26 coaches online • Server time: 10:04
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
Poll
Based on the team downgrades options (see pg 2), how far does this team have to go to become balanced?
None! This team is fine as is!
35%
 35%  [ 14 ]
#1 Just dump one of the big guys, then you're golden
7%
 7%  [ 3 ]
#2 Drop ST on all those Tinkers as well
5%
 5%  [ 2 ]
#3 All the gnomes were too strong, ST1 throughout!
7%
 7%  [ 3 ]
#4 ST1 gnomes AND ST2 Constructs is the ticket
7%
 7%  [ 3 ]
#5 Doesn't matter what you do, this team sucks and I hates them
35%
 35%  [ 14 ]
Total Votes : 39


cameronhawkins



Joined: Aug 19, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 21, 2012 - 08:24 Reply with quote Back to top

repost
Sigmar1



Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 24, 2012 - 21:51 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi Cameron, thanks for the critique and suggestions. At this point I've no intention of actually modifying the roster, but these sorts of ideas are helpful for determining final tweaks should this roster ever make the jump to 'official'. To address your points:

Constructs: That's some pretty out-of-the-box thinking. Your suggestion would make them a 5339 Block GP/SM (Constructs cannnot have A skills in my view). Interesting but a tough sell, as even with 'only' MA5 and RS they become very reliable runners. Also, I think you'd have to remove G access from the Mechanics. The non-stunty passing option would be intersting but again, would seem rare as the player would be suited for runner/ blitzer roll. I do like the idea of M access, but didn't give it to them originally as I'm trying to keep them from being too similar to the Vermin.

Bastion: After creating the icon I'm really in favor of SF as an additional skill. Don't care for dropping to MA2 though. I agree RS and Decay make them marginal compared to other bigs, but they fit the fluff. Not opposed to a ST6 Bastion but some people tend to freak out when you go above ST5.

Mechanics: Your suggestion to alter to AV7 and drop cost works for me. I'd be happy with either version. Given a minimum of 6 ST1 Tinkers on the field is a good argument for keeping them slightly buffed as these are the only truly reliable players on the team.

_________________
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
Sigmar1



Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2012 - 19:05 Reply with quote Back to top

Icons update:

Team icons are as complete as they're going to get (see original post). There will be some additional work if things work out (adding Construct side views, adjusting the Tinkers overalls color etc.). The Bastion now has a gripping claw rather than hands, but may still retain the hand version...see below.

So, have been giving the team design a bit of thought, and it seems to me that Fend on all the Gnomes is too good. So I'm considering stripping the Fend from the team and adding Leader to the Mechanics as, not only is it a good fit fluff wise, it offers something unique to the team, and helps with their likely rr burn rate (given RS Loners on their Bastion(s) and Constructs. So here's what I'm thinking roster wise:

0-1 Bastion 3/5/1/10 Loner, Mighty Blow, Stand Firm, TTM, Thick skull, Really Stupid, Decay S/GP 100K.
0-2 Construct Mk X 6/3/2/9 Loner, Block, Thick skull, Really Stupid, Decay S/GP 100K.
0-2 Mechanics 5/2/3/8 Dodge, Leader, Stunty, Right Stuff, Thick skull GA/SP 80K.
0-16 Tinkers 5/1/3/7 Dodge, Stunty, Right Stuff, Thick skull A/GSP 30K.

Tinkers are 10K cheaper as they feel on par with Brownies now (-ma +TS). Mechanics are also 10K cheaper as they feel similar in power to Shamans (they're still 10K more expensive). The question in my mind is that given the above changes, which represent a pretty serious reduction in team effectiveness, should the Bastion position be made 0-2? From a total team strength standpoint, the starting 11 (with one Bastion) sums to only 21, which is quite low compared to most other teams.

Thoughts?

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



Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2012 - 20:31 Reply with quote Back to top

No mutations access for Bastion and Constructs on doubles at least, representing the option to easily add mechanical stuff? I don't think there's any single mutation that couldn't be explained fluff-wise and I don't think it would made them too strong (especially since there are other very good choices if mutations can only be taken on doubles).

