Talk Fantasy Football

IMO, the team concepts of Norse and Amazons are boring. The idea behind them is good, but the players?!?! 6 3 3 7 and a skill or two, every position. Where did imagination go when devising these teams?

I can't resist presenting once again (I've sent this to the bbowl-l once or twice) IMO the best house rule team concept that I've managed to create. The name of the team is under discussion, but is referred to as the 'aussie' team by my friends. Personally I prefer the 'human team 2' or 'alternate human team'.

The team idea, however, came from playing rugby. I was thinking that there could be a human team that would employ a different game philosophy than the normal human team. A game philosophy where the ball is thrown over short distances and quite often. The team would be basicly a running team.

Here I present a few different versions, and I'd like to hear what you think about them. We've playtested version #1, and it is not the best team out there, but that's the way I wanted it to be - house rule teams usually tend to be overpowerful, a thing that I wanted to avoid.
Now (especially after the 2k1 change of SFirm, which clearly weakens the best player of this team) I've been thinking of changing the scrumhalfs a bit - they are just ordinary throwers (without passing skill access), aren't they?
What if I'd make them:
It would increase the speed of the team, and give it 8 good ballcarriers. It'd still have 2 less position players than the ordinary human team, and less speed. And definitely less strength.

What do you think:
a) about the team concept
b) which of the above versions is better and/or in which way should the team be developed or is it good the way it is
c) what should be the team name?

Taking that idea and running with it:

0-8 Forwards 5/3/2/9 Stand Firm (G,St) 50k
0-2 Halves 6/3/3/8 NOS, Dump Off (G,P) 80k
0-6 Backs 7/3/3/7 NOS,Dump Off (G,Ag) 90k
Rerolls - 60k

What should the team be called? Thats easy.

ALBION teams:
On the misty isle of Albion the people play many unusual sports. The game known as "Rugga" is in many ways similar to Blood Bowl, and with the newly increased communications between Albion and the Old World, several Rugga teams have decided to switch the cold and wet marshlands of home for the roar of the crowds in the arenas of the Old World.

Albion teams may include a FEN BEAST:
4/6/2/8 Mighty Blow, Big Guy.

Fen Beast needs a neg trait.

Thadrin wrote:Taking that idea and running with it:

Care to stop for a second and actually comment the team design?

But thanks for reminding me of Albion... that'll do fine as a team name.

What comes to my original design, I feel that one of the more unique parts is that it has a quite limited access to skills - a thrower with no passing skill access is a nice way to emphasise the team design of running and quick-passing team. Increasing ther number to four would also serve to provide a different kind of a team.
Which is the main purpose - a different team, unique team, not a team trying to resemble a real rugby team in every respect.

What comes to the position names, suggestions are happily accepted as I don't know that much about rugby. I've just played it on my free time a few years ago (not on a team).

Mestari wrote:
Care to stop for a second and actually comment the team design?

I would if I had time...I'm at work and saw your post....it just gave me the idea and I wanted to throw it into the debate while it was fresh.

Mestari wrote: But thanks for reminding me of Albion... that'll do fine as a team name.

I like the idea, and seeing as GW did the whole ALbion thing.

Mestari wrote: What comes to my original design, I feel that one of the more unique parts is that it has a quite limited access to skills - a thrower with no passing skill access is a nice way to emphasise the team design of running and quick-passing team. Increasing ther number to four would also serve to provide a different kind of a team.
Which is the main purpose - a different team, unique team, not a team trying to resemble a real rugby team in every respect.

Ah. I was going the real Rugby route.
I was thinking of the Backs being the runners you mention though. The halves being the ones who retrieve the ball from the kick off and get it out to a gang of waiting forwards. Sort of like Rugby. I wouldn't be opposed to switching the halves from passing skills to Kicking skills...just like in Rugby where the Fly and Scruf halves do the kicking.

Mestari wrote: What comes to the position names, suggestions are happily accepted as I don't know that much about rugby. I've just played it on my free time a few years ago (not on a team).

