49 coaches online • Server time: 12:07
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Stunty Mania!!!! NEE...goto Post FUMBBL cup XVII: Pre...goto Post SWL Fantasy League S...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Sigmar1



Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 25, 2014 - 19:31 Reply with quote Back to top

So, the Stunty team vote went ok, but not as much response as I had hoped. So I thought perhaps a more quantitative analysis might help. But how to assess the various team ideas ‘objectively’ (obviously any ranking provided by any one person is going to be subject to a fair amount of bias).

What makes a good team idea and how to rank the various aspects? There are many components obviously, but I’ve chose the following three factors ranked in the order of importance from my perspective. Each category will be judged on a 1-5 scale.

#1 Roster design/ Team balance: Without a balanced roster nothing else really matters. No matter how decent an idea may be, if it can’t be fielded with a least a modicum of balance to the current Stunty environment there’s not much point. 3x points multiplier.

#2 Team cohesion: How well thought out is the team concept, and how well does each players stats and skills fit into the overall team concept? 2x points multiplier.

#3 Stunty universe fluff: To a certain extent every team idea should mesh into the existing stunty-verse. Notice I didn’t say ‘Bloodbowl universe fluff’. Stunty provides the opportunity to stretch margins of the acceptable, and teams shouldn’t be disregarded just because they don’t mesh into WFB or standard Bloodbowl themes. Of course, teams that do will earn more points. As the least important factor, 1x points multiplier.

Observant readers will notice I’m not considering whether any team fits into an existing or missing ‘niche’, or whether teams ‘offer something new’ or ‘have a unique schtick’. Those intangibles are more difficult to quantify and are much more subjective, so I’ve left them out of this analysis.

Arificers Designer: Sigmar1

Roster design: 4 Two ST3 Block positionals may be OP despite min. 6 ST1 linos.
Team cohesion: 5 Rock solid roster concept.
Stunty fluff: 5 Gnomes are an existing stunty race and the difference is well defined.
Total points: 27

Bogeys Designer: WhatBall

Roster design: 4 Wrodge linos with FA at 6spps is concerning.
Team cohesion: 5 Roster is well put together.
Stunty fluff: 3 Entirely new concept to the stunty-verse, but believable.
Total points: 25

Bray Herd Designer: Craftnburn

Roster design: 4 Team may suffer from lack of dodge and G access.
Team cohesion: 5 Rock solid roster concept.
Stunty fluff: 5 Existing BB race with rational ‘stunty’ version.
Total points: 27

Chaos Dregs Designer: Pentalarc

Roster design: 3 Fanatics/ Fiend/ Leader = OP, even with ‘only’ mutating ‘fling linos.
Team cohesion: 5 Each position has a good rationale.
Stunty fluff: 4 Reasonable concept within the stunty-verse.
Total points: 23

Chaos Familiars Designer: Ehlers

Roster design: 2 0MA Take Root ‘See Saws’. Wha?
Team cohesion: 3 Being generous here.
Stunty fluff: 3 Virtually anything ‘Chaos’ has a home in stunty.
Total points: 15

Clan Moulder Designer: SvenS

Roster design: 3 Eight RS/ WA Frenzy; PO Giant rats. Balance is questionable.
Team cohesion: 4 Roster concept is solid, but ‘Throtlings’ seem a little odd.
Stunty fluff: 5 Skaven clan. ‘Nuff said.
Total points: 22

Crypt Creepers Designer: Aenir

Roster design: 3 Over-described/ unexplained positional abilities.
Team cohesion: 2 Roster seems a hodge-podge of ideas.
Stunty fluff: 4 Necromancers controlling things. Ok.
Total points: 17

Daemon Engines Designer: EvolveToAnarchism

Roster design: 1 No actual roster.
Team cohesion: 3 Daemon-possessed machines…but no roster.
Stunty fluff: 4 Concept exists in WFB.
Total points: 11

Dungeon Keeper Designer: EroborerZim

Roster design: 2 Seven players ST3 and above, all with BloodLust.
Team cohesion: 3 Apparently this idea has some explainable background.
Stunty fluff: 1 Completely new idea to stunty.
Total points: 13

Effigies Designer: mister_joshua

Roster design: 4 Roster seems balanced, if perhaps a bit UP.
Team cohesion: 3 Some player skills seem odd.
Stunty fluff: 4 Necromancers creating things. Ok.
Total points: 22

Ethereal Designer: mr-maverick

Roster design: 3 Big guy is way OP.
Team cohesion: 3 No explanation why an uber-vampire is hanging with a bunch of ghosties.
Stunty fluff: 3 Virtually anything ‘Undead’ has a home in stunty.
Total points: 18

