Norse Team Revamp (part 2) ... votes please

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:58 pm

Well, I''ve looked over it a few times and given myself a couple of days to digest the statlines and team design and in all honesty I can only see this team dominating league and tournament play. A MA7, ST4 frenzy player is just sickening on a starting team.

There is now absolutely no use for the throwers on the team with the added movement of the catchers you'll be running with MA7 ST3 sure hand blodgers after two skills. The wolf can bust open cages for fun and add the strength and AV that was the original weakness of the Norse team.

Can anyone actually say how this team is on an even footing with the original norse team in the power ratings? If the original norse were a good team at all TR's this new one is totally outclassing it. Now without having playtested it I can't 100% say it's overpowered, but all you're really 'losing' is two blitzers for two ST4, AV8 frenzy players which isn't exactly a great loss, I know what I'd prefer.

Horrible looking team IMO, it need serious play testing before even being considered for the rulebook, let alone experimental status.

(edit: example starting roster I figured up...
2x catcher
2x wolf
1x bear
6x line
= 850k or swap the bear for a blitzer for 810k)

DesTroy · Post by **DesTroy** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:36 pm

Anything that makes the Norse less susceptible to early-match devastation is welcome! Our league had a Norse team using the current rules, which only had 6 fit players left after 2 games! Needless to say, the owner abandoned the team and went with something more durable (Chaos)...

The Chaos team then went on to win our rookie cup competition! Go figure.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:00 pm

Firstly, let me say I have no issues with the Norse team staying as they are. Yes, they're a little "bland", but they're still my favourite team overall for the fun factor.

That said, this get's a big thumbs up from me. I think Galak would be happy to make this official just to stop me adding "Were for Norse" to every email/PM I send him.

Although the 90k Catcher is a bit of a shock to start with, I can live with it. Would still perfer the Ulfs to have Break Tackle in addition to Frenzy, but if the choice is to either ask for a BT Frenzy Ulf and be stuck with the current roster or compromise and just have Frenzy, then I'm all for it.

Any chance of getting it made official before the Spiky Open next month?

Oh, and MA7 on a 'Zon catcher would be nice (if it's possible

).

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:19 pm

I pretty much agree entirely with Ithilkir

That team is way too good at low TRs without really addressing the longer term issues Norse have because of low Av.

Also I think one change in the PBBL rules (Dauntless is a regular skill) means that one of their real long term weaknesses (lack of strength) has an easy compensation. Many linemen and blitzers will take it first or second.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:59 pm

Might it be best to have another thread started to list all the different ideas people have on changing the Norse team then maybe do a pro/con list on each idea? Maybe wittle down the list to 3 or so good ideas and have people play test them?

Or would be starting a separate thread about this be opening up a whole other can of worms?

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:34 pm

Highlander wrote:Might it be best to have another thread started to list all the different ideas people have on changing the Norse team then maybe do a pro/con list on each idea? Maybe wittle down the list to 3 or so good ideas and have people play test them?

Or would be starting a separate thread about this be opening up a whole other can of worms?

Or possibly we don't break what isn't broken.

Norse are one of the most popular teams out there, they're a tier one team and have had a fair amount of tournament success as well as league success. They are played by plenty of people "straight out the box" and work well as they are. There's still no logical reasoning to actually change the team other than people wanting werewolfs, werebears or yetis. If you want them, then simply paint up a player to resemble them, there's no need to re-invent the wheel because people whine that Norse are 'boring'.

So boring, that they're still one of the most popular teams?

(edit)
10th most popular team on FUMBBL
6th most popular team to take at Tournaments

NOTHING to say they are a 'boring' team or need changed in anyway.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:54 pm

I don't think a radical change is really necessary, but the proposed list is very interesting on paper, very fluffy. It would definitely be something else once it was play tested. Though the worst thing we could do is instead of making changes so that Norse are a bit better later on is that we make them so overwhelming good they're a no brainer choice to take.

I think the biggest change I would want is for the catchers to be MA 7 instead of 6 so that they seem like proper catchers, as in the fastest players on the field, plus the reduced price in rerolls is nice too.

As for other changes I've seen proposed such as giving Lineman strength access or maybe increasing Blitzers armor to 8 are just as intriguing options as the current proposed list change.

It'd be nice to have a discussion on what the good coaches who have high TR Norse teams on FUMBBL are doing compared to what other coaches strategies are for Norse. It'd help separate weither the Norse or the coaches playing them need improvement.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:30 pm

Of course this roster needs to be playtested, no doubt about that.

I wanted to add one thing concerning the Amazons, which are almost the same kind of cookie-cutter type roster (all the same stats with dodge all around). If the Norse catcher can get upgraded to MA7, why not the 'zons as well? The only change I would propose would be to drop the STR to 2 to balance out the MA increase. Maybe it's just me but I always thought it was a bit strange that human females (no matter if they're Amazon warriors or whatever) would be stronger than athletic human males. If the human roster can have ST2 catchers, the 'zons should too, being female, shouldn't be stronger than their male counter parts. I don't think the drop in STR would really affect then that much as they have easy access to blodge (as does the rest of the team) and would still be hard to knock down. I see 'zons as more of an avoiding team, dodging and running away from opponants as compared to Norse who are very bashy. Anyway, the 7 2 3 7 statline would be unique and would make the roster look less cookie-cutter. Just my 2 cents.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:49 am

Hi Ith,
I think that the pricing is what makes the difference short term.
I think that the roster you suggested is by no means supirior to a standard norse roster.

And the thrower still has a function. He can be developed if you want a passing game.
I didn't use him for running the ball before either.

I could see the wolf going to MA6. That might be wise.
I can see why frenzy could have to go, but fluff wise I find it very hard to imagine a werewolf kind player that doesn't have frenzy.
Maybe we should remove its G access?

Cheers
Martin

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:00 am

I completely agree with Ithilkir and want to say once more: Why fix what ain't broken?

R

David Bergkvist · Post by **David Bergkvist** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:01 am

plasmoid wrote:Hi Ith,
I think that the pricing is what makes the difference short term.
I think that the roster you suggested is by no means supirior to a standard norse roster.

Norse is competitive the first few matches even if they only buy linemen and lots of re-rolls. So this reduced re-roll cost has made the team even more inexpensive in the short term.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:05 pm

Hi David and all,
I hadn't noticed the drop in reroll cost. Can't say that I like that particular tweak.
Cheers
Martin

fen · Post by **fen** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:26 pm

I'd agree with Plasmoid here, a roster like that would deserve 60K or even 70K rerolls. Which could be justified with fluff as the Norse do enjoy excessive drinking and partying over training.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:48 pm

I appreciate all the feedback ... this didn't get the support I had hoped for and most importantly ... Ian is against it. So I'm dropping the matter as there are not enough yes votes vs the no to override Ian's no.

Thanks for the discussion guys.

Galak

Emberbreeze · Post by **Emberbreeze** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:53 pm

DesTroy wrote:Anything that makes the Norse less susceptible to early-match devastation is welcome! Our league had a Norse team using the current rules, which only had 6 fit players left after 2 games! Needless to say, the owner abandoned the team and went with something more durable (Chaos)... The Chaos team then went on to win our rookie cup competition! Go figure.

Maybe there should be teams which can suffer early on in leagues, if everyone found it easy to make it through the 1st 5 games there wouldn't be any challenge in playing them.

Talk Fantasy Football

Norse Team Revamp (part 2) ... votes please

Would you prefer this roster over the current Norse roster?