mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
On Ogres I really like the Leeg's Gnoblar roster. If you doubled the number of Ogres I think that would make a suitable 'new age' ogre roster, if that's the direction to go. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 10:30 |
 
|
Yup I doing this exactly. I'm using this roster, but it hasn't had much time to bed in yet. I also give them the opportunity to take Yhetis (snow trolls from the Norse roster) as these are in the OK book.
I removed the trackers as that's not very CRP, and the Gnoblars have 6 2 3 6 stats |
|
|
jamesfarrell129
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 10:52 |
|
I like some of the ideas, don't like others.
My main issue: can we please stop perpetuating the Narrow-Tier stuff please? By all means write house-rules or whatever, but this game is designed to have teams at different tiers, and they do not need to be narrowed.
Carry on!
PS: I definitely agree that big guys need a boost, as they should be top players that every team would want. But I also like the idea of them having Loner, for "team" fluff reasons (they're big... you really going to make them come in for training  ) and also for "player" fluff reasons (they're different races, they're not necessarily going to get along as well; they may not understand how the team plays as well, that kind of thing). |
_________________
NAF name: sandwich |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 11:04 |
|
The negatraits may reflect on their willingness and stupidity. In case of a mino, the ME FIRST, I CHARGE attitude is conveyed through wild animal, even without loner. The sheer stupidity of troll is communicated with erm really stupid without loner. Similarly the bone headness of ogre is represented without loner.
So in my opinion you could remove loners UNLESS there is mechanical reasons to keep it. I see no fluff reasons.
Extra point: As I see it proven fact that big guys are overpriced, I really like the removal of loner, as that lessens the complexity (even if it is little complexity to remember the loner thing). If you can balance a need with removal of any complexity, then it is extremely good design in my book. |
_________________
 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 11:11 |
|
It's mechanical. It replaced 'big guy', which was specifically for.....big guys of course.
The reason that they got neg traits was that in 2nd ed they counted as 2 players, now they only count as one.
It does kind of fit badly that some big guys get loner and some don't. So taking it out tidies that little eyesore up.
However I think removing it affects too many things. Personally I'd prefer to drop their price, give them big guy back and make them ST5s the only POMB capable players (and Khorne if they are introduced fully). An all or nothing type player. Really suits the mino and rogre. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Well (as you can tell from my suggestions) my thought echo bghandras'. All the negative aspects of a Big's personality are already covered by the appropriate negatrait. Removing Loner gives them a bit more playability and flexibility. Currently I feel Bigs need 1 or 2 doubles to even be considered a viable player, except on Stunty teams where they're a necessity. Without Loner Bigs would see more play, and be a better tactical option while still having a tendency to let you down.
ps. I'm not against the PO for Bigs only idea, but in this instance I focused solely on Roster changes rather than Rules ones. Likewise the mutations access would be better as a rules change than making it a double on more people.
If we were changing game rules then I like the old Big Guy rules where they gained experience at half rate and could remove negatraits on a double.
@jamesfarrell: Haha. Well, the NTBB thing was just a common name that I borrowed. It fits quite well when you're looking to balance things between races. I didn't narrow the outliers though. Goblins and Halflings were mostly unchanged. In fact Halflings were completely unchanged and they are the furthest from centre when it comes to narrowing  |
|
|
Brot
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 11:59 |
|
I played a lot with Minotaurs, and Loner is the primary reason they are unreliable. Wild Animal/Bonehead isn't actually that bad, but with Loner you start to fear every 2+ GFI, every 2+ Break Tackle.
Taking away Loner from the Big Guys would make them way too good imho. I see no problem with them currently(except the Khorne Bloodfirster, the best of everything but nothing unique - lazy game design..). They give your team something no other player has, but they are not so good that you HAVE to take them. You have to take into account that Big Guys are generally undervalued, it just 'feels' bad to have your guy stand around picking his nose... |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 12:06 |
|
One suggestion to limit how much better bigs would get is to change the skill descriptions so that their negatraits can't be rerolled. That is the main benefit of removing Loner, for me. And this still leaves them able to use rr for gfi, blocks, BT, etc, without removing any of that standing-around-picking-their-nose-ness.
Just a suggestion, mind. Personally, I like the no Loner thing. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 14:55 |
|
Well the best thing about trolls is that you can put one in the centre, support it with guard and just leave it there. So not rerolling negtraits suits a troll much better than say......a mino (that needs to be active and currently is a worse pick). I'm not saying it isn't a good idea, just that it suits some of the weaker big guys less than the currently stronger pick big guys. |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 15:03 |
|
That's true. But then the static Troll roadblock type needs to rr gfi, block, etc much less often than the blitzing WA types. So no big change for the Troll, and a bit of a buff for the WAs. Sounding better and better... |
_________________
Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 15:13 |
|
I'm for the removal of Loner from Big Guys, for 3 reasons:
1) they are generally overpriced (with the exceptions of the Troll and the Treeman);
2) they don't have regular G access (this makes them unreliable);
3) they have negatraits (Take Root, Really Stupid, Bonehead, Wild Animal);
I think that allowing Big Guys only to PO would be a nice change. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Jun 26, 2015; edited 1 time in total |
|
Throweck
Joined: Feb 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 15:53 |
|
I think this is a great piece of work Josh. Thanks.
I would get rid of loner. I like big guys, and it would mean that I could look at doing actions with them first rather till the end as a 'fingers crossed' type affair. Game changing? possibly, but not much. I think Big Guys should be dominant on the pitch but they are more of a liability most of the time. The negatraits are enough.
I'm with Kam on the flings. |
_________________
FUMBBL Podcast Donate to the FUMBBL Podcast! |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 16:01 |
|
@Harvestmouse:
I understand history, but that alone is not a reason in a hypothetical debate to me. So the only question is whether a change would help to secure the goal in the debate, or not.
Big guys are considered weak today. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 19:10 |
|
That's fine. You asked the question though.
"So in my opinion you could remove loners UNLESS there is mechanical reasons to keep it. I see no fluff reasons."
So I answered you, it was added for a mechanical reason. As I've stated I'd keep it, in fact I'd go back to big guys, where they simply do not get a RR roll at all. The worst thing about that for me, is that 'Big Guy' is a bit counter intuitive. In that when I first read the trait, it sounded like a positive skill, not a neg trait. In return I'd drop the prices back to somewhere near where they were. The biggest problem with that is the affect it may have on TT, where rrs are low anyway. And of course it's a bit of an eyesore have some with, and some without.
Play testing big guys without loner is certainly worth doing though. So it's not something I'd be hugely opposed against doing. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 20:38 |
|
Sorry for misunderstanding. I was not clear. I try to be better on clarity next time. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
data on the most use...
Search
