mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| Roland wrote: | | However, wouldn't score-as-fast-as-possible halfling play just end in a 1-2 grind loss? |
If they could score reasonably reliably in 1 turn then you couldn't count on a 2-1 grind though. You score turn 8 -> they score turn 8. Obviously not every time, but more often than you'd like to bet against. A similar quick score at the start of the second an you're 2-1 down and needing to stall til turn 8 to get the draw. 
I think the problem with OTTDs, like CPOMb, is the helplessness of your opponent. If there's literally nothing you could do about a situation and it happens often enough then you'll become frustrated. TTM scores get away with this stigma because they're cool and unreliable, but OTTD specialists and CPOMb don't. If you make the halfling TTM too reliable then there will be frustrated opponents. They still wouldn't be a 'good' team as they're too easily taken apart. |
Last edited by mister__joshua on %b %25, %2015 - %15:%Jun; edited 1 time in total |
|
ilpars
Joined: Nov 14, 2012
|
 Posted:
Jun 25, 2015 - 15:45 |
 
|
| Quote: | | AG4 out of the box mean every team will have AG5 players (just like most fling teams have AG4 players now, after a few games). And with 3 other AG4 to catch the ball, you will end up playing absurd games where you one/two-turn as soon as you have the ball since that would be safest option. Games would be determined by whoever snakes a pick up or landing roll (snake the landing, and lose the game; or steal a touchdown after a TTM if your opponent snake the pick up). |
Kam; I think Halfling Catchers not having Right Stuff, will avoid that problem. |
|
|
Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2015 - 16:21 |
|
Yup that would, unlike Plasmoid's suggestion. But then you would have to ask yourself: would they make the game more enjoyable? I don't think so. The main frustration with flings (once you have accepted they suck and die every 2 blocks) comes from the lack of G access. 2 positionals with G access, or 3 positionals with respectively G, S, and P access would be much more fun than 4 AG4 catchers (w/out Right Stuff).
Or simply, keep flings as they are. 
EDIT - And I realize we're a bit off topic since the OP precisely doesn't want to change flings, so I'm gonna keep it for another topic. |
_________________
GLN 17 is out!
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2015 - 16:39 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: |
Really I'm not a fan of any Catcher positional on a roster that doesn't also have a Thrower position. What are they catching? |
The hand-off from another Halfling in their team before being thrown by a Treeman, or simply to move the ball from Halfling to Halfling to make up for the low average MA of the team.
I like the Halfling Catcher idea. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| Kam wrote: | Yup that would, unlike Plasmoid's suggestion. But then you would have to ask yourself: would they make the game more enjoyable? I don't think so. The main frustration with flings (once you have accepted they suck and die every 2 blocks) comes from the lack of G access. 2 positionals with G access, or 3 positionals with respectively G, S, and P access would be much more fun than 4 AG4 catchers (w/out Right Stuff).
Or simply, keep flings as they are.
EDIT - And I realize we're a bit off topic since the OP precisely doesn't want to change flings, so I'm gonna keep it for another topic. |
Not off topic at all. The point is to discuss roster changes individually or as a whole, and suggest your own.
In my run thought the teams I decided not to change them as I didn't want to start adding players. I thought that may get a bit out of hand. Do your own and change flings however you want!
If I was going to add a player type to Flings (changing no other rules) I think I'd go 0-4 Dirty Player for 40k and keep the rest of the stat line the same. It's not G access but gives them access to their best skill. You'd likely have to do something similar for Goblins though and then it can snowball.
If we're changing other rules as well (a much wider discussion) then I'd give them G access and make G a much narrower group with skills like Kick, DP, Fend etc. but not Block, Tackle... |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2015 - 17:02 |
|
Halflings need reliable scorers more than foulers.
Scoring a TD is more gamechanging than hurting one opponent player with a foul.
G skills would cost too much compared to a Halfling's price, they wouldn't be as efficient as AG 4 Catchers. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Halflings need reliable scorers more than foulers.
Scoring a TD is more gamechanging than hurting one opponent player with a foul.
G skills would cost too much compared to a Halfling's price, they wouldn't be as efficient as AG 4 Catchers. |
Wouldn't Halflings having anything 'reliable' entirely defeat the point of them? |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2015 - 17:56 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | | MattDakka wrote: | Halflings need reliable scorers more than foulers.
Scoring a TD is more gamechanging than hurting one opponent player with a foul.
G skills would cost too much compared to a Halfling's price, they wouldn't be as efficient as AG 4 Catchers. |
Wouldn't Halflings having anything 'reliable' entirely defeat the point of them? |
Something reliable in a tier 3 team doesn't defeat the point of them, they would still be challenging to play but less hopeless than now. |
|
|
Macabeo
Joined: Feb 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2015 - 23:30 |
|
I'm in the band that's pro Halfling Catchers, but I've always thought that narrower tiers would increase team variability - you can always handicap yourself via fluff, like akaRenton's all zombie team or the Agility Monsters.