Fimir Designer: Ehlers

Roster design: 2 No proposed roster that fits stunty.
Team cohesion: 4 Lots of ideas and most seemed cohesive.
Stunty fluff: 2 New race but within WFB precedence.
Total points: 18

Fukawere Tribe Designer: Stej

Roster design: 1 Yeah, that’s just whacked.
Team cohesion: 3 Reasonably cohesive concept.
Stunty fluff: 3 New race but similar to Pygmies.
Total points: 9

Halfling Carnies Designer: Nelphine

Roster design: 2 Even Bonehead Elves are a stunty nightmare; other positions over described.
Team cohesion: 3 The Elf fluff is lacking.
Stunty fluff: 4 Quasi-Halfling team. ‘Nuff said.
Total points: 16

Halfling Kitchen Crew Designer: Skolopender

Roster design: 3 Team seems UP
Team cohesion: 4 All positions seem reasonable.
Stunty fluff: 5 Team name says it all.
Total points: 22

Hobgnoblars Designer: the_Sage

Roster design: 2 Balance is questionable, some players very over-described.
Team cohesion: 2 Goblin/Gnoblar hybrids with freaks and damaged Big Guys.
Stunty fluff: 3 Hybrid of existing stunty races.
Total points: 13

The Hungry Horde Designer: Ehlers

Roster design: 3 Tough to determine with so many roster options.
Team cohesion: 3 Not sure why the team (may) field animal riders, otherwise ok.
Stunty fluff: 4 Halflings riding animals and Ogres. Ok.
Total points: 19

Khorne’s Blood Curse Designer: Palorrin

Roster design: 3 Serious concern over 5 WA and splatty linos.
Team coagulation: 4 Player descriptions mesh surprisingly well.
Stunty fluff: 3 Virtually anything ‘Chaos’ has a home in stunty.
Total points: 20

Attack of the Killer Mushrooms Designer: Corvidious

Roster design: 3 Lots of ST, and a starting ST3 blackle player.
Team cohesion: 1 Mushroom people. And a Chaos Dwarf.
Stunty fluff: 1 Mushroom people. And a Chaos Dwarf.
Total points: 12

Madcappers Designer: onthejazz

Roster design: 2 Too much B&C. Impossible to balance.
Team cohesion: 2 Mass B&C for the sake of mass B&C.
Stunty fluff: 5 Established Goblin race. ‘Nuff said.
Total points: 15

Middle Earth Designer: Ehlers

Roster design: 2 Way OP.
Team cohesion: 5 The fellowship. ‘Nuff said.
Stunty fluff: 2 Player races cross-over, otherwise...
Total points: 18

Mervolk Designer: ErobererZim

Roster design: 2 Too much ST1 that isn’t balanced.
Team cohesion: 2 Player skills seem scabbed together.
Stunty fluff: 1 Entirely new race.
Total points: 11

Mountain Clans Designer: Crook666

Roster design: 3 Team balance ‘may’ be doable with some work.
Team cohesion: 1 This ‘team’ is all over the place.
Stunty fluff: 2 Mountain ‘flings with monsters. Oookay.
Total points: 13

Naggarothi Fae Designer: Sigmar1

Roster design: 4 Lots of squishy ST1, crazy good ball-carriers, a few decent hitters.
Team cohesion: 4 Various types of fae. Fluffy skill choices.
Stunty fluff: 4 Dark cousins of the Albion Fae.
Total points: 24

Nauticans Designer: Garion

Roster design: 4 Solid linos, single big guy, versatile positional.
Team cohesion: 4 Believable player types/ skills. Ignimbrite is a bit odd.
Stunty fluff: 1 Entirely new race.
Total points: 21

Orc Bullies Designer: xyon

Roster design: 3 Lots of ST and G access is OP.
Team cohesion: 3 Squigs seem out of place.
Stunty fluff: 5 Orc/ Goblin variant.
Total points: 20

Phantasms Designer: DreadClaw

Roster design: 4 Team seems reasonable.
Team cohesion: 3 Different kinds of ‘ghosts’. Player types seem arbitrary.
Stunty fluff: 2 New ‘undead’ race.
Total points: 20

Pleasure Seekers Designer: MisterFurious

Roster design: 3 AV6 DT without dodge is questionable. Daemonettes are over described.
Team cohesion: 3 Daemonette skill choices are odd. Pleasure Seekers are poorly explained.
Stunty fluff: 3 Virtually anything ‘Chaos’ has a home in stunty.
Total points: 18

Red Caps Designer: Nelphine

Roster design: 4 Could work, but four take root players.
Team cohesion: 3 Wizard creations gone rogue…otherwise ok.
Stunty fluff: 1 Entirely new race.
Total points: 19

