What is a believable peasant statline?

lionwarrior · Post by **lionwarrior** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:14 pm

Well, i'd like to have a crack at the brettonian lineman - but i don't think my suggestion will work for plasmoid (the clbbbl is way to high in power level).

First of, i see no reason why the brettonian lineman should be a peasant. Knights don't bring peasants to war - instead the gallant knights fight to defend the lives of the lowly peasants they are sworn to protect. In my opinion this means the brettonian lineman must be a man-at-arms instead.

0-12 Men-at-arms 5,3,3,8, General skill access, 40.000 GPs
0-4 Knights Errant 7,3,3,8, Block, Pass Block, Tackle, General and Strength skill access, 100.000 GPs
0-2 Questing Knights 6,4,2,9, Block, Stand Firm, General and Strength skill access, 100.000 GPs

Re-rolls: 60.000 GPs

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:12 pm

Hi Lionwarrior,

>Well, i'd like to have a crack at the brettonian lineman - but i don't think
>my suggestion will work for plasmoid (the clbbbl is way to high in power
>level).
Well. We do still use a lot of the official rosters alongside our homemade ones. So, if your roster balances with the official ones, then I don't see why it wouldn't work in the CLBBBL (or whereever).

>First of, i see no reason why the brettonian lineman should be a
>peasant. Knights don't bring peasants to war.
I never said the Blood Bowl team was an army.
IMO, while they don't use peasants for something as important as war, they make for cheap and plentiful fillers on their BB teams

>0-12 Men-at-arms 5,3,3,8, General skill access, 40.000 GPs
>0-4 Knights Errant 7,3,3,8, Block, Pass Block, Tackle, General and Strength skill access, 100.000 GPs
>0-2 Questing Knights 6,4,2,9, Block, Stand Firm, General and Strength skill access, 100.000 GPs
>Re-rolls: 60.000 GPs

Well,
it seems everybody has their own Bretonnian team

Personally, I'm against humans with ST4 (or AG4), but different strokes I guess.
Cheers
Martin

lionwarrior · Post by **lionwarrior** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:11 pm

plasmoid wrote: Well, it seems everybody has their own Bretonnian team
Personally, I'm against humans with ST4 (or AG4), but different strokes I guess.
Cheers
Martin

Personally i'm against orcs with st4 - mostly because them black orcs always wup my elves...

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:40 pm

Hi all,
a discussion with MattChaos on the specialist-games forum has made me seriously consider a few changes to the team:

1. Changing player titles to make the references to WFB much less explicit (and less military).
2. Removing sure hands from the ball-handling squire and giving him pass instead, to make him more clearly a thrower type.
3. Replacing AG-skills on the ball-handling knight with ST-skills.
This makes him clearly a human blitzer with a ball-handling twist, instead of a rock hard catcher type.

The result is this:

Code: Select all

***The Bretonnian Team********************************
The royal court-leagues of bretonnia employ some of the best players 
that mankind has to offer. With strong hands and steady nerves, the 
brettonian knights and their trusty squires quest for the 'other'
grail - the Blood Bowl Trophy. 

#___gc____title_____________stats_access_____skills 
0-2 120K Knights of the Line 6339 G,ST block, dauntless, juggernaut 
0-2  70K Squires of the Line 6338 G,ST guard 
0-2 110K Knights of the Endzone 7338 G,ST block, catch 
0-2  60K Squires of the Endzone 6337 G,PA Pass
0-12 30K Peasants 6327 G - 

ReRolls 70K. Apothecary and Wizard as normal. No Big Guy.
*************************************************

How do you like these changes?
(Oh, and anyone with a better title than "..of the endzone"?)
Cheers
Martin

aarrgh · Post by **aarrgh** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:23 pm

..."goal"den knights......

sorry......

aarrgh · Post by **aarrgh** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:24 pm

very sorry

Gus · Post by **Gus** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:31 am

i dunno... might need testing, cause i find it hard to really estimate the power of a team with VERY expensive positionals and VERY cheap fodder...

also, don't listen to Mattchaos, he's a FREAK (kiss Marduk on my behalf... ^^)

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:17 am

Hi Gus,
they're priced kind of like Khemri

Anyway, it was more about if you like the changes conceptually.
I'll be running a bit of playtest in a vault setting this spring.
Cheers
Martin

Gus · Post by **Gus** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:19 pm

conceptually, catch on the knight is good, because it is only marginally useful, yet it is a doubles and is priced accordingly. i'm not too keen on the pass access though. i think a sure hands, no P access could be more in line, but that's not my roster, so... =)

Mattchaos · Post by **Mattchaos** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:52 pm

Gus ...

Humm nothing

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:28 pm

plasmoid wrote:Hi Tim and David,
the idea wasn't that they had to be unique.
The idea was that they should be worse than thralls.
The rationale was that the peasants are reasonably fit specimen, but don't have good equipment or good training.

6 3 3 7 G 40k and no access to apoth (who'd care for the life of a peasant anyhow?). That might do the trick perhaps.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:19 pm

Hi all,
I'm not sure that I'll go ahead with the change to the "thrower" squires. Yes, pass will make them more clearly throwers, but without sure hands, the knights will just fetch the ball themselves, rather than letting the squires get it for them.

One more question:
Is there a skill for the bashy squires more appropriate than guard?

Cheers
Martin

atropabelladonna · Post by **atropabelladonna** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:08 pm

plasmoid wrote:Hi all,
I'm not sure that I'll go ahead with the change to the "thrower" squires. Yes, pass will make them more clearly throwers, but without sure hands, the knights will just fetch the ball themselves, rather than letting the squires get it for them.

One more question:
Is there a skill for the bashy squires more appropriate than guard?

Cheers
Martin

If the knights fetch the ball themselves, then the team is hurting itself by taking away two positionals.

For names I like

Knight Blitzer
Knight Catcher
Line Squire
Thrower Squire.

Nice and simple.

As for the skill choice for the squire of the line, I think gaurd and +1AV is appropriate for a player who is going to support the main battle line.

I also like what Mirascael suggested. Don't allow the peaseants to use the apothecary. I doubt someone would do so anyway, but its a fun flavor rule.

Alesdair · Post by **Alesdair** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:02 am

6 3 3 7 and no use of Team RR's.

"You can't train your peasents!! Pointless waste of time!"

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:52 am

Hi all,
just to make it clear.
I'm not looking for a solution to the peasant statline.
I'm quite happy with the 6327 30K peasants.
And the poll indicates that they are OK.
As for them being cheap, 4 official teams use 30K linemen, so it is by no means uncommon, and all other players (and rerolls) are priced quite high, so the team doesn't get a big price break.

Designwize, I don't like special rules - so I don't want stuff like "peasants can't use rerolls" or "peasants can't use the apothecary".
It just doesn't sit well with me.

One way of having 6337 peasants could be to give them the vault "skill" loner (roll d6 when using team reroll, on 1-3 the reroll is lost).
This does work a bit like my original idea where team rerolls were very expensive, but all knights had pro.
But I think that the 6327 solution is simply more elegant.

Cheers all,
Martin