Bretonnian roster... What's the deal?

[harvestmouse]

I did, it's a great reference. However in reality it was a fanbased roster. In hindsight it definitely isn't the right roster.

Not a fanbased roster. That roster was published in Citadel Journal by Games Workshop as the official Norse team for 3rd edition (just like official rules were also published in White Dwarf and Fanatic). I used that team to create the rules for the current Norse roster. Thus Dauntless, the Ulfs and the Snow Troll ... I took the team back more to its original 3rd edition roots to get rid of the 6/3/3/7 Block template.

So definitely was not a fanbased roster.

Was the idea fanbased? Seems a strange roster for an official product. Huscarls and Ulfs without any potential for a figure line. It's a nod towards 3rd edition fantasy and no similarities to 2nd edition BB. Very strange roster.

Personally, I think you made a mistake by copying that roster. I think the one we have now plays better than the old one (though I did enjoy the old one), there too much weirdness that feels fanbased about it.

I think maybe there was some scope for a 'proper' berserker, that may have potential on a few rosters or potential rosters. Like a 2nd ed BB berserker.

LW, why the negativity? BB is extremely well designed, isn't it? If it wasn't why would coaches be so competitive? A badly designed game wouldn't have that.

[MattDakka]

BB is extremely well designed, isn't it? If it wasn't why would coaches be so competitive? A badly designed game wouldn't have that.

BB is absolutely not extremely well designed.
It's fun, yes, awesome concept, yes, but far from a well designed game.
The D6 system is bad, because it may reward poor plays, a system based on another die/dice and with more modifiers would be more coach's skill-based and less luck-based.
The injuries are another random factor that can't be fully controlled even by expert coaches, even by minimizing the amount of blocks suffered.
The Kick Off table has potentially gamebreaking events, the Throwers are quite useless, most of them are not faster than Linemen and not reliable enough to be rostered, most Big Guys are not worth to be used, the Catchers are generally better as Runners because the passing game is too unreliable, some rosters seem to have been designed without a clue of how the team would play in a real game (Norse and Amazons are the first teams coming to mind).
Team Value is not very accurate and the higher the TV is the more unbalanced the matches get.
The teams are not balanced at all TVs, so Amazons rock at TV 1000 and lose win rate as their TV increases, Chaos is the opposite.
Clawpomb means that only Nurgle, Chaos and Elves can play at high TV with a good chance of success.
A well designed game should ensure balanced games at any TV and any player of a roster should be useful.
How can a game with so many teams and variables be balanced with such a static ruleset?

[harvestmouse]

Yeah but the D6 is a trade between complexity and a fluid and speedy game. I don't know, this is like the balance discussion. Maybe it's luck or maybe I'm wrong. But I think the balance of what can happen and the chances of a lucky poorer playing winning is excellent. But that's me. Sure it could be more accurate, it could have more depth (I'd like that tbh for a trade in game speed) but in my opinion is a beautifully designed game.

Anything to do with match making and TV, then no.............I'm no fan of TV or what it's doing to the game.

[Darkson]

It's a "beer & pretzels" game, not some sort of high-strategy game. And as such, yes it's extremely well designed.
If you're expecting it to be something else, then that's your flaw, not the game's.

Clawpomb means that only Nurgle, Chaos and Elves can play at high TV with a good chance of success.

It's amazing how many times you trot out this rubbish, despite being told that it's not true anywhere except for MM.

[legowarrior]

BB is extremely well designed, isn't it? If it wasn't why would coaches be so competitive? A badly designed game wouldn't have that.

BB is absolutely not extremely well designed.
It's fun, yes, awesome concept, yes, but far from a well designed game.
The D6 system is bad, because it may reward poor plays, a system based on another die/dice and with more modifiers would be more coach's skill-based and less luck-based.
The injuries are another random factor that can't be fully controlled even by expert coaches, even by minimizing the amount of blocks suffered.
The Kick Off table has potentially gamebreaking events, the Throwers are quite useless, most of them are not faster than Linemen and not reliable enough to be rostered, most Big Guys are not worth to be used, the Catchers are generally better as Runners because the passing game is too unreliable, some rosters seem to have been designed without a clue of how the team would play in a real game (Norse and Amazons are the first teams coming to mind).
Team Value is not very accurate and the higher the TV is the more unbalanced the matches get.
The teams are not balanced at all TVs, so Amazons rock at TV 1000 and lose win rate as their TV increases, Chaos is the opposite.
Clawpomb means that only Nurgle, Chaos and Elves can play at high TV with a good chance of success.
A well designed game should ensure balanced games at any TV and any player of a roster should be useful.
How can a game with so many teams and variables be balanced with such a static ruleset?

