Probably just another post on negatraits...

[TeLef0n0]

In my league we play 3rd Ed with some houserules on top, mostly no stars, freeboters og wizards. We also play with the old cards and no negatraits on bigguys. We like it that way, can someone explain why the bigguys needed those negatraits? We kinda like to play with our biggies as a tactical factor U can rely on in the game not to make to many turnovers, no more randomness in the game plz, the cards allready provide enuff of that

btw... Our bigguys are more reliable, but they still dont dominate games much

I apologize if this has already been answered many times on this forum, but I have not the time to read a lot of lod posts

[Talafar]

The idea of the nega-traits is (i think...) to stop taking a big guy always being a good move. Unfortunately all of them bar perhaps WA fail in this regard, leaving certain teams (the ones without Big guy access, or ones who only have WA big guys) at a little bit of a disadvantage.

Of course, I'm biased in my view, as I play High Elves

[DoubleSkulls]

I think Talafar got it pretty much right. Taking an Ogre ought not be automatic - and teams ought to be about as competitive without one as with.

I know good Skaven coaches have dropped Rat Ogres altogether - but IMO this means the trait is too bad.

[wesleytj]

well mostly except he's wrong about the elves being at a disadvantage. lrb bb compensated non-bg teams with extra position players. more than fair tradeoff.

dark elves = extra blitzers
hi elves = extra catchers
undead = extra wights

[Talafar]

But the High Elves extra catchers merely takes them up to the same amount as the wood elves...
The wood elves roster is equal (with the extra HE LW's) to the High Elves. The Treeman is just an extra edge they should not have.
And I do not personally see why the Undead got an increase in positional players, as Mummies are actually BETTER then big guys.
Now just don't get me started on how its "unfair" that some teams get Secret weapons and some don't...

[MistWraith]

The elves getting extra positional players was to bring them in line with the other teams. They also lost free re-rolls from the last edition. So, how were they compensated for that?

Big guys for everybody or big guys for nobody is the way it should be. They should be self balancing, so that you are as good with as without one.

[Mestari]

btw... Our bigguys are more reliable, but they still dont dominate games much

This is where most of us will disagree with you. Actually, your statement:

We kinda like to play with our biggies as a tactical factor U can rely on

proves that the big guys are a pretty dominating factor in your games. As reliable tactical factors they are doing exactly that. They are an essential part of your gameplan, and in addition they can be relied upon for doing their part.
The LRB big guys in turn are hardly reliable - they are effective, but they cannot be completely trusted. Thus they are not absolutely necessary for a teams survival and are a lot more balanced. The ideal state, as previously stated, is that their positive sides are exactly balanced by their negative sides.

[Skummy]

Mestari: The ideal state, as previously stated, is that their positive sides are exactly balanced by their negative sides.

Let me hasten to add that I don't think we're there yet. Not letting BG's use leader and trophy rerolls would go a long way to lessening their impact on the game.

[Mestari]

Personally, I'd still like to see a distinction of TR impact and price for the players.
Big guys, for example, cannot be too expensive, but they could be given a higher points value for TR impact.

So, for example an Ogre could cost 120K and be worth 15points of TR.

This would be one way of making them less of an asset.
Leader rerolls should still be allowed but I agree about the trophy rerolls.

I'm not sure if anything more is needed. One definitely effective way would be making Dauntless a skill instead of a trait. This would make counter-BG activity a lot easier. And give stunties the chance of getting dauntless once again!

[TeLef0n0]

Ok, thx for replying to my question.

Your points have been noted, but I still think we will stick to our current rules. At least until bigguy-domination become a problem in our league.

[victorvoncarstien]

I don't really see too much of a negative to wild animal, as long as he isn't playing centre on the line of scrimmage. I love my good ol' 7 foot tall rat, I use him as an all purpose safety who waits in the slot for a target. Then again he has pile on, +1 st, pro, block and break tackle,so he is a casualty machine.

[Xtreme]

One definitely effective way would be making Dauntless a skill instead of a trait. This would make counter-BG activity a lot easier. And give stunties the chance of getting dauntless once again!

I think this would help out teams like the High elfs quite a bit and get all those elf coaches one less thing to complain about.

make dauntles available to stunties again. The best feeling in bloodbowl is to see one of the little guys run up with dauntless and kick an ogre in the balls. Classic BB.

[Sixpack595]

Orc linemen are reliable, and are a tactical factor you can rely on...that doesn't mean they dominate the game. I'm about sick of Negas in general. Bump up the cost (more for the effect on TR) and drop the Nega. Keep the RR rules, or even remove the Leader etc. RR for them. With only 1 per team they can be good, but not so much as to render other players obsolete.

btw... Our bigguys are more reliable, but they still dont dominate games much

This is where most of us will disagree with you. Actually, your statement:

We kinda like to play with our biggies as a tactical factor U can rely on

proves that the big guys are a pretty dominating factor in your games. As reliable tactical factors they are doing exactly that. They are an essential part of your gameplan, and in addition they can be relied upon for doing their part.
The LRB big guys in turn are hardly reliable - they are effective, but they cannot be completely trusted. Thus they are not absolutely necessary for a teams survival and are a lot more balanced. The ideal state, as previously stated, is that their positive sides are exactly balanced by their negative sides.

[Zombie]

Those who posted above are right, the objective is for big guys not being an obvious choice on any team. But to achieve this, racial caracteristics need to be made harsher (except wild animal that's already harsh enough), and leader and trophy rerolls should not be available to them. Kind of like it was in 3rd ed with the unofficial big guy rules (they had no access to leader rerolls and a bonehead failure was a turnover).

[Thadrin]

Why not just have Big Guys occupy a position slot?
Want a Mino on your Norse team? you need to use a Blitzer slot.
Want a Tree for your woodies? one less catcher then.
Want an Ogre on your Humans? one less Blitzer.
Want a Troll for your Orcs? one less Blitzer.
Want a Krox for your Lizards? One less Saurus.
Want a Rat Ogre for your SKaven? one less Catcher (aka Gutter Runner).

Its very simple, would require a table and a n example to be added to the rules and would clear up the whole problem with teams not having Big Guys.