Norse 'Catchers', explain them to me

[garion]

the runner is great, the more pertinent question is what are norse doing with a thrower? They have too many positionals for me and the thrower is completely surpluce to requirements, for me he is the worst positional in the game by quite some way. Get trid of the throwers and give the runners P access as well and then the team makes more sense.

I disagree. A Sure Hands lino is a good investment, and it's not a guaranteed #1 pick. It sucks slightly to blow 20k on the ability to reroll QP attempts, but it does mean that he'll skill pretty quickly, and when he gets Sure Hands, he's as good a dedicated carrier as any, and frees up your Runners for double-duty. Then, as he skills, you can give him the whole Passing array of carrier skills, like a fragile-but-advanced Dwarf Runner. Accurate, Fend, maybe Tackle, HMP, or Nerves of Steel if you can't catch a double by 51 SPP.

One thing that makes Throwers good is that you tend to go down men a lot with Norse. It's not usually that hard to free up some guys and put up a makeshift cage, but it's often hard to protect the ball and prepare to advance it at the same time. A SH/Acc Thrower is 64/81 (~80%) to get a pickup and SP comp, if you really need it. (Yes, that's desperation, but this is what I'm talking about.) Speaking of desperation, all that Frenzy and MA6 makes Norse sometimes a really good punt team. Caveat: Punts are bad, y'all.

I disagree,if they started with SH like human throwers they would serve a purpose but they dont, I always give a runner sure hands and I never ever ever pass the ball with norse, why would you? You have no players with catch? As you say the only time to ever do it when there is no other option and having a thrower usually doesnt help me there anyway as my runners would always have the ball and i would be happy to just take the risk of throwing with a RR. The only reason to have one really is purely to be a leader caddy (something I detest). I would also never give my thorwers those skills - HMP, or Nerves of Steel, they are pretty much worthless and far too situational to ever get used. NoS can be a good skill but not in an ag 3 team. Norse are all about running and bashing and I think playing teams to type and making them specialise in what they are best at, for me that is usually how you get the best out of any teams.

[pekkar]

Dauntless is a common skill for the position. He just happens to have +ST for being Norse.

[GalakStarscraper]

The point is not to have ideal positionals, but to have positionals that make sense.

I'm biased since I did the team re-design. But it does make sense.

The position was called a Runner in the version the BBRC approved. The name change to Catcher was an bad move by JJ never approved by the BBRC.

The Dauntless skill ... that one is easy ... Norse run through players not around them. Thus Dauntless.

Finally ... this Norse team was meant to be a return to the original 3rd edition Norse team that GW created. That team had Dauntless/Block Huscarls, an Ice Troll and an Ulfwerner. This team re-design that I did was to return it to those concepts (even if a lot of the stats were changed and the Ice Troll and Ulf were originally Star Players for the team).

Tom

[sunnyside]

The name change to Catcher was an bad move by JJ never approved by the BBRC.

Cool that you're here.

Is it correct that the name changes were to better align names with the figs? Presumably to reduce the chance somebody would feel the need to go outside of the GW catalogue when assembling their team?

[GalakStarscraper]

Is it correct that the name changes were to better align names with the figs? Presumably to reduce the chance somebody would feel the need to go outside of the GW catalogue when assembling their team?

Yes that would be exactly why they did it.

The official word was that they did it because they didn't have a miniature named Norse Runner (but really ... how hard is it to rename the the Norse Catcher figure to Norse Runner in a database??? I'm still strugglling to find the Dark Elf Runner on their website (ie the changes they made were just horribly inconsistent ... but I'm used to this from my time working with GW when they do editing).

Tom

[mattgslater]

I disagree,if they started with SH like human throwers they would serve a purpose but they dont, I always give a runner sure hands...

I feel like Sure Hands is kind of a waste on a Runner, at least for an early skill. I like having one Sure Hands guy almost immediately, and in the early going, the best profit on Runners is to Blodge them up and then start looking at Fend or SS. I also usually don't start both Runners; sometimes I don't start any, and have to build them over time. So for me, it's a matter of maximizing manpower.

I never ever ever pass the ball with norse, why would you? You have no players with catch? As you say the only time to ever do it when there is no other option and having a thrower usually doesnt help me there anyway as my runners would always have the ball and i would be happy to just take the risk of throwing with a RR.

