The Great Roster Cull

[garion]

In a naf tourney let's see... Italian Open is 1.100k 120k for skills.
3 Claw on the big guys, 2 guards, a leader. 13 guys. Nice.

Nope, doesn't work.
@ Sundevil: they are not passionate. They are logical.

yeah that roster doesnt sound scary to me tbh. Claw MB isnt all that, it is only when pile on is added to the equation that is becomes scary.

I get your point, but i still disagree. Though I am guessing you are probably one of the people that thought khemri were OP in LRB4. Yeah they were amazing at bashing, but not that good at winning. We don't have any low TV teams like that any more sadly :'( and I would happily see chaos pact fill that niche again. or just revert Khemri back to the fun roster they used to be.

The removal of M access from singles on the Marauders would make the focus around the big guys and stop the pure evil roster they are now, where people play with big guys until marauders are skilled up then drop all the big guys, have a killer roster that is reliable (which big guys just aren't) and get loads of nice inducements on top.

To be honest with my proposed change to pact would coincide with random mutations and a major to buff to a number of the mutations if I had it my way. So it would be a different kettle of fish altogether really

If this was the original context of your proposed changes, why not specify that up front and not just after everyone comes to consensus that your changes to Pact would have largely negative consequences on the team's play style and balance?

Maybe there's a lesson to be learned here about how roster design is much more difficult than it appears?

I think the roster as it is has the most negative play style in the game currently. Anyone that sees this roster in truly perpetual leagues will see what i mean, problem is those that use play cyanide don't see it and TT don't see on the whole because leagues typically don't last long enough to see the horrendous way this team can be managed.

Also I am sick of hearing about balance. If you think giving big guys M access and taking it away from marauders would make this roster more powerful than say Undead, any of the Elves, Skaven or Dwarves then you are kidding your self. The high RR cost, the terrible starter players (minus the dark elf) the unreliability of Big Guys would always prevent this team from being a top tier side at low TV. The change would only make the roster more interesting at high TV and would mean people would actually use their Big Guys. Any roster that is more powerful for completely ignoring their most expensive players at high TV is seriously flawed imo.

[Smeborg]

So, let me sum up the consensus:

"We should expand the number of teams to double or more, we should shrink the number of teams to half or less, we should include Khorne, we should exclude Khorne, we should ban teams that do not fit the fluff, we should include teams like Apes because they fit the fluff."

Good luck with that. At least it has the makings of a good comedy sketch.

Well, that was going to be the intent of this thread from the start, right? We get to throw in our terrible ideas (well, some of the others are good, mine are terrible!) and then all, hopefully, have a good laugh and those of us that can go out for a pint to discuss? Sounds good to me!

Hi Chance, I agree with what you say, I was just being light hearted and trying to point out that reaching agreement in these areas is somewhere between difficult and impossible. Please note that I followed by making a schematic suggestion by which many of the ideas put forward on this thread could be accommodated by the hobby (in contrast to quite a few posters who simply want to exclude things apparently on the sole grounds that they don't like them). I share your idea that a new team every few years would be good for the hobby. History suggests that excluding existing teams may not be a good way to go, as every time it has been done or proposed, it has provoked howls of protest.

All the best.

[Shteve0]

Interesting. I don't think anyone actually objects to the Khorne roster on the basis either of the playstyle existing, or the fact that it's new - at least, not that I've seen, and I got bored of the polar nature of those threads.

A lot of people have said, for example, that they would accept it if it had been a different team theme (distinct from roster). I know you don't care about the fluff, so look at this roster purely on positional value, and that's fine. I can understand though why others feel strongly about brettonians not being welcome in blood bowl; they're humans, after all, so if you want to use your knight models just use the human list. It's GW pushing bloodbowl into the warhammer world and vice versa that's unwelcome (to some) and I sympathise with the idea that the fluff of the two are independent - if you look back at early blood bowl rulebooks, they have a lovely flavour to them that bares little resemblance to the the current warhammer world. The underworld, slann and chaos pact rules do a marvelous job of recapturing that early feel. The (presence of, as opposed to the roster of) khorne team doesn't. Personal opinion.

Anyway, there are enough threads about that roster, this is supposed to be a thread of mindless musings along the lines of "when I am king...", and thoroughly enjoyable it is too!

[SunDevil]

Hi Chance, I agree with what you say, I was just being light hearted and trying to point out that reaching agreement in these areas is somewhere between difficult and impossible. Please note that I followed by making a schematic suggestion by which many of the ideas put forward on this thread could be accommodated by the hobby (in contrast to quite a few posters who simply want to exclude things apparently on the sole grounds that they don't like them). I share your idea that a new team every few years would be good for the hobby. History suggests that excluding existing teams may not be a good way to go, as every time it has been done or proposed, it has provoked howls of protest.

