spubbbba wrote:Gaixo wrote:harvestmouse wrote:
The second DZ (3rd edition) came out quite some time after the release of 3rd ed.
Not too long. They both came out in '94 and at the time it seemed like they came out right on top of each other (I was a teenager, though, so might not have had the best sense of time passing). I don't differ with your larger point, but there were surely some 2nd-Ed. players that encountered Death Zone without having played much (or any) 3rd.
Yep, this is right. It was only a few months between the release of 3rd edition and deathzone. Deathzone added progression, loads more star players, wizards, cards and loads of new skills. Tackle wasn't in the 3rd edition Bloodbowl rulebook despite dwarf longbeards having it.
I doubt there were many coaches who just played 3rd edition without upgrading to deathzone as you'd really only be able to play 1 off games.
I also suspect the complaints were not about the teams added in Deathzone, more that all the teams in 3rd edition were a bit too WHFB in both look and name. A lot of the new model range looked too much like their fantasy equivalents and that was one of the least creative periods in GW model-wise. It was probably in the hope of gaining sales for both games though as it was easy to convert certain models such as dwarfs to fantasy.
Really, it felt a long time before DZ was released......that's memory for you.
If 2nd ed players had made it that far, DZ would have been nothing. Since the heyday of 2nd ed BB and 3rd ed WFB. Players had to put up with a big swing in fluff, more than 100% rise in price, a market swing towards children and a dumbing down of the rules (not a bad thing mind). If they put up with all of that, they were pretty hardcore GW players.
I feel Valen you're being deliberately obtuse. Fluff objections may not mean much to you, and they don't for a lot of players. However for others they mean a lot. You have your opinion on why they should be added, fair enough. A lot have their opinions on why not.
I think I've listed my objections before, however here they are again.
Firstly, I don't have a problem with Cyanide and I was kind of excited when I heard they were releasing new rosters. However as it became clear they don't have a clue what they are doing, I'm now reticent.
My objections are:
* The stats do not portray the creatures they're trying to portray. Letters and Thirsters are much stronger then their stats suggest. Note: This is a dangerous creep. What's next ma8 Dwarfs?
* The team doesn't fit the fluff of Khorne. Khorne is the god of killing. This roster should be a major killing machine. They are not. Note: The problem here is that didn't want another CPOMB roster. So the team has suffered due to rule problems. Possibly if Khorne was the
only roster that could take PO, it would make things more realistic.
* The project was a hash job. The design crew had severe limitations on what they could and couldn't do. Cyanide came up with a roster that was broken. The design crew redesigned it as best they could. They came up with a well playing roster, but losing other aspects.
* The project was a missed opportunity. This team is screaming out for a deamon negtrait. Instability or some such. There was no way that would have been possible with the design restrictions.
* Player descriptions are all over the place. Here the design crew are at fault. Descriptions are weird and there's a certain amount of overdescribing. Fluff reasons are given, but as an after thought, and feel very bolted on. Basically yes the team plays well, but at the expense of player credibility. Note: From teams made, we have definite guidelines on describing players and giving access. This isn't the case with this team.
* As quoted Khorne was a terrible idea for a team, it's a no win scenario. Either you make it a killer roster which would be unpopular, or you tone it down and make it interesting and not Khorne like at all. There are many many other roster choices that could have worked much better.
Of course there are good points to this roster, I just feel that allowing this team, which for me goes over the line is a dangerous precedent. Basically you're relying on Cyanide making good decisions on who makes their rosters and ideas in the future; like aging in the new game for example. It's still pretty clear those making decisions do not have the experience that a lot of us have.
If NAF want Khorne, I think a better job can be done. So could do it themselves or get somebody/ies to help out. No restrictions, and a custom neg trait. Making a fluffy Khorne team balanced in a perpetual though, yeah that could be problematic.