Conditions for passing:
1) Easy/safe pass nets 0.8 SPP with Pass and a TRR from AG3 to AG3. Early in a drive or late in a controlled game, this is a good way to farm SPP. In scheduled leagues, this kind of farming is huge; in perpetual leagues, it's less important, but still nice.
2) With Accurate, a pass is a 0.97 pickup from the receiver, with all the movement of the passer, plus two more squares. Without Accurate, I still find it's easier to build the cage around whoever's handy rather than the guy who picked up the ball. Pass lets me do that, if I can keep a TRR until end of turn. Without Pass, I have to try a handoff, and I'd much rather 3+ pass from a player I know will keep his feet than 2+ GFI with AV7, especially if you consider that failures on the 2+ burn the RR on the catch, and that sometimes a pass saves 2x GFI.
3) Speaking of AV7, sometimes you will just end up down men. It's not necessarily your fault. It's not at all rare that I get a Norse team down to four guys with Frenzy and two guys supporting them, with little to no Guard and nothing safe to do. They're still able to pop the ball, but suddenly everything becomes hard. The ability to re-roll that crazy 4+ (or worse) Pass attempt that's your last gasp at getting a TD and KO recovery out of a bad drive is huge!

I don't like having to TRR the catch. Without a TRR, your odds of completing 3+/3+ with Pass are increased by a third, from 44.4% to 59.3%, like +1 on a d6 roll, from "hard" to "risky"; with a TRR, it's only like having +1 on 1d20 (from 60/81 to 64/81), but it still reduces your TRR expenditure odds almost by half, from 15/27 (55.6%) to 8/27 (29.6%), saving you more than a quarter of a TRR. Usually, you're passing at end of turn, when a TRR may not be available. Usually, you have to plan for your pass with automatic actions, and your pass itself tends to be harder than your easy actions, so you may find yourself needing that RR or preparing to need it.

The only reason to have one really is purely to be a leader caddy (something I detest).

Why do you detest a Leader Caddy? Even if you consider all other P skills worthless (reasonable, not my opinion as you see), Leader on a Tackle or SH/Fend Thrower is a net 20k savings (valuing Pass at 0) in TV, at the expense of a VERY low-priority skill. If you ever use Pass, just once, even to make a throw you wouldn't have tried on the first roll, over the player's entire career, it's even better.

I would also never give my thorwers those skills - HMP, or Nerves of Steel, they are pretty much worthless and far too situational to ever get used. NoS can be a good skill but not in an ag 3 team.

Not arguing hard for HMP or NOS; I agree that those skills are not even worth the inducement value, and was trying to illustrate that his path is 3 skills deep. Safe Throw would be better, in fact, and still not good. Hopefully you'd roll doubles. Otherwise, Leader, Tackle, or cut and re-buy. Tackle for my money. It was purely a brain-fart that I didn't put in Kickoff Return instead of those. I've had KOR on a +AG lino before, though I might take Fend first in the future. That was pretty good, though: he'd go under the ball, and if he didn't catch it, he'd mark it until the Thrower could run over and get it.

Norse are all about running and bashing and I think playing teams to type and making them specialise in what they are best at, for me that is usually how you get the best out of any teams.

Oh, no doubt. You make your major investments in your strength, and a few key bang-for-buck selections to shore up your weaknesses. In this case, the major investment in your strength is enhanced by not burning an A skill option on your Dauntless player, and the lone shore-up in your weaknesses (Accurate Thrower vs Lino) is 40k TV, one (low-value*) skill-up, and 20k cash. Now, you've got a more useful Runner, who can defend himself more effectively (still gets SH if he lives long enough), and you've got the ability to lob the ball if your crappy AV betrays your grind.

Also, it's not like they're exclusive, bashing and passing. Sometimes I bust open the cage and find the ball in the middle of a bunch of prone bodies. Then I run a guy into safe (cannot overstate) receiving position, and use the Thrower on a Pass action to pick up, chuck, and form part of an evil marking formation, ready to throw a block and/or lend an assist on your next turn. This happens more in scheduled leagues than in matching formats, because in sked leagues Norse tend to carry a permanent Wizard after awhile.

* Skill-ups on Norse Linemen with Sure Hands are pretty sucko to begin with. You take Sure Hands, then Fend, then maybe KOR, then start looking for a new track. Accurate here carries a really low replacement value, whether you take it before Fend or after.

[garion]

The only reason to have one really is purely to be a leader caddy (something I detest).

Why do you detest a Leader Caddy? Even if you consider all other P skills worthless (reasonable, not my opinion as you see), Leader on a Tackle or SH/Fend Thrower is a net 20k savings (valuing Pass at 0) in TV, at the expense of a VERY low-priority skill. If you ever use Pass, just once, even to make a throw you wouldn't have tried on the first roll, over the player's entire career, it's even better.