All the best.

100% agree. Well said as always.

Anyway, there are enough threads about that roster, this is supposed to be a thread of mindless musings along the lines of "when I am king...", and thoroughly enjoyable it is too!

100% agree with this as well! However, that Khemri roster with all the Nerves of Steel is something we certainly do not agree on.

[Rolex]

With enough irony I do play Khemri to quite a success (best NAF Khemri in Italy) and I think they are a lot funnier now.
And better at winning too.

If you think old Khemri were fun we have a different concept of fun. Fun is a 2-way thing.
Playing in a league with only AV 9 teams is not fun.
Nor playing Khemri and have your opponent concede half the matches.

If you don't find 3 st5 Mighty Claw scary I commend your fearlessness.
Oh, they'll get PO too. Easy.

Maybe you find funny rolling dice and adding cas, but to me that's just brainless playing.
I ask a little more from my favourite game.

I've said enough on this. No man is deafer than the one that refuses to hear.

[Smeborg]

Interesting. I don't think anyone actually objects to the Khorne roster on the basis either of the playstyle existing, or the fact that it's new - at least, not that I've seen, and I got bored of the polar nature of those threads.

A lot of people have said, for example, that they would accept it if it had been a different team theme (distinct from roster).

I said early on that changes of nomenclature would have kept most people happy. That includes the team name, not that I incline to causing WW3 over these things. I fall into the category of "I care about the fluff... up to a point." I'm not going to die in a ditch for either side in the fluff wars.

[Digger Goreman]

It's funny, the cycles and seasons of Blood Bowl (no, not as in "games played" in a season).... If one pays attention in life, truths become so malleable and transitional as to be nearly meaningless.... A short time before we were CRaPped upon, it seemed a vocal majority were "tired of the LRB process" and wanted "a stable rulebook".... Now that we have a stable rulebook (by high decree), and the BBRC is disbanded, a call has began (again?) to re-establish the League of Nations and return to a cycle of proposal and testing.... I, being a fan of the LRB process and lamenting it's end (if not the end of the partisan BBRC), this is the one thing I would love to see....

Fun is a 2-way thing.
Playing in a league with only AV 9 teams is not fun.
Nor playing Khemri and have your opponent concede half the matches.

Hear!, Hear! The same goes for waiting on an elven coach to roll a pair of ones.... I've watched paint peel with more interest.... I've a sneaky (git) suspicion that the people who hate clpomb are the AV9'ers and the elfies... one because their "sure thing" of armored survival is threatened and the other because their precious Ag4's are going away on a "6".... Poor babies.... We had an orc coach who briefly made pombers out of his blitzers... till he met my wolves and zeds.... I think that orc is still tasting zombie boot leather in the after-life.... Actually I can guarantee that since he is on one of my Necro teams now....

Really, who can make ClPOMBers anyway? Necros? I suppose, but I've never done it and won't put a wolf on the ground... besides needing Blodge and a double first before even thinking of Piling On.... Higher level "muties"? Perhaps....

Of course this feeds into an unfortunate by-product of enough gamers: power-gaming.... A cry toward the latter days of third edition was, "no one wants to play my god-team and I wind up having to retire it!" Yeah.... So, many controls were tried.... Aging was decried by the Timmys... even the OPTIONAL setting of spiraling expenses to 1.5 million was met with craptacular venomosity... fouling weakened.... Same thing with losing a superfluous tree on woodies, trolls and gobbos on orcs, the whole losing the mini-maxxed Undead affair.... BB is ate up with NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard, is a reference to the attitude that something needs to be fixed, but not at my expense).... ClPomb is just another bunch of NIMBY's wanting to keep their power base at the expense of others.... A host of problems could be "adjusted" out of existence by a lower hard-cap on TV....

As a couple more asides: While I don't think interdimensional demons fit in even a Fantasy football setting (yeah, my ability to suspend disbelief can't quite wrap around THAT!), my stated objection is simply in the possibility of accepting yet another poorly/not-ly tested team into a system that was headed somewhat toward stability (at least it was getting better after that 4th Edition fiasco....) I mean, wow, Khemri... just because jervis johnson wanted it... and the last three teams rushed in because of the iron b!tche$ imminent crackdown.... It's just not cricket in my book.... Oh, and I fell into playing Necros quite innocently: they came out as a "tier 1.5" (still a good estimation) "challenging" team and I took them in a league of noobs.... Found them to really meet my one failing at BB: caging.... So I stuck with them and still love learning/inventing ways around their many restrictions....

