Alanir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 00:07 |
 
|
I love it. Think of how well it could do with dp on doubles...
*End sarcasm mode*
I still love it. It's completely different, follows fluff, and I'd even be willing to playtest with you dread. |
|
|
G_Force
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 00:07 |
|
i Like it, i really do.
just a couple of things that i thought of (and feel free to ignore me as my stunty experience is minimal)
fluff: my understanding of ghouls and ghosts is that it is poltergheists (spelling) which have a tendancy to move stuff about so maybe switch the names over for the polergheists and the ghosts
FA: I appreciate you initial aim to have the team be a little on the light side rather than be overpowered. i think FA on the ball carriers may unsettle this the balance you had going. I could see it just as easily fitting withthe fluff to give FA to either (or both) of the other types (maybe again unbalancing to protect the BG from blocks in that way). the common wisp standing around prtecting items with it pressence and foul appearance. The carriers being a little smaller and lowr strength i can easily imagine having quite a high cute factor to them even.
Just my 2 Cents |
_________________
D&D
Grudge League
World Cup |
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 00:13 |
|
| G_Force wrote: | i Like it, i really do.
just a couple of things that i thought of (and feel free to ignore me as my stunty experience is minimal)
fluff: my understanding of ghouls and ghosts is that it is poltergheists (spelling) which have a tendancy to move stuff about so maybe switch the names over for the polergheists and the ghosts
FA: I appreciate you initial aim to have the team be a little on the light side rather than be overpowered. i think FA on the ball carriers may unsettle this the balance you had going. I could see it just as easily fitting withthe fluff to give FA to either (or both) of the other types (maybe again unbalancing to protect the BG from blocks in that way). the common wisp standing around prtecting items with it pressence and foul appearance. The carriers being a little smaller and lowr strength i can easily imagine having quite a high cute factor to them even.
Just my 2 Cents |
I'm not sure about the fa, but that's for playtesting mostly. The original "batch" was slightly underpowered, maybe adding fa will overpower them, but being str1 and your only carrier, with stats inferior to goblins (at the same cost) it MAY work out.
Poltergeist or poltergheist is a cosmetic change, I'll delve deeper into the fluff later on, I just did this "loosey goosey", It'll probably be revised (many many times) |
_________________
Death be not proud. Though Some have called thee Mighty and Dreadful Thou art not so. |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 00:38 |
|
Shame on you! Betrayed by the one person I might have counted on: Dreadclaw joins the numberless legions of the Stunty team designers! 
Edit: no need to fill up space with the edited version now it's been reviewed.
On another note: Stunty League seems silly to me (I'd rather run Stunties against real teams, I think) - but that may only be because it's actually a bit intimidating. From the perspective of a relative newcomer to fumbbl, there are more than a dozen completely new team lists in Stunty, and even the familiar ones are modified. Where does one start in Stunty without being overwhelmed by a bewildering array of Halflings-with-chainsaws, mini-Vamps, and Fairies? |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi 
Last edited by pac on %b %14, %2005 - %18:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 17:23 |
|
Thanks for the corrections, I think I put the revised version in without error now.. but I might be wrong  |
_________________
Death be not proud. Though Some have called thee Mighty and Dreadful Thou art not so. |
|
Dooby
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 20:03 |
|
Dreadclaw, put a starting roster together and I will give you some games. I will play an existing team maybe gobbos or flings to see how your team fares. |
|
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2006 - 08:31 |
|
Bump bump bump bump! |
_________________
Death be not proud. Though Some have called thee Mighty and Dreadful Thou art not so. |
|
nexusvalhees
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2006 - 09:43 |
|
I think foul appearance on a 1-12 positional might be a bit much probably be good for the big guys that would easily make them worth the 120k you had origionaly priced them at. |
|
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2006 - 09:53 |
|
| nexusvalhees wrote: | | I think foul appearance on a 1-12 positional might be a bit much probably be good for the big guys that would easily make them worth the 120k you had origionaly priced them at. |
Bringing 10 str1 players on the pitch with fa also means being outbashed. |
_________________
Death be not proud. Though Some have called thee Mighty and Dreadful Thou art not so. |
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2006 - 14:33 |
|
I made a starting roster:
2 Spectres: 4/4/2/8 Mighty Blow, Stunty, Bonehead, No hands) 220k
6x Ghost 240k (Ma 6 str1 ag3 av6 Dodge stunty Foul appearance) Access A
6x Poltergeist 300k (ma5 str2 ag4 Av7 dodge stunty No hands) Access A
760k
4 rerolls (240k)
1m
Anybody got a "better idea" for a starting roster? 14 players 4 rerolls. |
_________________
Death be not proud. Though Some have called thee Mighty and Dreadful Thou art not so. |
|
Crik
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2006 - 15:59 |
|
Really, really, really...Wonderful, Great work! I'd like to see them taking place instead of those broken-eshin-too similar to skink.
| EvolveToAnarchism wrote: |
Unique: This is where I have to truly give you credit. A team with the option to be built heavily upon stunties with no-hands and AG 4 add something truly unique (and it's based on very solid fluff). But the big kudos should go to the idea of a ST4 stunty as a big guy equivalent. And it still makes sense due to the ehtereal background. My only suggestion would be to think about adding Foul Appearance to some of the players. Supernatural players tend to be scary.
Novel Playing Style: High mobility due to AG4 and stunty creates a very mobile team. That's a bit similar to the snotlings, but the no-handed wisps and the funky big guy equivalent should create a team with a distinct playing style. If you added some FA to the mix, you'd have an even more unique feeling team.
Points I'd work on:
Uniqueness: I'd be tempted to add spooky FA to the mix
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
|
Why not giving them FA on all players? And i agree that the big stunty dude is overpriced the way it is. Give him +Str or +AV or S access maybe? Does RR should be at 70K? |
|
|
hunter
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 30, 2006 - 20:08 |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 30, 2006 - 20:21 |
|
ain't read the whole thread, just wanted to note if it hasn't, the timing in the client of the interaction between break tackle and diving tackle iirc, is such thatdiving tackle is somewhat less useful vs break tackle.
Zlefin  |
|
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2006 - 00:12 |
|
The 6 poltergeists should have ball&chain so they have something to polter. |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
 |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 01, 2007 - 02:31 |
|
The team looks like fun, but my first impression is that it seem underpowered. The Spectres are very mobile, but also fragile (with AV 8/Stunty), as are the Phantasms, but they have no hands to use, and are suceptible to the ever-present DT. The Ghosts are weak with ST 1, and if you get your ghosts removed from the pitch, you're toast.
In its current configuration, Stunty is all about bashing, and I can't see the Phantasms keeping up there. Their scoring is also problematic, since they don't get as many opportunities (with all those no-hands). They should be pretty good at defensive plays, though, especially the Spectres (after BT on a double - I think ST access would be quite acceptable, though).
I think they need something more. AG 5 on the Phantasms would make DT less potent against them... maybe something else. This team may need closer playtesting than most.
*Edit* Does anyone know how Multiblock interacts with FA? |
|
|
|
|
TSC Draft
Search
