Should Brettonians be in Bloodbowl?

[mattgslater]

Class Warfare!

Commoner Teams
0-16 Linemen: 6/3/2/7 Fend G 40k
0-2 Brawlers: 5/3/2/8 Wrestle, Piling On GS 60k
0-2 Yeomen: 6/3/3/7 Accurate, Nerves of Steel GP 70k
0-4 Footpads: 7/3/3/7 Dodge GA 70k
Re-Rolls: 70k

Noble Teams
0-16 Linemen: 7/3/3/8 GS 70k
0-4 Pages: 7/2/3/7 Dodge, Fend, Jump Up GA 80k
0-2 Swashbucklers: 7/3/3/7 Block, Side Step GA 100k
0-2 Knights: 5/3/3/9 Block, Dauntless, Stand Firm GS 100k

[Joemanji]

So, how about something like:
0-16 Lineman 6 3 2 7 Fend 40k G
0-2 Blocker 5 3 3 8 Stand Firm, Grab 70k GS
0-2 Runner 7 3 3 7 Kick-Off Return, Pass 70k GP
0-4 Nobles 7 3 3 8 Block, Dauntless, Pro* 110k GS
(*many other skills could fit here. NoS?)

Not sure about the roster as a whole, but Fend linos sounds good to me. Maybe I'm just pining for those Amazonians.

I personally like Wrestle on a Human blocker - I see them as tactical blockers, lacking the strength to be straight forward brutes. Stand Firm makes them seem too bulky.

Runner is cool, might give him Sure Hands over Pass. They are there to scoop up the ball and give it to a Knight, not play Quarterback (which is the star position in american football).

Like the 7338 Nobles (call them Blitzers). Like Dauntless, hate Pro. It's a lazy way to describe a starting position (I've been guilty of it myself before). Do they need 3 skills? NoS might work, but so might Agility access instead of S. Makes them more flash dan glory hogs.

[Jural]

I really think Fend linemen with no negatrait are too good.

In this case, -1STR or Loner would be fine by me. For me, -1 AG doesn't do it, as these pieces won't need to Dodge (hard to keep tackle zones on them) and won't need to handle the ball (8 positionals capable of doing so).

As for the other positionals, let's keep the knights as the glory hounds, fine by me.

But try and make the positionals a bit... better! No Ogre, no dedicated throwers and catchers, worse lineman, and fewer positionals than a human team... make the positionals more attractive!

The Noble is probably Ok if you drop Pro... Maybe replace it with NoS, maybe not! I'd consider Block, Pro, Juggernaut and AG access instead of Strength Access for a different take more in line with the glory hound.

The Blocker, I'd consider at least making him an Orc or Human lineman, no need to be worse. Side Step and Grab would be interesting, as would Wrestle and Side Step. I'd stay away from Stand Firm, personally, it just doesn't seem as good as the other ideas.

The Runner is OK except for Pass. NoS may be a good bet here, or Dump-Off or Sure Hands. I like the pairing of Pass Block and Kick-Off return, it seems like a real tactical piece then, and can be developed into an offensive or defensive star. If the team didn't playtest well, his AV could be changed to 8 with little problem, I imagine.

I'd try and stay away from bland on the positionals. The positionals should stand out as better than the human team's lineman, I think.

[stormmaster1]

might be easier without multiple skills. The best rosters are simple. the noble with block, dauntless and a third skill. Why the third skill? Why not just dauntless + block? Still better than a human blitzer and fits the fluff.

What about

lineman 6338 G 50k
Runner 7338 sure hands GP 70k
blocker 5338 wrestle, grab GS 70k
noble 7338 block, dauntless GS 100k

[Darkson]

Perhaps the knights (whichever position) and possibly squires (whatever BB position they work out to be) could have Animosity?

[Jural]

Perhaps the knights (whichever position) and possibly squires (whatever BB position they work out to be) could have Animosity?

I kinda think the current wording for animosity makes it tough (with different races) but... that's probably a really good way to go for a house rule team. So the "Squire" and "knight" could pass it amongst themselves, but would need to roll to give it to anyone else?

