Talk Fantasy Football

hello everyone,

as in our league nobody really like the Warhammer Fantasy Involvement in Bloodbowl we changed some teams. I do not want to propose that everybody else should use them, but your opinion toward balance would be very welcome.

DWARVES

QTY Position MA ST AG AV Cost Skills
0-4 Blitzer 5 3 3 9 80k Block, Thick Skull
0-4 Blocker 4 3 2 9 70k Block, Tackle, Thick Skull
0-2 Thrower 6 3 3 8 80k Sure Hands, Thick Skull
0-12 Lineman 5 3 2 9 60K Tackle, Thick Skull

MA5 longbeards without Block not my cup of tea, how do they play. Does anyone take this team?

Yup they were taken. But till now not tested.
What do you think from the balance point of view ?
Are they weaker than the official dwarves ?

I dont think they are that bad. I find that dwarves are a little bit to hard. OK so thay aint the fastest team around, Block, Thick Skull and a high AV makes them imposs' to take down(never mind take out). They are only
-1MA on my Norse! They are still hard. Besides i hate dwarves (aint beaten a dwarf team yet) an any thing that makes them easyer to kill is good by me

They look somewhat like 2ed Dwarf team, they don't look too bad, would have to try playing them to compare. I agree with the idea to keep WFB influence to a minamum, all teams should be made up of thrower, blitzer, blocker, catcher, lineman. Maybe add a couple of dwarf catchers to round out the team (dwarfs aren't known for passing game, but doesn't mean shouldn't have catchers, they would just be not that good at it). I would suggest dropping the thrower's MA by one and have the catcher stats be; 6 3 3 8 80K Nerves of steel, Thick skull. Just an idea

Torg wrote:I agree with the idea to keep WFB influence to a minamum, all teams should be made up of thrower, blitzer, blocker, catcher, lineman.

Where's me Norse Blocker then?

Aha!

0-2 Norse Blocker 5 4 2 8 Block, Thick Skull 70,000GC

I don't like the proposed team. It just isn't dwarven... call the longbeards linemen and the WHFB influence (which I don't like either) is reduced to minimum. And the dwarven team as it stands is not the best team around, even though it has lots of skills, so there's really no point in making it weaker.

Norse and human blockers: there just are not such blockers that could gain skills after 6SPP's. They develop from linemen and can be called blockers after sufficient development.

Mestari: actually this was a conversion from 2nd Edition Bloodbowl. So its very "dwarven". If you mean it's not Warhammer-fluffy anymore then you are right but that kind of fluff is bullsh** and has nothing to do in bloodbowl.

2nd edition was a different game. Now in 2k01 the dwarven teams need the high amount of longbeards (linemen) that have block and tackle to make them competitive and dwarvish.
BTW. They don't have big guys -> they need the slayers. Otherwise they'd be a rather weak "strength" team.

Mestari: can you decide if you are going argument fluff-wise or rule-wise ?

Well in my point of view dwarves could choose some hefty Special eapons other teams can't - like the deathroller or the chainsaw. Although this rules are not official anymore, the high AV combined with Thick skull make the dwarves a good hitting team even without Slayers.

Personally I think positions like Troll Slayers do not fit very well into bloodbowl (fluff-wise). I agree that rule-wise they are very important for a dwarven team.

Maybe anyone has a solution for this ...

Even though I'm definitely a supporter of a clearly dividing WHFB and BB from each other, I have to say that slayers fit in fluffwise too! Psychotic players who're ready to take on the big guys. Still, they could be called blockers...

Sure, you are right. Maybe I am too hooked by the aweful dwarven Slayer miniature in Bloodbowl.