I'm not going to bother replying to all of that because it was huge, and bascially it boils down to difference of opinion and playing styles niether being wrong or right, I guess it just shows that I am more of a power gamer in style than your self and you are more of a flexible coach and as said neither is right or wrong.

But I will reply to the bit about leader caddies. I understand it is a net saving of 20k, that is something I just do not like at all, for me leader should never have been an option once traits were gone and spp based Tr instead of skill based TV. Those change have taken away the value of developing throwers for throwing, because you invariably take leader as 1st or second skill then I do not want to waste any more skills on throwing skills (powergaming see )especially now the 7th skill has gone. Yes it makes the pass skill free essentially, but this is again something I don't like, it is a skill built for the sole purpose of min maxing now.

[Dr. Von Richten]

I'm biased since I did the team re-design. But it does make sense.

The position was called a Runner in the version the BBRC approved. The name change to Catcher was an bad move by JJ never approved by the BBRC.

The Dauntless skill ... that one is easy ... Norse run through players not around them. Thus Dauntless.

Finally ... this Norse team was meant to be a return to the original 3rd edition Norse team that GW created. That team had Dauntless/Block Huscarls, an Ice Troll and an Ulfwerner. This team re-design that I did was to return it to those concepts (even if a lot of the stats were changed and the Ice Troll and Ulf were originally Star Players for the team).

Tom

Ok this does make more sense, thanks.

[Darkson]

Ok this does make more sense, thanks.

Find a copy of LRB5, check the palyer names from all the rosters, rename the players in LRB6 to their LRB5 equivilent - makes much more sense than the butcher's job GW did.

[sunnyside]

The point is not to have ideal positionals, but to have positionals that make sense. AG 4, or a skill like Sure Hands or Dodge would be too much, but Dump Off, like the Dark Elf Runner? Or Fend. Or Sprint. Something that fits with the intended goal of the positional.

Well...they aren't really a runner the way a dwarf or dark elf has a runner. They aren't a P access positional. And while they're decent carrying the ball, I tend to think it's eventually a waste of their talent to have them do so.

They're more...a guy who runs. They're an aggressive piece, just as if not more important on defense than on offence. When it comes to durability they're the opposite of the other teams' runners in the sense that, debatably, they're the most resiliant player Norse have, since blodge av7 is better than av8, sidestep can save you from a whole world of hurt, and runners sometimes take fend, but there are just too many tempting skills to put that on Norse AV8s.

I suppose the closest thing in American football might be a tight end. Or maybe the gunner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunner_(American_football)

That's often how I'll use them when the kick goes deep, and they can really earn their TV that way.

I suppose as a "gunner" dauntless makes more sense. I seem to recall a rather surprised bull centaur who thought he didn't need to cage up with the ball. Also for knocking away a BOB or something to mark up a thrower or exploit a failed pick up attempt.

[mattgslater]

I guess it just shows that I am more of a power gamer in style than your self and you are more of a flexible coach and as said neither is right or wrong.

Agreed about the latter, not so sure about the former. I see myself as a power gamer first and foremost, even if I do like a little flair mixed in.

... Those change have taken away the value of developing throwers for throwing, because you invariably take leader as 1st or second skill then I do not want to waste any more skills on throwing skills (powergaming see )especially now the 7th skill has gone. Yes it makes the pass skill free essentially, but this is again something I don't like, it is a skill built for the sole purpose of min maxing now.

You know, they are 0-2. Not sayin' you should, just sayin' you could, and if one is a Leader caddy and the other a passer, it makes some vague vestige of sense. I've made it work with Orcs before... but it would be hard to build/maintain on an AV7 roster.

[garion]

for me orcs need that extra versatility though while they are arguably the better team because they are so good at the 2-1 grind their lack of movement means they sometimes find them self in sticky situations where they need to throw the ball I personally never or very very rarely find this is the case with Norse because their Ma7 players give you so much more flexibility.

If human throwers didn't have Sure Hands I wouldnt bother with them either, the only reason I take them is to stop Wardancers strip balling so early in a season.