[Jural]

The only other thing that would be interesting would be some of those 0-6 line-ups. The "knights" should be slightly better human blitzers (at best) in those cases,

I'd go with:

0-16 linemen 5 3 3 7 Fend 50k G
0-6 Knights 6 3 3 9 Dauntless, Animosity GS 90k
0-2 Runners 7 3 3 7 Kick-Off Return, Animosity GP 70k

Re-roll: 60k

There it is, a simple roster with 8 positionals that can play a bashy game or a slightly more wide open game, and the knights are the key, but they do need to be developed.

I think the positionals could do with a little more of a boost, but I like this as a starting point. One more skill for either the runners or the Knights or a minor stat boost for either. But I think this may be what I'm looking for in my Brettonians... Nobles doing all the work, linemen next to useless, and the ability to play a "stick it in there" game, once they are developed.

[plasmoid]

Hi Joemanji,
wow - I never thought I'd reach any kind of common ground on Bretonnians with you.
Entoxicated by this, I'll try to keep a very open mind
Now, if we could create a roster that Darkson would like too, I'd be extatic (though a little scared by the prospect of the end of the world.... Just kidding )

Jural said

But try and make the positionals a bit... better!

I think to have the proper feudal feel, there has to be real steps between the layers of the hierarchy. My first Bretonnian team ever had too good "squires", and it just felt wrong.
IMO, it has to be substandard linemen, decent helpers and excellent nobles.
If the helpers are too good, you'll have 8 good pieces, and the quality of the linemen really won't matter much.

Jural said:

I really think Fend linemen with no negatrait are too good. In this case, -1STR or Loner would be fine by me.

I think you overestimate fend.....
But either way, ST2 would IMO make it a very poor piece. A 30K or 20K piece. And I don't think that is a good idea. Linemen that cheap give balance issues. (But if it had to be ST2, I'd say 6238 fend).
And loner has provoked a bad response before. One coach said he quite the team because of it!
How about just sawing off a bit of MA too?:
5327 fend 40K is a bad deal!

Joemanji said

I personally like Wrestle on a Human blocker

Jural liked it too. I prefer it. Looks like a winner.

Joemanji said:

Runner is cool, might give him Sure Hands over Pass. They are there to scoop up the ball and give it to a Knight, not play Quarterback (which is the star position in american football).

But it is not the star position in BB. Blitzer is.
I like pass because it encourages Runners to get rid of the ball, instead of scooping it up and running it in a cage of nobles all the way to the EZ.
If they get sure hands the, IMO, we need some way of discouraging them from keeping it. Perhaps cut them to MA6?
BTW, if P skills on them is un-bretonnian (not to mention will make them obvious leaders, we could just stick them with plain G skills....?

Joemanji said:

Like the 7338 Nobles (call them Blitzers).

I could call them blitzers - but I do think that one fluff name adds some character. I think it would be sad if wardancers had just been elf blitzers, or slayers just dwarf blockers. We could make one of the serfs into a Yeoman...? Or how about Elite instead of the clumsy Noble. Not too military, and not very far from elitist pig .
I love it

Joemanji said:

Like Dauntless, hate Pro. It's a lazy way to describe a starting position (I've been guilty of it myself before). Do they need 3 skills? NoS might work, but so might Agility access instead of S. Makes them more flash dan glory hogs.

I was gonna say no to A skills at first.
Because it will be 4 blodgers before any other A skills start turning up.
And those will be powerful!

But - with the right ammount of knifing of the rest of the team (as you can see above) it could work.
And - it would make them a very interesting piece to have. Not to mention it would make them flashy without pro. And pro has attracted a lot of negative attention on past versions of the team.

I'd still go for a third skill though. I think they need it. Juggernaut still works for me as a very low powered blitzing skill. Stand firm could work too. It's chivalrious too - and it's not all them powerful/popular either.

Finally, Darkson said:

Perhaps the knights (whichever position) and possibly squires (whatever BB position they work out to be) could have Animosity?