I played in School a little, mostly because it was compulsory. I love watching it but we never get it on TV in Sweden. I miss Bill Mclaren's commentary, the six nations, the All-Black Hakka (sp?) and all that.

Deathwing wrote:Fen Beast needs a neg trait.

How about the old Daemonic Unstable? They're magical creatures after all.
Otherwise just Bonehead I think.

Well I think that there is a place for a "Dump Off" based team.

However, having Dump Off on every player is way too much. The linos should be plain old 50k linos with no skills.

Having 3 starting skills on the scrum halves is too much. So IMO 1 needs to be cut. Personally, I see no reason why they can't having Passing skill access. But if they do they should definitely be MA 6 not 7.

NoS on the forwards is a definate no. I mean once they get catch, it will be almost impossible to get the ball from them.

Stand Firm is still one of the best skills in the game... especially for agility / catcher type players. Having 4 of this type of player is again too strong. Not sure what to replace SF with - IMO Side Step doesn't fit with the team ethos. I know it doesn't fit... but how about VLL - the second row can easily be 6 foot 8" - so that counts as VLL to me. I am not suggesting raise the movement - but it gives them +1 to intercept - so combined with some other defensive skills it would be useful. So how about splitting the forwards in 2 (ouch). Have 2 players called Second Row (with VLL and D Off) and 2 Props (5429 Break Tackle with Gen and ST). Reducing the amount of agility access may require another position player... so how about Full Back (2) 7337 Side Step.

Anyway some thoughts....


Dave

However, having Dump Off on every player is way too much. The linos should be plain old 50k linos with no skills.

Why? They'll only be using it if they get the ball, so the team isn't getting too much anything from that one. Give a good reason why it is too much and I'll reconsider.

Having 3 starting skills on the scrum halves is too much.
So IMO 1 needs to be cut. Personally, I see no reason why they can't having Passing skill access. But if they do they should definitely be MA 6 not 7.

No passing skills is a team design decision - it is a human team with no passing skill access. Why should it have the plain old thrower-player with passing access?
Well, if three skills is considered too much, pass could be dropped, but I've thought that with pass they'd be kind of a thrower without the passing access. Without pass they'd become simple runners, but that's definitely one option.

NoS on the forwards is a definate no. I mean once they get catch, it will be almost impossible to get the ball from them.

You seem to consider this team powerful in every respect - however even with good coaches the playtest results seem to indicate that they are an average team and in no way overpowered. The limited skill access intentionally makes the team harder to develop and is a handicap, even with four forwards.

The forwards are good, but they were designed to be. The teams success relies quite heavily on them. I could agree to simply removing agility skill access, if they are being thought of as too good players, but NoS and SF are really the idea behind them. They can try to dodge even in more difficult places without the risk of falling down and they can, even with AG3, use the Dump Off efficiently.

I've gone back and taken a look at the original idea....I don't like the idea of Doff on EVERYONE either...and it seems there's still an awful lot of uniformity in the stat line.

My second attempt...
0-8 Forwards 5/3/2/9 Stand Firm (G,St) 50k
0-6 Backs 7/3/3/7 Dump Off (G,Ag) 80k
0-2 Halves 6/3/3/8 NOS, Dump Off, Kick (G,K) 100k
Rerolls - 60k

Thadrin wrote: 0-8 Forwards 5/3/2/9 Stand Firm (G,St) 50k
0-6 Backs 7/3/3/7 Dump Off (G,Ag) 80k
0-2 Halves 6/3/3/8 NOS, Dump Off, Kick (G,K) 100k
Rerolls - 60k

Ok firstly i think this is an excellent concept.

My thoughts are maybe with reference to the halves, a choice either/or kick or Pass. the Kick coming with access to kicking skills, and the Pass with access to Passing skills. The halves would be available in any combination IE 1 kicker, 1 Thrower. Or 2 of 1 type.