With humans I prefer to use the catchers as ball recievers and distributors - same with norse runners. Having one catcher or runner moving upfield and they other deeper, you can usually work a path to your opponent's end zone quite easily. That extra movement makes opening up gaps and making the hand off really quite easy. Often you dont even need the hand off, send a runner down one wing at the right point in the game and a team will defend in greater numbers on that wide zone, leaving the opposite side of the field open. So your deep runner can run into space or make a hand off to any of your Ma6 players you can run deep into the widezone with space. This is how I play with norse against bash teams and some versatile teams, even when reduced in numbers this is almost always a viable tactic. Obviously against elves and the like I just play out and out bash with them 2-1 grind style. But the other reason I prefer my runners having the ball is because they blodge up easily and a blodge SH ball carriers on any team is a pain.

for me defending is the trickiest part with norse because sometimes in games of attrition your team can just get smashed to pieces on a bad dice day. But this is another situation I like SH on my runners. If you get the ball down and it ends up in a number of tackle zones. I will go for the ball with my runner even on a 6+ pick up with a free RR its worth a pop quite often, then you get a dodge with RR to escape tackle zones and they have the higher movement so getting to safety is easier. also if you fail the pick up then your player is blodged up which is nice for defence.

anyway, as said I guess it comes down to playstyle more than anything, I just dont see any value add in throwers in norse teams other than leader caddys , and I really dont think they fit the fluff off the team at all. They always seem out of place to me since the changes from lrb4.

[TalonBay]

I've seen the Norse team played as a run & pass outfit, some crazy elf-style passing mixed in with run and bash. Without the thrower this would be less viable, all the human teams seem to have the option to run or pass, or both even though they may be better at one or the other.

[mattgslater]

I've seen the Norse team played as a run & pass outfit, some crazy elf-style passing mixed in with run and bash. Without the thrower this would be less viable, all the human teams seem to have the option to run or pass, or both even though they may be better at one or the other.

See, that's the thing with Throwers, on most teams.

No team really needs a Thrower, except maybe Underworld Pact who need him mostly for the ST3 (and because he's one of the best value players in BB). You can SH up a Lino or a Blitzer/Runner/Catcher positional, and you're good to go. But Throwers do allow you to play different kinds of offensive games, which is sometimes nice. Certainly the ability to vary your style is good when you meet the same little group of coaches over and over. You don't need it, but the ability to go down that road, without a big in-game investment, makes the game more fun, not least because some coaches will and some won't.

Really, there are just a few teams that you only ever see built one way: Halflings come to mind, but I can think of meaningful stylistic differences in all the other teams. Even the worst stereotypes, like CPOMB Chaos, are generally not the only effective ways to play those teams. The presence of Throwers on "running" teams lets different coaches take different approaches.

[sunnyside]

With humans I prefer to use the catchers as ball recievers and distributors - same with norse runners. Having one catcher or runner moving upfield and they other deeper, you can usually work a path to your opponent's end zone quite easily. That extra movement makes opening up gaps and making the hand off really quite easy. Often you dont even need the hand off, send a runner down one wing at the right point in the game and a team will defend in greater numbers on that wide zone, leaving the opposite side of the field open. So your deep runner can run into space or make a hand off to any of your Ma6 players you can run deep into the widezone with space. This is how I play with norse against bash teams and some versatile teams, even when reduced in numbers this is almost always a viable tactic. Obviously against elves and the like I just play out and out bash with them 2-1 grind style. But the other reason I prefer my runners having the ball is because they blodge up easily and a blodge SH ball carriers on any team is a pain.

Hmmmm. Lets try this.

How do you lose?

Or do you always win every game in your league and take home the trophy?

I tend to win very reliably with Norse at lower TV. But I have problems at high TV. Usually stemming from suffering some casualties, and then having a bad offensive drive. At higher TVs you start seeing a decent amount of tackle+diving tackle, even on teams like Orc, Chaos, and Dwarf, who also like to throw a little stand firm on those guys.

Unless you roll up some AG4, runners are highly unreliable if so marked. An accurate nerves of steel thrower still has a lot of pretty reliable options.

So while it'll be a while before I see how the thrower works out, my hopes are:

-Since runners are more resiliant, having a thrower with the ball generally increases on field survivability. i.e. the runner out there in the midfield is more survivable than a lineman out there instead.

-runners out there going dodge, sidestep, fend should be great for setting up crowd pushes and messing up the opponents defense in general, as opposed to putting skills like sure hands on them instead of a thrower.

-having two runners out there gives more high quality targets when trying to go for a fast score, such as when you've "stopped" a grind in the sense that they've scored, and now you need to tie it up before halftime.

Now, if my league decided to make a house rule where you could have up to 4 Norse runners if you didn't take any throwers, than that's what I'd do for sure. But you only get two of them.

So your choices are:

Runner in the cage and linemen in the field.

Linemen in the cage and runner in the field.

Thrower in the cage, and runner in the field.

I'm thinking the last one is best.