Should Brettonians be in Bloodbowl?

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:16 am

Hi Darkson,
first off, I don't have any say in what Galak (or Jervis) are trying to achieve.
But I have noticed that recently power-ups have been granted to or discussed for several of the weaker teams (Slann, Pact (twice), Underworld, Gobbos, Halflings and Ogre). So maybe the level of vampires is not what is aimed for.

As for myself, I'm aiming for tier 2.
But not tier 2 as in a post I saw recently (by Galak?) where vampires where the only tier 2 team.
IMO, that's nonsense.
We've all been talking about tier 1, 2 and 3 way before the vampire team existed.
AFAIK, tier 1 is something like the top 5.
Tier 3 is the stunties. Everyone else is tier 2.

So, landing them smack in the middle of the power hierarchy was my goal.
And that's where they are now.
IMO, designing new teams to be tier 3 (i.e. not tournament viable) is just sloppy design.

Cheers
Martin

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:35 pm

No, I read that they were meant to be Tier 2 i.e. vampire level.

But from Tom's last post on MBBL, it looks like it might be a moot point anyway. (Yay!)

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:05 pm

plasmoid wrote:IMO, designing new teams to be tier 3 (i.e. not tournament viable) is just sloppy design.

I will respectively disagree with this ... very greatly disagree ... part of what has kept me around and interested in BB is the fun and challenge of the tier 3 teams ... so making a Tier 3 team by design to keep the fun/joke element around in BB is a LOOONNGGG way from sloppy design in my opinion. Not every team needs to win 50% to be a good designed team.
And if you would like to hear me rant EVEN MORE on this fairly hot button topic for me ... just read it here from my Fanatic Magazine Last Word article:
http://www.specialist-games.com/LastWord.asp#TomA

And to your entire suggestion of the Tiers for that matter.

And I think I've already said that I think your Bret team is fine ... just has a lot going against it to be made official ... but one of them is NOT its balance.

Tier 2 is teams that are BY DESIGN aimed to win between 40% to 49% o the time.

Currently the ONLY team DELIBRATELY designed this way is the Vampire team.

The 3 teams that received boosts were all underperforming from where they were being designed to land ... so they got boosts.

Galak

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:07 pm

I swear CDs and Dark Elves were designed to be teir 2 but they've been promoted.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:51 pm

Snew wrote:I swear CDs and Dark Elves were designed to be teir 2 but they've been promoted.

CDs definitely yes when first introduced where Tier 2 (but I'm not sure it was delibrate) .... Dark Elves I don't remember that being a design goal or them really being that bad but that was before they had 4 blitzers so my memory of those days is pretty poor ... (probably because we never had any DE teams in my TT league).

Galak

fen · Post by **fen** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:06 pm

Out of interest, when did the Bull Centaurs and Extra 2 Blitzers (holding back comments on that change) happen? I pretty much went from pure 3rd ed +DZ to a little LRB4.0 and then LRB5.0.

Mind you 4 H'tharks in Chaos Dwarfs didn't suck.

David Bergkvist · Post by **David Bergkvist** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:55 pm

The bull centaurs and extra blitzers were, to my knowledge, added at the same time as the rookie big guys, namely in the ill-fated 4th edition (which was between 3rd ed and LRB 1). If one does not consider 4th edition to be official, then the answer is that they were added in the LRB 1.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:03 pm

fen wrote:Out of interest, when did the Bull Centaurs and Extra 2 Blitzers (holding back comments on that change) happen? I pretty much went from pure 3rd ed +DZ to a little LRB4.0 and then LRB5.0.

I actually would need to grab BB Mag #1 and #2 to check out 4th edition as I'm not positive the changes were made in 4th ... I thought the first time was LRB 1.0.

On my website I keep a record of all the LRB and printed Rules Reviews. So pulling up LRB 1.0:
http://www.midgardbb.com/LRB_PBBL/LivingRulebook1.0.pdf

We see that the big team roster changes where (marked in blue):

2 extra DE Blitzers
2 extra HE Lion Warriors (Catchers)
2 extra Undead Wights (this was later removed by the BBRC)
4 extra Undead Zombies (they used to be 0-8 allowed)
2 rookie Bull Centaurs added to Chaos Dwarf roster

Galak

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:28 pm

Did someone mention 4th ed Gold? Are we bringing it back? That would be a good day for BB. All those complaints you all have about this skill or that are severely minimized by OSPA. I know. You don't like it because it makes you think too hard. That's too bad. It was the thinking man's BB and is sorely missed by the chosen few.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:53 am

Hi Galak and Darkson,
I got the nagging sensation that neither of you understood what I meant.
My mistake perhaps.

My point was that tier 2 is more than "as weak as vampires".
Galak agrees, saying that tier 2 is around 40-49 win %. Great.
So, Darkson, I see 0 reason to reduce their power, and somehow it seems to me that you don't think so either, but just couldn't help yourself taking another swing. (I say that because pretty much all other serious suggestions for the team has been about slightly raising their power: Like removing loner, or giving stand firm instead of juggernaut).

And my comment about tier 3 is that (IMO) we have plenty of joke teams, and that's all good! I get that. But let's not add any more - coaches who like a challenge have several options. Let's add tournament viable teams instead.
Designing new teams to stay in tier 3 - IMO - is a waste.
Designing teams to start in tier 3, and then slowly bump them up until they hit tier 2.... that I'm all for.

Cheers both
Martin

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:07 pm

plasmoid wrote:Designing new teams to stay in tier 3 - IMO - is a waste.
Designing teams to start in tier 3, and then slowly bump them up until they hit tier 2.... that I'm all for.

Wow. I don't think I can disagree more. You design a team for a certain position in the game's hirearchy. I don't think it should evolve. Well, removing Block from Longbeards and Norse Linemen needs to happen but that was an initial mistake that should be fixed, not team evolution.

I also think the game could use a few more teir 3 teams to support stunty leagues.

It's all for fun. We should quit being so serious for awhile.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:54 pm

Snew wrote:It's all for fun. We should quit being so serious for awhile.

I don't often agree with Snew ... I definitely do here.

Galak

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:19 pm

plasmoid wrote:My point was that tier 2 is more than "as weak as vampires".
Galak agrees, saying that tier 2 is around 40-49 win %. Great.

Then there are a lot more Tier 2 teams than just Vampires.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:12 pm

Darkson wrote:
plasmoid wrote:My point was that tier 2 is more than "as weak as vampires".
Galak agrees, saying that tier 2 is around 40-49 win %. Great.
Then there are a lot more Tier 2 teams than just Vampires.

Nice selective quoting Martin. I said that Vampires are the ONLY team that have been DESIGNED to be in the 40 to 49% category.

D*mn I'm being to fell a DL sized rant coming on here about being selective quoted.

Galak

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:34 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote: often agree with Snew ... I definitely do here.

Galak

Thanks Tom. I knew you felt that way. That's why I don't ever misquote you. You simply can't make a quote like that any better.

I sure do miss DL. He was one of the better minds. His instability just made it entertaining.

Talk Fantasy Football

Should Brettonians be in Bloodbowl?

Should there be a seperate Brettonian team in BB?