Would Sure hands be a better staring skill than NoS?

Hi Thadrin,

If he has MA5 then he definately shouldn't be called a "forward".
Martin

Hi Teemu,
allow me to comment on the team. I'm a seasoned old veteran when it comes to team design and playtest, so I hope that I can make a useful contribution

AFAIK you're not the only one to come up with a dump-off team - but IMO that just means that the idea is basically a good one. As for the name, "Albion team" is good, and is better "official" team name than "human team 2" or "alternate human team".

As for the power-level, and don't agree with Dave that everything is too powerful. And you've got playtest to support your claim - good!

IMO, Dump-off is a potentially devastating skill, but to be truly effective it needs to be combined with passing skills. So, I think its a very sound design decision not to allow them to have passing skills. No passing skill access will also mean that they will mostly be quick-passing, which is what you're aming for I guess.

In other words, IMO, the Doff linemen are fine, though perhaps a bit on the cheap side.

I think that you should steer clear of your version 2.
It's got 8 players in the 100K range, as well as 60K linemen, and all of these look underpriced rather than overpriced.
I'm not saying that it is necessarily broken, but IMO, you'll be moving deep into "needs playtest" territory.

About pricing:
In Jervis' formula, skills are worth 20K each. Personally, I believe that sticking completely to that would be silly - especially since a LOT of the official players get a discount. But it is worth remembering. IMO, traits and anytable skills are quite often worth the 20K.

So - compare the forward with a human blitzer. If we assume that Stand Firm is as useful as block (perhaps slightly underestimating the power of SFirm), then the forward still gets a trait and an anytable skill for just 10K.

As for the scrumhalf, he looks like he's based on the human thrower. Now, even though he has lost PA skill access, I'd still price him at 90K. The standard human has allready gotten a huge discount, and Dump off combines very well with pass.

If the position players are made more expensive, then the (low) 60K pricetag on the linemen shouldn't be a problem. It's a good skill, but they won't be using it too much.

Moving on to the actual team composition, I see a single problem, and one that isn't your fault at all. It seems that over on BBC, Chet (of the BBRC) has been toying with a new bretonnia team - one based on a core of players with NoS and SFirm.

Ofcourse, at this point nobody knows if the team will ever become official, but it's been launched by someone in power, and IMO, the team is a lot of fun to play. You may not see this is a problem all, but if Chets Brets (tm) become official, then the Albion team will suddenly look like it doesn't have that much "new" to offer.

Chets Brets look like this:
0-4 knights 6339 SFirm, NoS, Block - G,ST
0-2 squires 6338 SHands - G
0-12 Peasants 6337 - G

Now, let me be the first to say that I, (and a LOT of other people that I play with), find this team very underpowered.
However, we've playtested the second version below for 8 games, and results were very good:
0-6 knights 6339 SFirm, NoS, Block - G,ST,AG
0-2 squires 6338 SHands - G
0-12 Peasants 6337 - G

Anyway, as you can see, the SFirm+NoS knights are the key feature of the team, and they are actually a lot more potent than they look. SFirm + blodge is awesome.
Your forwards are _very_ powerful too, but as long as there are only 4 of them then I guess that the team balances fine.
However, as mentioned, I'd change them - if only to steer clear of the Brets.

How about Jump Up for the forwards, instead of SFirm?
Thats still a very nasty skill, and at the same time you'd be getting rid of an "impossible" trait.
Any other ideas?

As for the scrumhalfs. If you're still toying with boosting them a bit, then how about letting them in on the AG skill action? AG skills is actually a very nice addition to a "thrower".

Let me hear what you think
Martin

The reason I don't like Dump Off on everyone is that any ball carrier can get rid of the ball. This means that whatever your opponent does whenever he is kicking the ball to you blitzing or blocking the ball carrier will always move the ball elsewhere. Now if only a few players have Dump Off, the opponent can target the Dump Off players so that the Coach of the Rugby teams has less options. OK he may still dump off the ball but the only option may be to dump it to a lino...