Sorry, you probably made a decision on this earlier, but I didn't read the whole thread (or it's been a while). It's just a feature that I would really like on artificial players. Smile

_________________
.
Image
the_cursed_one



Joined: Feb 18, 2010

Post   Posted: Sep 25, 2012 - 07:53 Reply with quote Back to top

Im with rabe on the whole muation front got the bastions and construncts and the Vermin get them on singles, if you wish to include another bastion to make up for the low starting strength stat which i consider a good idea imo it still doesnt quite balance out but maybe swapping block for juggernaught would counter this as str 3 ma 6 they are quite effective blitzers and you can still pick up block on singles

the little ones seem fine to me though
Sigmar1



Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Post   Posted: Sep 30, 2012 - 06:04 Reply with quote Back to top

I had really considered M access for the 'mechanical' players. I decided against it for the following reasons:

1. Fluff: The Artificers are trying to create the perfect BB player (which stat-ups/ skill-ups would represent perfectly), not experiment with crazy 'add-ons' (mutations) to the existing designs.

2. Uniqueness: While I get the whole mutation = mechanical adaptation, it would make them too much like the Vermin. Also, some of the mutations would be pretty damn hard to justify. (Two heads? What right-thinking Gnome would even think of such a bizarre thing? Disturbing Presence? How? Or even more importantly, why would gnomes bother with such an odd adaptation regardless of how you define it?)

I appreciate the thought, but 'mechanical mutations' are best left to other teams.

Any thoughts on the Fend drop/ Leader add?

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



Joined: Nov 14, 2012

Post   Posted: May 16, 2013 - 10:40 Reply with quote Back to top

Construct fluff: What is GI?

There was some arguments about how gnomes can program or what is GI?
I have the following suggestion to explain this. GI is in fact the brains of the old or crippled mechanics who volunteer to be part of the ultimate BB experience. The pain of adapting to a construct is unbeliavably high. That is why they are really stupid.
Note: As they are now only 2 constructs in the team why not give them both G and S access. After all they are designed to be ultimate BB player.

I love this team.
Sigmar1



Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Post   Posted: May 30, 2013 - 23:19 Reply with quote Back to top

Hey ilpars, I hadn't noticed your post. Thanks for the props.

As for the GI suggestion...if I did that everyone would want to start calling them Dreadnoughts! Very Happy I don't think limited 'clockwork' brains is any more out-of-bounds than brain transplants.

There have always only been two Constructs. And if you've read thru the previous discussion on this team most people's complaints (from a game mechanics standpoint) is that the Constructs were too powerful. General skill access on singles would be too much. No, in addition to their starting Block, they should only be able to get S skills on normal rolls.

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



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 13, 2015 - 06:05 Reply with quote Back to top

Some ideas for the team (including a name change):

Gnome Tinkers
0-16 Tinker 5/2/3/7 Thick Skull, Right Stuff, Stunty A/GSP 40K.
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
0-2 Mechanic 5/2/3/7 Sure Hands, Thick Skull, Right Stuff, Stunty A/GSP 60K
Image Image Image Image
0-1 Foreman 4/2/3/8 Fend, Grab, Leader, Thick Skull, Stunty GS/AP 90K.
[Insert Gnome in a Frock Icon here]

0-4 Construct 3/3/3/10 Loner, Thick skull, Really Stupid, Stand Firm, Regeneration, Decay GASPM/E* 100K.
Image Image


The Gnome Tinker is slightly less durable (AV7) than a regular gnome, but is quicker and more dexterous (MA5 + A access).
The Mechanics are exceptionally good with their hands (Sure Hands).
The Foreman are the leaders of the Gnome workforce (Leader), used to both grabbing (Grab) and avoiding (Fend) the attention of their workers.
The Construct is powerful (ST3 + Stand Firm), tough (AV10 + Thick Skull), and modular* (GASPM/E* access), but slow (3MA) and not quite reliable (Decay). This is somewhat made up for by the Gnomes ability to repair them on the sidelines (Regen).