Too some extent I like the idea (though I don't like the need to rewrite the skill).
What is a turnoff for me is that 2 of the 3 new teams are using it, and it just gets a bit too worn out for my liking.
Don't know what the others think.....

Right. My modified roster then:
0-16 Lineman 5 3 2 7 Fend 40k G
0-2 Blocker 5 3 3 8 Wrestle, Grab 70k GS
0-2 Runner 6 3 3 7 Kick-Off Return, Sure hands 70k G(P?)
0-4 Elites 7 3 3 8 Block, Dauntless, Juggernaut/StandFirm 110k GA

Feedback?
Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi guys,
taking a 2nd look at the proposed roster, I got that ol' skillorama feeling...
So, here are 2 alternative statlines to consider:

Linemen: Perhaps 6336 fend rather than spreading the decreases all over the profile?
And the runners: How about good old AV instead of a second skil?

So, perhaps:
0-16 Lineman 6 3 3 6 Fend 40k G
0-2 Runner 6 3 3 8 Sure hands 60k G(P?)
0-2 Blocker 5 3 3 8 Wrestle, Grab 70k GS
0-4 Elites 7 3 3 8 Block, Dauntless, Juggernaut 110k GA

Cheers
Martin

[Jural]

Quick notes:

1) Noble and Knight are 100 to 100,000 times better names than elites. Let's pretend you never even suggested that

2) Those statlines are simply horrific on all but the Noble/Knight. I don't mind how poor you make the linemen (and you already have my opinions on Fend, fair enough) but positionals should never compare negatively to a human lineman! 5 3 3 8 is sad, bite the bullet and go 6 3 3 8 or 5 3 3 9. Also, 6 3 3 8 for a human runner isn't awful, but I think your 7 3 3 7 numbers were much closer to what a runner is. If you want a thrower, it's Ok to call him a thrower and stick with 6 3 3 8. Runner implies fast for a human, in my mind.

3) The knight is fine, but can you drop one of the skills or add in a more "Special" one? Juggernaut and Block on a starting piece seems to overdescribe him. Juggernaut and Dauntless is plenty fluffy... Does he really need more? If he really needs more, why not go with the crazy idea of Leap? Leap would also be a great addition on this piece. Rarely used, but it has two things I like- 1 it implies a heroic, if silly move. 2. It is similar to how the knight moves on a chessboard. Hmm, maybe nix that idea

4) Do me a favor, if you don't mind. Give me your take on a roster with 0-6 knights. I think this means you either eliminate the blocker or the ball grabbing servants... Which tends to put more focus on the knights. This seems right. I took my stab at it above.

Hi guys,
taking a 2nd look at the proposed roster, I got that ol' skillorama feeling...
So, here are 2 alternative statlines to consider:

Linemen: Perhaps 6336 fend rather than spreading the decreases all over the profile?
And the runners: How about good old AV instead of a second skil?

So, perhaps:
0-16 Lineman 6 3 3 6 Fend 40k G
0-2 Runner 6 3 3 8 Sure hands 60k G(P?)
0-2 Blocker 5 3 3 8 Wrestle, Grab 70k GS
0-4 Elites 7 3 3 8 Block, Dauntless, Juggernaut 110k GA

Cheers
Martin

[mattgslater]

4) Do me a favor, if you don't mind. Give me your take on a roster with 0-6 knights. I think this means you either eliminate the blocker or the ball grabbing servants... Which tends to put more focus on the knights. This seems right. I took my stab at it above.

I know you're aiming this at Martin, but let me take a stab.

0-16 Linemen: 5/3/3/7 Fend G 40k
0-2 Squires: 7/3/3/8 GASP 70k
0-2 Knights Bachelor: 6/3/3/8 Block, Wrestle GS 80k
0-2 Knights Stalwart: 5/3/3/9 Stand Firm, Grab GS 90k
0-2 Knights Valiant: 6/3/3/9 Block, Dauntless GS 100k

[Jural]

I hadn't even considered that... I meant 0-6 of a single, good positional. But I don't want to curb your creativity either.

