Bretonnian roster... What's the deal?

[sann0638]

What worried me a little bit was this status message, telling one whether you`re connected or not:

Why did that worry you? What does it say?

[DinoTitanedition]

It`s a statusmessage that you`re not connected to the server and that your progress won`t be saved. I had the feeling that you have to be "online all the time". I never liked that option, since stuff like microtransactions often go along with this.

[Milo]

My general logic in theese question is similar to that I have seen a lot of japaneese teams play soccer and baseball, yet i have never seen them field sumo wrestlers, samurajs or ninjas.

Great post ahansa, succinctly argued. I'm with you all the way - especially the above quote.

Ah, but in Ninja Warrior...

There is I think two design philosophies behind BB team creation. The 2nd edition racial approach (everyone gets the sports positions, but teams represent a race) and the 3rd edition army approach - hello wardancers, gutter runners, etc. The game was tied more closely to that edition of WFB in look and team feel. Subsequently that approach has been taken and elements of 2nd ed put back in, but it is still based on 3rd ed. I doubt we will get any agreement now between the two!

In second edition, there were five distinct positions: blitzer, blocker, thrower, catcher, lineman, each designated by it's own color-coded ring for the base, since the plastic figures themselves were indistinguishable (red, blue, white, yellow, gray/no ring, if I remember correctly.) One thing that I think third edition really got right is that -- with a few exceptions -- the players still fit into these categories, but no team got all five.

In 3rd edition, there was also an attempt to add some flavor to the teams by changing the names to reflect WHFB troop types, but that was just a naming scheme -- there's no denying the fact that gutter runners are skaven catchers, or that longbeards were dwarf linemen. I don't have a problem with this sort of WHFB crossover; in fact, I think it adds some nice texture to the teams.

Somewhat less successful, in my opinion, are the attempts to make a Blood Bowl team out of the WHFB army lists, like the Chaos Dwarves. Who's the lineman? The Chaos Dwarf Blockers, who are identical to the Dwarf Linemen? Or are they Blockers?

Note that I'm not saying the Chaos Dwarves are a "worse" team, just that I think these teams are harder to balance against the core teams.

[harvestmouse]

Another position has been added, 'The Runner'. I think this is a pretty good idea. A quasi thrower that is a bit faster, but without the passing skill. Maybe with less armour to make him a better runner. This position I think really suits Bretonnians, rather than a thrower. I just wish they didn't make this positional a total mess by adding the Norse Runner as a catcher.

Incidentally, the Dwarf Longbeard has been renamed as a Dwarf Blocker, so you have your answer. So Dwarfs do not have a lineman position where as CDs have hobgoblins as linemen (but I think that was always obvious, wasn't it?)

The thing about Dwarfs is that they are a superior being, like elves. So they don't really have standard warriors/linos, they're all special, but fewer in number. Being superior fighters is the only thing keeping them alive.

I do think that maybe the Dwarf roster should have a lino position (drop the tackle) and then 0-4 of the Longbeards. As they differ to the usual blocker positional, I don't think they should be called blockers. I also feel that yes, probably trying to imitate warhammer was a mistake, but now we have (or had) the High Elven etc names, we shouldn't do away with them, as it fits the look and also gives us a fluff base (professional teams vs state teams) aka pro elves with their blitzers high elves with their dragon warriors.

[Darkson]

Er... High Elves lost their (stupid) Warhammer names the same time as the dwarfs.

[harvestmouse]

Er... High Elves lost their (stupid) Warhammer names the same time as the dwarfs.

Edited last paragraph.


I do think however that maybe the Dwarf roster should actually have a lino position (drop the tackle for) and then have 0-4 of Longbeards. As they differ to the usual blocker positional, I don't think they should be called blockers and Longbeards is a good term. As Dwarfs do not age like humans (they tend to get better for a long time) a Longbeard is a good term for BB player that has experience and thus tackle.

I also feel that yes, probably trying to imitate warhammer was a mistake, but after having it for the High Elven names etc, we shouldn't have done away with them. The theme fits the look and also gives us an interesting fluff base (where we can see the difference between professional teams and state teams) aka pro elves with their blitzers and high elves with their dragon warriors. Which do look like Dragon Warriors and gives us an insight into High Elven society.

[Darkson]

I disagree - if I want to play with WFB units I'd play WFB. I'd have liked the rest of the names to be removed, this is a sports games, not a battlefield.

[plasmoid]

I loved 2nd ed. back in the day.
But I'm quite happy that there are now Witch Elfs, Wardancers, Troll Slayers and Gutter Runners in the game.

[harvestmouse]

Yeah, a Troll Slayer is a pretty interesting player. Without Warhammer we wouldn't have him, without him would we even have dauntless?

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue to be honest. 2nd edition for me is king, and it just isn't aging. It's now become uber cyberpunk chic, that nearish future look of the 90s. Personally, I think we should always strive for that look being the 'official' feel of the game, without restricting individual creativity.