Goals/Rationale: Trying to shore up the "Gnome connection", Remove TTM to start in order to distinguish from the regular Gnome Roster, Include some lesser used skills, Eliminating starting players with Block (too good/controversial), 0-4 Modular* (GASPM/E* access) pseudo-BGs.

*This would allow the Constructs to take Extraordinary skills on a double! (Chainsaws, Bombs, or TTM Oh my! Wink)
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 15, 2015 - 13:45 Reply with quote Back to top

No one looking? or No one liking?

The Constructs are potentially one of the most unique players in all of Stunty. I really would have thought they'd have sparked more discussion. (Heck I figured there'd at least be some people in here flaming me Wink )
Roland



Joined: May 12, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 15, 2015 - 13:52 Reply with quote Back to top

ooh, missed this one
I like the construct idea (I'd take right stuff!)
however, there's already a gnome team...
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 15, 2015 - 14:18 Reply with quote Back to top

I really don't like it, but I'm just not interested in anymore wars. I also don't think it stands much chance, as whatball said he dislikes robots.

I think one Gnome team is enough (with the mechanical theme). I also loathe mechavermin more than anything else in stunty, and here's another!! So another reason I dislike it. On the upside, that's a cool Spacemarine mark V head, so a step closer to the space marine roster.

I like the idea of 'E' as a skill access, not sure if that's possible. It's similar to the old old trait skill thing. I'd like to look further into that though. However in this case, why would a construct take 'e' access skills? He's just going to blockle mb up, and wouldn't risk taking a skill that would have him sent off. 4 blockle mb, ST3, AV10 players on the field......well I wouldn't play against that.

AV 7 gnomes I think are ok too. I translated warhammer gnomes to Blood Bowl as 6 3 3 7 thick skull, stunty, G access. So that's not too far away from the warhammer translated stats.

I think there's room for one mechanical gnome roster in stunty (although this is modern fantasy gnomes, it's not the traditional one). The archetypal gnome has changed in recent years. I really like some of the older concepts, like gnome cavalry riding on giant snails. A wizard sitting on a toadstool smoking a pipe.

Gnomes from warhammer, were the masters of hiding and not being seen. They lived in the mountains, but are generally not as tough as Dwarfs (but still tough) and live in milder climbs. This means they are more often in a conflict area with humans, so they have become the masters of not being seen and are more with one with nature.

So they are the masters of illusion spells, this is their warhammer niche. I'm using a translated roster, and they're doing really well. Replicating illusion spells isn't easy though and it isn't working perfectly.

I've tried 2 methods.

Method 1 copying icons on to the pitch. This worked well at first, with lost blitzes and incorrect marking, however I soon got used to the pitch patterns.

Method 2 2 icons instead of one. This one has an icon in the correct square and another icon in another square that moves with him. Getting the spacing right isn't easy, I need to put more effort into perfecting it.

They're very annoying to play against mind!
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 15, 2015 - 16:06
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:
So they are the masters of illusion spells, this is their warhammer niche. I'm using a translated roster, and they're doing really well. Replicating illusion spells isn't easy though and it isn't working perfectly.


I wasn't aware of Warhammer Gnome fluff, but this sounds very much like D&D Gnomes as opposed to the more recent WoW Gnomes. I prefer the D&D ones. You've also given me an idea for a mass hypno gaze team! Very Happy
Badoek



Joined: May 17, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 15, 2015 - 16:25 Reply with quote Back to top

Perhaps the E access thing should be this team's thing then? Doesn't fit the fluff though.
Some sort of "Good" version of the Cheaters?

_________________
Image
TheSyron



Joined: Jun 17, 2012

Post   Posted: Jan 15, 2015 - 16:45 Reply with quote Back to top

E acces sounds awesome, four mechavermins less so.
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