The NoS / Dump Off combo is very strong since a NoS ball carrier can dump off to another NoS player - the chances of this succeeding are good especially if the receiver has catch.

Removing Dump Off from everyone means that the Coach running the team has to think a bit more about how he runs the team and where players line up and move with the ball.

The reason I said no to 3 skills on the passer is that there is currently (as far as I can remember) no starting Thrower with 3 skills - most have 2, some only 1. So I didn't want to break this.

As to the strength of the team, sure early on, with no Block, no Dodge and average AV, the team is in danger of getting beaten up. However, once you have a few skills, the team will be much more powerful. Remember that with the team proposed all players can have Block at 6 SPPs, the Forwards Dodge - so you can have 4 players with Blodge, SF, NoS, DoFF without any doubles rolls. Now there is no other team that I have seen can match that. If you roll + AG or + ST........

Now if you really insist on some players starting with the D Off and NoS combo, I prefer Thadrin's version with only 2 of the bu**ers! Having said that, I consider the Forwards in his revised line up too cheap - 9 av, SF and ST skill access must be at least 60k depsite their 2 AG (Jervis' formula gives 60k although this doesn't make allowances for having ST skill access). The Backs come out at 70k although I think 80k is fair given AG skill access.


Dave

Arh... not the brettonnians with knights...

Naturally, if a bit similar-looking brettonian team comes out, the albion team design needs to change radically. But for the time being I shall happily live without thinking about the brettonians.

BTW - thanks for the comments, Martin.

The point on the player cost has been noted a valid one, although the official pricing scheme, especially looking at the Norse and Amazon, seems to favour discounts.
Back to the albions, however, I feel that the prices shouldn't be lifted much over 100k - the forwards would become way too hard to replace. Still, I could settle for 110K. Also, we could remove agility skill access, restricting them from developing into too powerful players.

As for the linemen, 70k would be too much - they're not elves, afterall, and still, compare them to amazon and norse line(wo)men... I feel 60k is fine.

Back to the scrumhalves. Now that even elves have at least 8 position players, I felt that 6 was a bit low amount, especially as the ordinary humans have 10. That's the rationale behind the 0-4 allowance.
What do you think if they'd be
0-4 Scrumhalf 7 3 3 8 Pass, DOff Gen 90K

Now, compared to ordinary human throwers they get +1MA, DOff and +20k price, while lose Sure Hands and Passing skill access. A fair trade, don't you think?
I dunno about the agility skill access - I like the idea of restricting them to general skills.

And D.Dave:
In the original lineup where there's only 2 scrumhalves, the four forwards have not been a problem. For the 4 scrumhalf version there's a need for playtesting.
I, however, acknowledge your fear of them getting catch/dodge while having NOS - they could be deprived of the agility skill access, what do you think? Skill access is an important factor in determining how powerful a player eventually becomes, so that would definitely tone them down.

And on the subject everyone having DOff, I feel that is the very nature of the team - you really have to fight to get the ball. Remember that the dump off is not an automatic success - with AG3 and opposing players in their TZ the ball might easily be free even if the blitz on the ball-carrier fails as he threw the ball away.

However, once you have a few skills, the team will be much more powerful.

Taken out of context, this quote from D.Dave seems like an interesting discovery: you really think that teams get more powerful after a few skills?

Hi Mestari,
this just occurred to me:

Dave(?) mentioned that Dump-off combined with NoS and catch will be a problem. IMO, it will be OK since there are only 4 such players, but still, he has a point.

At the same time: Even though we've transferred the rugby to Albion, "rugby" is supposedly particularly vicious.

So - how about dealing with both those things by letting the forwards have ST access rather than AG access. Furthermore, if you wanted to replace Stand Firm, perhaps good old mighty blow would show just how rough these players are!

Martin

just remember that if every player on a rugby team had dump off, you'd never see a tackle...