Tavern Pact Designer: Crook666

Roster design: 3 Low MA AG2 or MA6 ST1 ball handlers seems a weakness.
Team cohesion: 5 Rock solid roster concept.
Stunty fluff: 5 Well defined combo of existing races.
Total points: 24

Troglodytes Designer: uzkulak

Roster design: 1 Entire team of Loners, seven players ST3+, Leader linos.
Team cohesion: 2 Lacking believable cohesion. TTM Cold Ones?
Stunty fluff: 1 Entirely new race.
Total points: 8

Undead Halflings Designer: MisterFurious

Roster design: 2 Two bigs plus ST3 vamp, werewolf, bomber and saw…
Team cohesion: 4 Player descriptions and skill sets seem reasonable.
Stunty fluff: 4 ‘Fling versions of Undead monsters plus a witch. Ok.
Total points: 18

Wizards Designer: Aflo

Roster design: 4 Well balanced team, but Wizards may be too durable.
Team cohesion: 5 Rock solid roster concept.
Stunty fluff: 5 Wizard organization (Guild!) fielding a BB team team.
Total points: 27

Zapped Designer: cowhead

Roster design: 3 Four 3+ leaping ST3+ blitzers. Semi-balanced by ST1 linos.
Team cohesion: 1 Team design is mash of concepts. Mutant frogs, could be anything.
Stunty fluff: 2 Entirely new race based on Zap spell.
Total points: 13

_________________
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 25, 2014 - 20:23 Reply with quote Back to top

Nauticans are not an entirely new race they are the fishmen that live under the great ocean. They have been referred to a number of time in GW products. Just saying Smile

Edit: troglodytes are also an existing race in the GW cannon so they shouldn't have 1 for your fluff score either.

Edit edit: phantasm is also in keeping with existing fluff. There was an ethereal team in 2nd ed bb called frozen phantoms. So their fluff should also be increased.

I think more research was needed before scoring.

_________________
Image
shadow46x2



Joined: Nov 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 02:18
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

I do like how your team got the best rating on the list. Admittedly, so did two other teams.

No self-promotion here at all, right?

--j

_________________
origami wrote:
There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet.

ImageImage
uzkulak



Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 02:46 Reply with quote Back to top

That is an impressive amount of work which went into that post, so thanks for sharing your thoughts - although I cant help thinking you missed the point on a couple of the rosters.

But perhaps a committee of 3-4 experienced players should get together to do this type of scoring exercise. I can see that it is worthwhile to try and prioritise which of the new roster ideas should be seriously considered for including in a future update and the views of some nominated experienced coaches would be very helpful here. But for that purpose those "intangibles" you mention are actually some of the most important considerations. Maybe adding a novelty score and a power score would help.

Im afraid to do this properly it cant be so subjective.
WhatBall



Joined: Aug 21, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 03:30
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

Cool stuff. Will help a lot when it comes time to add some teams. Too caught up in some other stuff on the site right now, but soonish. Smile

_________________
Image
xnoelx



Joined: Jun 05, 2012

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 03:48 Reply with quote Back to top

Evaluating rosters mechanically isn't my forte, but as a long-time Chaos devotee, I'd make the Chaos Familiars fluff score a 5. They are so entrenched in the lore that some of the classic miniatures for them are still available after over 25 years, and they still exist in the current version of the WFB rules.

I'd also drop the Blood Curse fluff score by a point. The concept isn't ludicrous, but it does seem a little tenuous.

_________________
Image Nerf Ball 2014
Azure



Joined: Jan 30, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 06:10 Reply with quote Back to top

When Whatball says he is thinking about adding more teams and cuts it down to maybe 3-5 that are being considered - then probably is time to take a more serious look at them.
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 08:08 Reply with quote Back to top

Sigmar1 wrote:
quantitative


I do na think it means wha' you think it means.
Sigmar1



Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 08:12 Reply with quote Back to top

Craftnburn wrote:
Sigmar1 wrote:
quantitative


I do na think it means wha' you think it means.


HA! I know what it means, and I did my best for a rather subjective subject matter. In the end I suppose it was more qualitative than I was shooting for.

_________________
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 10:07 Reply with quote Back to top

xnoelx wrote:
Evaluating rosters mechanically isn't my forte, but as a long-time Chaos devotee, I'd make the Chaos Familiars fluff score a 5. They are so entrenched in the lore that some of the classic miniatures for them are still available after over 25 years, and they still exist in the current version of the WFB rules.

I'd also drop the Blood Curse fluff score by a point. The concept isn't ludicrous, but it does seem a little tenuous.