However, I would dislike buffing TTM too much. Either the Trees lose Strong Arm or the Catchers Right Stuff. |
|
|
SquirrelDude
Joined: Mar 22, 2015
|
 Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 02:34 |
|
Amazons: Sure
Chaos/Nurgle:
I think Clawpomb is a problem but I'm against Beastmen losing mutation access. They're literally mutations of chaos. I think a less elegant solution would be to decrease the number of Beastmen allowed to a Chaos team (0-4, making them effectively Blitzers) and allowing them some Chaos Pact Marauders to fill out the ranks. The Chaos Marauders wouldn't get mutation access, obviously.
Honestly, there is a part of me that would like to see Beastmen lose strenght access and keep their mutation access on normals, if only to make Chaos and Nurgle teams more varied.
I'm more strongly against Nurgle Pestigors losing their mutation access on normals (Warriors I'm a bit okay with). I think it would be a good way to to help Nurgle differentiate itself from Chaos besides "we got da stink."
Chorfs: Let them keep mutation access on doubles.
Chaos Pact: Big guys losing loner is a pretty big change. I don't think it needs to be one that's done across the board, though.
Dorfs: I've never had problems with all the tackle, but everyone says it's a problem, and I don't really care either way.
Humans: It's always the catcher that people boost. It's either Str 3 or Armor 8. Either one is fine with me. Neither one is fine with me.
Khemri: I'd let the Skeletons keep regen, and maybe spread some more Thick Skull across the team. I'm not a fan of decay, but whatever.
Necro: Give them some Skeletons. Keep the Decay and attribute it to the werewolf mistaking their broken bones for a toy and attacking them. 
Norse:
It's not noted in your change log for Norse, but standard Norse Blitzers are MA 6 and you have them put at MA 7 (as well as armor 8 ).
I wouldn't mind them being MA 7, but I'm not sure that was a change you made on purpose. Putting them to Armor 8 is a change I see often enough that I'm not surprised by it.
On the topic of making the Runner makeshift throwers, maybe take a page out of the Dark Elves playbook and give the runners Dump-off pass?
Ogre: Why not make it a mix of goblins and snotlings?
Orc:
I see a price hike recommended for Blitzers pretty often, but I'm against it. I like my orcs, but the real issue I have with that change is that it makes it impossible for Orcs run the dare I say standard starting lineup of 4 BOBs, 4 Blitzers, 2 Lineorcs, 1 Thrower, 3 rerolls.
Hell, it's impossible to run 4 BOBs, 4 Blitzers, 3 Linorcs, and 3 rerolls. |
|
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 08:07 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
Ogres - A big no for me. Firstly, I'd like the team still tied to the Oldheim Ogres rather than Warhammer Ogres, so it has to be Goblins in my opinion. I'm against the big guy loss of Loner, so this affects them too. Gnoblars aren't an ST1 creature for me, so I'm anti that too. Also 0-11 I like in that it's an odd number, but too many. So this roster I am very anti.
|
I would make the Ogres 0-8 and then you would have to field at least 3 goblins per drive. |
_________________
Selfy_74: Verified Stunty Leeg Master
 |
|
SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 08:12 |
|
Ogres should have Gnoblars by Warhammer fluff. I would design them between Goblins and Halflings. |
_________________
   |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 08:55 |
|
Well the problem we have there is that ogres in warhammer have moved on, where as ogres in BB haven't. If we are to use warhammer ogres, then we should change the look and also could make positionals (aka the stunty team).
So as Ogre Kingdoms explained old ogres (after the huge revamp), is that they were ogres outside of the O.K. Either revamp the ogres that way, or keep them as they are, in which case better fluff would be Oldheim Ogres and they had/have goblins.
I do think there's room for both though. Like the theme for sevral teams. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2015 - 10:12 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Well the problem we have there is that ogres in warhammer have moved on, where as ogres in BB haven't. If we are to use warhammer ogres, then we should change the look and also could make positionals (aka the stunty team).
So as Ogre Kingdoms explained old ogres (after the huge revamp), is that they were ogres outside of the O.K. Either revamp the ogres that way, or keep them as they are, in which case better fluff would be Oldheim Ogres and they had/have goblins.
I do think there's room for both though. Like the theme for sevral teams. |
why not accept that the worlds follow each other?
BB Undead split up in khemri and necro when WHFB Undead split up into Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings.
Somehow BB Undead remained though...
let the ogres be revamped! |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Thanks SquirrelDude
The Norse blitzer was indeed a mistake. I copied them from the Human roster and then missed editing that one
I like your thoughts on Chaos, but just making the beasts 0-4 wouldn't fix the problem (still having 8 GSM access guys). Taking Strength access from them and leaving Mutation is a better option. My thinking was that default M access can have 2 teams build around it (Pact and UW) and the others get it on doubles. They will still mutate, just not as readily as they did. Mutations being accessible to so few races already I think makes them fit better as the 'doubles' option.
On the Orcs, I think it's great that you can no longer start with what you called the standard roster. That roster is way too strong at Rookie level. I remember the boxed orc team (the default) came with 3 Blitzers and 2 BOs. You never see teams with less than 4 of each. Forcing a bit of choice isn't a bad thing. You can still start with 3 re-rolls and 4 of each, but you'd have to field Goblins |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