Keeping my mind open did two wonderful things for me (in reading these threads, especially the khorney ones), 1) I found that when Darkson takes his medicine for anal-cranial impaction, he's quite intelligent and I agree with him much more than I want to admit (yes, that lurch was the earth stopping for just a moment ), and B) I don't give two farts and a fiddle for fluff.... Solid game design should never take a backseat to whimsy....

[Smeborg]

Hi Digger, I agree with you that the re-establishment of the BBRC (or something similar) would be a good idea. The time would appear ripe.

All the best.

[spubbbba]

Agree with Colin on the naming convention, though think some positionals should keep their name (witch elves and trollslayers, for example, don't sit well as 'catchers'). There's a happy compromise to be found, I'm sure.

Yeah, I’d hate to go fully back to the blander 2nd edition roster positional names where they were all the same but the agile teams had no blockers and the bashy ones no catchers. Flavourful players like trollslayers Chaos warriors and witch elves make the teams more varied and interesting. They also add a chance to paint something different, slayers are a god send when painting up a dwarf army for instance.

If they ever do bring back the BBRC I think the rulebook should be split into 3 sections.

1) Rules
2) League play – aimed at TT and online leagues
3) Open perpetual play, aimed at open online divisions like Cyanide and FUMBBL.

There are probably more online games played than tabletop and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cyanide game made GW a lot more money than their Bloodbowl models did (this doesn’t factor in people buying their other models to make into teams though).

[Lunchab1es]

To the pitiful handfull of trolls who, in their apparently infinite wisdom, come in to these threads to tell others simply that their opinions and ideas are "pointless", "bad" or "irrelevant"... your one-eyed lack of creativity and ability to generate a reasoned argument is genuinely depressing. Few if any people are saying that their ideas are good, this is a pretty tongue in cheek thread. No-one's forcing you to read it, and you apparently missed the point anyway. With all due respect - contribute to the discussion or don't post.

To be fair, I think alot of folks post negative responses just because they have such a negative gut reaction to the idea, and on the off chance that the rules were ever modified in the future, they don't want said bad ideas to gain traction. I don't think people are necessarily commenting just to squash fun

@ Digger - On a similar-ish note, I think idea threads like this one spark conversations about how there needs to be a rules revision as people see ideas that they would like to see implemented. Once said ruling body forms and begins changing rules however, inevitably something gets changed, or a discussion is had about changing something, that they consider super important and absolutely untouchable. After pages of thread debate and yelling at one another, exhausted, decide "Enough of this nonsense, let's have the rules in stone and be done with it forever!" That's my theory anyways. I think the Khorne thread(s) kind of show this. Change is great until it's no what you wanted.

Anyways, if I were the king, I wouldn't delete any rosters- I think all of the current rosters are deserving of their place, despite some overlapping similarities and themes. That said, I am not in favor of adding a new team at regular intervals. It is very rare that I see a house rule team where I think, "Yes, this is a balanced roster which adds/builds upon/ expands on fluff in a way that makes sense, and will provide strategy/play-style unique from existing rosters". I'm not opposed to playing in a league with HR teams, but I would hate to see the team pool diluted with poor ideas.

If someone put a gun to my head, forcing me to erase a couple teams, I would do what most people here have suggested: merge Necro/Undead, merge two of the Elven teams, etc etc.

The big differences that I would make would be inspired by Plasmoid's NTBB 2013 and Darkson's ARBBLRB. I think there are some really great ideas in both those threads on possible tweaks to provide minor buffs and nerfs across the board. There are really too many to touch on but I agree with about 90% of what Plasmoid has goin on over there.

I also am in support of keeping the naming schemes on players BB, and NOT WHFB, based (with exceptions like the aforementioned Trollslayer, Witch Elf, etc). A little sprinkling adds flavor, but having a 1:1 relationship of Warhammer unit to Blood Bowl Positional doesn't make any sense to me. It just turns the game into "Warhammer Lite Sporting Spinoff" rather than "Stand alone game, grounded (and originating from) roughly in the WH universe". Doing so, to me, makes the rosters seem more like armies than teams and removes the BB flavor.

I am opposed (and a bit surprised) by some of the huuuuge changes some folks are throwing around. I know it's mostly spitballing with little regard for balance, but some ideas being chucked about just absolutely neuter some rosters.