This is why I would prefer that BB2 went the tradition Boardgame to PC route. Throw out all the rules of the game, and rebuild them, and keep only the themes.

I really wish that throwing and dodging weren't based on the same stat.

[Regash]

I didn't read all of this as I don't care about inofficial rosters.

But to all of those people who think BB is NOT a well designed game:
Why TF do you play it?

I really don't get it...

[legowarrior]

What makes a team official?

[MattDakka]

It's a "beer & pretzels" game, not some sort of high-strategy game.

Yes, I agree, but it could be improved without getting too complex.

It's amazing how many times you trot out this rubbish, despite being told that it's not true anywhere except for MM.

Yes... yes... it's all fine and good and choosing mutations is fluff at its finest.

[GalakStarscraper]

Was the idea fanbased? Seems a strange roster for an official product.

Not strange if you know the feel of GW's take on the game at that time. It was definitely official, definitely not fan based and definitely matches up with the tongue-in-cheek style of rules they created on at that time as a company.

[Regash]

What makes a team official?

I don't know....
Hm...
Being in the official rules, perhaps?
(Official rules meaning the CRP as being released by GW and their BBRC.)

And before you ask: Nope, I'm no friend of Chaos Pact, Slann or Underworld either.

[legowarrior]

Okay, but BB2 is an official game made with the license, so how does that fit in all of it? Aren't they torchbearers of the BB universe, since no other official development is taking place?

Who has the authority to say no or yes to a team?

[legowarrior]

BB is extremely well designed, isn't it? If it wasn't why would coaches be so competitive? A badly designed game wouldn't have that.

BB is absolutely not extremely well designed.
It's fun, yes, awesome concept, yes, but far from a well designed game.
The D6 system is bad, because it may reward poor plays, a system based on another die/dice and with more modifiers would be more coach's skill-based and less luck-based.
The injuries are another random factor that can't be fully controlled even by expert coaches, even by minimizing the amount of blocks suffered.
The Kick Off table has potentially gamebreaking events, the Throwers are quite useless, most of them are not faster than Linemen and not reliable enough to be rostered, most Big Guys are not worth to be used, the Catchers are generally better as Runners because the passing game is too unreliable, some rosters seem to have been designed without a clue of how the team would play in a real game (Norse and Amazons are the first teams coming to mind).
Team Value is not very accurate and the higher the TV is the more unbalanced the matches get.
The teams are not balanced at all TVs, so Amazons rock at TV 1000 and lose win rate as their TV increases, Chaos is the opposite.
Clawpomb means that only Nurgle, Chaos and Elves can play at high TV with a good chance of success.
A well designed game should ensure balanced games at any TV and any player of a roster should be useful.
How can a game with so many teams and variables be balanced with such a static ruleset?

It's a fun game and I've always been under the same impression as MD.

Just looking at the skills. Any piece with Strength Access has a huge leg up, because outside of Block and Dodge, all your best skills are either there, or to a lesser extent under Mutations. Better players have better access, but usually don't cost more.

Better stats means more costly players but they usually benefit more from skills later on (since the cost of skills is roughly the same whether the player starts with the skill or gets the skill later on (with the exception of Amazon Blitzers that pay an extra 20k for block). Stats on the other hand add more TV if received via a level up than as part of the starting package.

Still, there is so much random chance in the game that even teams with obvious advantages can be undone by the roll of the dice, and even a flaw strategy can succeed, so it's probably hard to tell game by game where the balance issues need to be addressed.

This is a beer and pretzel game in that the coaches are expected to be drunk if they think the game has 'balance'.

[Regash]

Who has the authority to say no or yes to a team?

Since I play a boardgame, I apply the boardgame rules, therefore no Bretonnians.
I do have the authority to say "no" to a team that I play against in simply denying to play.

What do I care about some french idiots making absolutely randoms changes to the official rules in THEIR house rule environment.
Guess what? I even refuse to buy BB2 from Cyanide, just because of those changes.

[WhatBall]

It's a "beer & pretzels" game, not some sort of high-strategy game. And as such, yes it's extremely well designed.
If you're expecting it to be something else, then that's your flaw, not the game's.

I agree, ..and disagree. I agree it is a fun "beer & pretzels" game, and is well designed. I also believe it has a big high-strategy element though, which to me is the hook that keeps me coming back for more abuse and frustration. The balance between strategy and randomness is well done and hard to achieve. Even though I believe a number of rules/skills are broken or could be improved, the game is well balanced and designed overall.

[koadah]

What makes a team official?

If your commish accepts it then it's official.