the rules here at all, it's a different environment where the matches are much more controlled.

_________________
Image
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 05, 2018 - 22:40 Reply with quote Back to top

ArrestedDevelopment wrote:
. That said, I think that (a) rostered chefs and bribes are not necessary, and are a hangover idea from older editions where people could roster the chef


Couldn't disagree with you any more here regarding chefs. Bribes I agree with you. Though this is mainly because secret weapon rolls should never have been removed from the game. They were infinatly more fun. So with SW rolls back rostered bribes aren't needed.

Chef however is part of flings make up. A 1 off purchase of 200k that adds to your tv would save all the silly tv gaming you need to do with flings to get the chef in play.

I also think at 200k the roll should be 3+. It used to be 20k per 2+ roll back in the day and they still sucked then. 3+ just means it's not such a crap shoot as it is now, and it's accounted for in the tv.

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 06, 2018 - 14:43 Reply with quote Back to top

What about 150k rostered Chef stealing rrs 3+?
Price would be more accurate: on average 2 rrs on 3 are stolen, assuming the most expensive rrs (70k) are stolen, that means: 140k, and 140k is closer to 150k Chef price than 200k Chef price.
200k seems too high to me.
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 06, 2018 - 18:34 Reply with quote Back to top

I've play tested this pretty extensively in my rules. The chef not only gives you a rr but takes an opponents. So if we assume you are getting 2 a half that works out as 120k for you and taking at minimum 100k off your opponent.

_________________
Image
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