+1 familiars have to be a 5 for fluff. I get the feeling your knowledge of he fluff isn't all that good tbh. No offense intended. But if you are using it to score it needs to be accurate really.

Oh and naggaroth fae should be a 1 for fluff. Even the quickest check online would tell you that dark elves don't have fairies in their forest. Naggaroth forests are pretty much dead, and they are inhabited by hydras and that's about it. Naggaroth actually means land of chill nothing much grows or lives there and the dark elves live underground. They actually are an entirely new race you created. Unlike some of the ones you claim are. For nasty fae you should be looking towards wood elves. They have really nasty vicious fairies and Spites in Athel Loren. So that's where your mean fae should come from.

_________________
Image
WhatBall



Joined: Aug 21, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 13:38
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

Garrison is correct on the evil Fae. If there were to be such a roster, it would be From Athel Loren.

Azure makes a good point, I will try and make a short list of four or five teams for the next addition.

_________________
Image
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 26, 2014 - 14:02 Reply with quote Back to top

Good shout. the 5 ideas that have the most potential imo excluding my own Nautican team as I will obviously be bias. Also ignoring the actual suggested rosters because most need work. are Athel Loren teams, Familiars, Fimir, Clan Moulder and Phantoms/Ethereal teams. All of them fit with in the GW cannon, all have potential for stunty players, and all of them could bring something unique to the Leeg, though Clan Moulder is possibly the roster that would be the least individual out of those 5 as we already have 2 skaven teams.

looking at those teams positional possibilities you have -

Athel Loren -(stunty or Titchy) Fairies, (Stunty or Titchy) Spites, Treemen, Dryads

Fimir - Fianna Fimm, Fimm, Lesser Daemons(stunty), and shearl (could be stunty too)

Clan Moulder - Rat Ogre heavy, Slaves (stunty) and pack masters (could be stunty at a push), and Giant Rats/or rat centaurs which you can see on GW site) (also stunty)

Familiars - Familiars (stunty or Titcy), Chaos See saw (from 2nd ed bb), daemons

Ethereal - Ghosts, Banshees, wraiths and Syreens all fit. (could all be stunty i guess, though wraiths i think would be pushing it too far, they would probably have to be normal size)

that's just my 2 cents.

I also think Bray Heard are pretty on the ball but at the same time I am not convinced yet they would bring anything interesting to the leeg.

_________________
Image
Sigmar1



Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 27, 2014 - 08:06 Reply with quote Back to top

Dear god I don't care what GW chose to call them, Spites rather than Sprites is just stupid, and this site isn't constrained by what GW dictates (at least not in Stunty).

And frankly, I don't care if 'Chaos See-Saws' exist in some previous GW source material, its an utterly atrocious concept unless its referring to a crap-load of psychotic preschoolers playing on playground equipment. Unless 'see-saw' means something different to Brits than Americans?

See-saws. CHAOS see-saws. Seriously?

'GW canon' is virtually irrelevant to 'stunty-fluff'. Perhaps there are Fae or Gnomes or Pygmies in some obscure GW product I've never heard of? Otherwise...who cares? And if so...who cares?

The MOST IMPORTANT thing to any new Stunty team is roster balance. I'd take Bogeys over Troglodytes, Fimir or Ethereal/Phantasms any day based on the roster, 'GW canon' be damned.

_________________
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 27, 2014 - 08:41 Reply with quote Back to top

Lol alright.... calm down.

if you don't care about fluff etc why is it something you are scoring with? Personally I think any team must fit in the world GW created otherwise what's the point in any of this. Soon we would start having womble teams etc...

also yes - Albion, Gnomes and Pygmies all feature in GW fluff. for example, did you know that the positional names of the Pygmies are all taken from 3rd ed warhammer Slann troop names. This sort of attention to detail is present in all the existing rosters currently in use and should be in any future rosters too.

And yeah roster balance is important but as I said I would ignore the existing rosters those coaches created. It's just the 5 I mentioned are the concepts that are most interesting imo. I don't think many of the teams you linked to look complete tbh most have big problems.

_________________
Image
Beerox



Joined: Feb 14, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 27, 2014 - 18:05 Reply with quote Back to top

For my buck it is all about playstyles. IMO stunty needs to have more teams who must rely on weird and interesting ways to win.

Show me some weirdness, that's what I want. TTM, hypno gaze, leap, bombardier, disturbing presence, stab, shadowing, mutated stunties... now we're talking.

I'm not really attached to fluff, and highly doubt that most coaches are. Chaos Flings and Squigs are not running rampant due to fluff...
The functionality of the roster is what makes a team fun and playable. You've got frontrunners and you've got underdogs, just like standard rosters. But stunty has the option of encouraging new playstyles. Why not?
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