If you had to make a line-up of a single 0-6 knight, a 0-2 (or 0-4 if NEED be) support piece, and crappy linemen, what would it be? Or do you think that would just kill any fun there is in this concept?

I posted the basis of what I think would be a fun team above... mostly I like that the knights are your ball movers AND your bashy element, and you need to develop them as such. But that is nowhere near the only way to go with the concept.

4) Do me a favor, if you don't mind. Give me your take on a roster with 0-6 knights. I think this means you either eliminate the blocker or the ball grabbing servants... Which tends to put more focus on the knights. This seems right. I took my stab at it above.

I know you're aiming this at Martin, but let me take a stab.

0-16 Linemen: 5/3/3/7 Fend G 40k
0-2 Squires: 7/3/3/8 GASP 70k
0-2 Knights Bachelor: 6/3/3/8 Block, Wrestle GS 80k
0-2 Knights Stalwart: 5/3/3/9 Stand Firm, Grab GS 90k
0-2 Knights Valiant: 6/3/3/9 Block, Dauntless GS 100k

[DDogwood]

I dunno, all of these teams still sound like weird variations on the Human team to me. If you want to make Bretonnians really different from Humans, why not take some inspiration from Vampires and Lizardmen?

0-16 Peasants 5/3/2/7 Fend 40k G
0-6 Knights 7/3/3/8 Block, Juggernaut 100k GS

Rerolls @60k

This team wouldn't play like a regular Human roster at all, but it would feature a strong running game. The Peasants should be great roadblocks who die lots and are cheap to replace, while the Knights would be able to do most of the heavy lifting.

[Jural]

I think we can all agree on a few things:

1) The linemen should be bad, worse than hobgoblins. Fend, if used, would be their only saving grace. 5 3 3 7 Fend or 6 3 2 7 Fend or 6 3 3 6 Fend are all OK.

2) The knights (nobles) should be orc or human blitzer statlines, at least 0-4, and with Dauntless.

3) Re-rolls 60k.

4) No Big Guy.

5) If there is another positional, they should be inferior to the Knight and be limited to 0-2.

6) The team should be focused on the Knight (noble) and rely on a running game more than the standard human squad.

That's actually pretty close to a complete team, it's just a matter of some tough choices and getting a consensus.

I would like to throw out the roster I think would be most fun to play.

0-16 Lineman 5 3 3 7 Fend 40k G
0-6 Knights 6 3 3 9 Dauntless, Juggernaught, Animosity 100k GS
0-2 Squires 7 3 3 7 Kick-Off Return 70k GAP/S

Re-rolls: 60k

Knights could be called Blitzers, Squires could be called Runners. Linemen could be called peasants.

I would have fun with this line-up. I'm not sure I would have as much fun with some of the lightweight blockers or yeoman which have been suggested.

[Ullis]

This is not really helpful at this point, but I don't get the idea of "inferior" linemen. Being a peasant doesn't make you any less skilled at the pitch compared to the lineman on the normal Human roster.

It just doesn't make any sense that the knights wouldn't pick the best peasants from the fields. Now you're implying that the peasant players are any bystanders who happen to loll about the fields, including the village idiot and cane-wielding crazy old Toby with a limp. Those linemen are actually most likely going to be the most capable strapping young lads. From a fluffy perspective, imagine a yearly festival, where all the young men from the neigbouring villages vie for the glory of being picked for the baron's BloodBowl team and training with him. Imagine the baron sitting in a box, overseeing the test of skill, strength and speed. Where is Fend coming from anyway? Having a skill implies training and that does not fit the suggestion of substandard human peasants who are inferior in every capable way. The knights make most sense as player coaches. Their martial training gives them access to starting skills and at least G access.

If you look at the Thralls on the Vampire team (not as a starting point for the roster), you see the same thing. The Thrall-players are the most capable humans the vampires can muster. They're all young men with the physique best suited to BloodBowl. A vampire's favourite type of a thrall is probably a long-necked maiden with a fair complexion, flowing blond hair and a habit of complaining to his family how he is so tired in the mornings, but you don't see those maidens on the BloodBowl pitch.