And Chance... hate to pick on you because Ilove 3DB...but I think your idea of fluff/flavor is just worlds apart from mine. It's funny that we have similar viewpoints when it comes to "balancing" changes, but are hugely different when it comes to "flavor" changes (e.g. dropping the Ogre from humans) I just couldn't disagree much more! Maybe if we meet in a tournament down the line we can hash it out over a couple of iced teas

This whole exercise goes to show how incredibly difficult it is to alter an established game without ruffling too many peoples' feathers. Gives you an idea of how difficult and thankless a task it can be.

[Darkson]

The big differences that I would make would be inspired by Plasmoid's NTBB 2013 and Darkson's ARBBLRB. I think there are some really great ideas in both those threads on possible tweaks to provide minor buffs and nerfs across the board. There are really too many to touch on but I agree with about 90% of what Plasmoid has goin on over there.

Have to say I'm impressed with the work Plasmoid's put into his house rules, despite the fact that I think he's headed in completely the wrong direction (and that he's added Bretonnians ).
I've put nowhere near that effort into mine, and I know it will appeal to a very small minority, if anyone at all, but they would be the house rules (or at least the basis of) I'd use if I had a regular BB group (as opposed to the semi-regular one I have now). If any of my idea inspire you, then great, can't ask for anything more than that.

[Smurf]

Get rid of the Tree from the Wood Elf roster.

Make interceptions come last... throw and catch ball then intercept.

Maybe make AV8 standard and due to the bell curve on the dice make AV7 and below more punitive in cost. AV7 players tend to go through many more players than AV9 players... that's a grenade into the debate.

[mattski]

Question for Shteve0 on his roster suggestions. Is it correct that the Dwarfs no longer have AG3 on their team at all?

[SunDevil]

Chance - what about adding the Rat Ogre to the Underworld list, either as well as or instead of the Warpstone Troll?

I kind of love this idea. I think having them both might be too good but replacing the Warpstone Troll with a Warpstone ROgre (SM on single skill rolls) could work. UW is better than the Stunty Tier 3s with 2 Bigs, so they should stay at having 1.

I would raise him to AV9 though, otherwise I think you're actually nerfing the team a bit on the pitch to improve it flavorwise.

And Chance... hate to pick on you because I love 3DB...but I think your idea of fluff/flavor is just worlds apart from mine. It's funny that we have similar viewpoints when it comes to "balancing" changes, but are hugely different when it comes to "flavor" changes (e.g. dropping the Ogre from humans) I just couldn't disagree much more! Maybe if we meet in a tournament down the line we can hash it out over a couple of iced teas

This whole exercise goes to show how incredibly difficult it is to alter an established game without ruffling too many peoples' feathers. Gives you an idea of how difficult and thankless a task it can be.

100% agree with that last part. As for the first, pick on me all you want, I can take it! Iced tea's on me!

When I play Humans, I use the Ogre because he's awesome. I'd just like all the BB rosters to be a bit more unique, especially the mass of Undead and Elf teams, lesser so the Chaos - and I think removing a player or two from a few rosters - like the Human Ogre - would help that.

Though I can certainly see the argument against.

My BIG problem roster as far as removing a few players to make it, for lack of a better term, more racially pure is the Orcs. I REALLY wish we could remove both the Goblins and Troll from that roster to make it <gasp!> all-Orcs! The team would still be solid Tier-1 but without ridiculously cheapo foulers and the 1TT option that only Stunty teams (Goblins, Ogres, Flings, UW) should get. CPact is arguable.

[Shteve0]

Question for Shteve0 on his roster suggestions. Is it correct that the Dwarfs no longer have AG3 on their team at all?

Yep. Two reasons: (1) Dwarves are not nearly as agile as humans in my mind, and that makes them AG2. (2) I find if I start from (entirely personal) stipulation that dwarves should be strong, ST3 stunties, I can't go higher than AG2 on any of their players from a practical viewpoint. A 5338 stunty blitzer, for example, could dodge into a cage on a 3+ and throw a one die block (with block) on the ball carrier. These guys would have a 50% chance of getting into the cage to do that, which is still ridiculous. The runners have break tackle to allow a single incident per turn of improving that roll to 3+, so it also gives them a chance of getting through defensive screens at a push (I also like the dwarf runner having sure hands and break tackle, thematically, so I'm pretty happy with the roster overall).

Given that all that, I can't see a way round Ag2 across the board. It'd still be T1, I think (particularly as Woodies are gone) but it would hopefully be more fun to play with and against.

Still, never gonna happen, so you can relax