So yeah at the time, I wasn't very impressed. I wasn't very impressed with much of the mid-early/mid 90s GW; overpriced, over characterized, aimed at a young market.

Looking back, I don't think it was a great idea trying to unify BB with Warhammer. However it happened and that can't be changed without a souped up Delorean. What I don't think is a good idea is retrospectively changing the names to our block format blocker/blitzer/catcher etc and trying to erase history. I just don't see the benefit in it, and it washes out some of the colour. The teams were created this way for a purpose. Should a Wardancer now become a blitzer? In that case should a Wight just become an Undead blitzer? Ok, changing HE names isn't as extreme as this, but it's toned down character removal.

Yes, they shouldn't have designed the teams that way, but changing them now removes some of the character, and Warhammer cross over did gives us some pretty interesting players. I think also as I said before it does portray a social situation where the world has moved on from it's Warhammer war like state and into an era where a professional game has become a way of life. However traditionally Elves and Dwarfs refuse to move with the times and their rigid (dare I say it slightly facist) society continues to try to survive with it's traditional values in a changing landscape.

I like this play off and the scope for creativity it gives you. Both in themes, social status and player/team types. It was hinted at when they release Pro Elves, and how the related to High Elves, and I like that play on things. Also, and the more I think about it the more I dislike what has been done to Norse. Why did Norse backtrack on the professional player policy? Blitzers changed to Berserkers and quite frankly aren't that Berserky at all....That change really didn't make sense.

So in conclusion, I dislike unnecessary change that removes colour and character. Even though I originally didn't like the source.

[Milo]

I agree with Harvestmouse, although while I think the setting in 2nd edition was really good, it was not nearly as good a GAME as 3rd Edition or virtually anything that followed it.

[harvestmouse]

Thinking on this, why couldn't we have both?

High Elf blitzer (Dragon Warrior) 7 3 3 8 Block

Wood Elf blitzer (Wardancer) 8 3 3 7 Block, Dodge, Leap

Norse blitzer (Berserker) 6 3 3 7 Block, Frenzy, Jump up

This way we have the best of both worlds. Clear positional roles but the colour of their social counterparts.

The only one it doesn't really work with for me is Longbeards. I think a Longbeard is both a personality and a description. It also gives us scope for adding Lineman and/or Blockers in the future if needed (which could be more generic to those player types, where as a Dwarf Blocker/Longbeard isn't really a Lineman or a Blocker).

[Milo]

Sure, mouse, if you feel like it needs to be codified that way. I just always felt like, despite the WHFB names, the players generally fell into those categories "behind the scenes", if you will. I alternately refer to my Stormvermin as Skaven Blitzers -- and I tend to paint my bases by that old standard -- but I still have always liked the name "Stormvermin".

[harvestmouse]

Well yeah, that's another one. My reason is simply for fluff/background colour. You can delve as much into as you like. Why not pull out a High Elven army book and look at the different elite units? Dwarfs as well if you like, blitzers are clearly based off of Iron Breakers.

My personal choice would be to have 2 rosters. Change blitzers name to Iron Breakers. Blockers back to Longbeards and then develop a 2nd ed team. Again as you have High/Pro elves. You could have 2 Dwarf teams. I'm actually playing with this second team and they're a bit weak.

0-2 throwers 5 3 3 8 thick skull, pass, sure hands
0-4 blitzers 6 3 3 9 thick skull, block, catch
0-4 blockers 3 4 2 10 thick skull
0-16 linemen 4 3 2 9 thick skull, block

It's a nice roster though I could see a lot of people not taking the throwers, but that's fine as 8 positionals is about right.

[straume]

You could have 2 Dwarf teams. I'm actually playing with this second team and they're a bit weak.

0-2 throwers 5 3 3 8 thick skull, pass, sure hands
0-4 blitzers 6 3 3 9 thick skull, block, catch
0-4 blockers 3 4 2 10 thick skull
0-16 linemen 4 3 2 9 thick skull, block

It's a nice roster though I could see a lot of people not taking the throwers, but that's fine as 8 positionals is about right.

Extra Dwarf team, because everyone loves Dwarves!

To be serious, though, the roster looks perhaps a bit to much like the Orc roster?

You have the 6339 blitzers with a bonus skill (catch), and the Blocker which here trades one MA for +AV and thick skull. So bit better than the Orcs, perhaps? Thrower is identical + thick skull and the lineman trade one MA for block and thick skull. Again, just a nudge better than the Orcs. But no troll, so I guess, close enough. This Orc-Dwarf variety does not really add anything new/interesteing to the gameplay/strategy does it? (It is not horrible and I am not slamming the idea, just not loving it).

[harvestmouse]

Well you're right. This is a translation of the 2nd edition team. Orcs are a translation of the 2nd edition Orc team. One of the big complaints about 2nd edition BB (and 3rd ed Warhammer from the same time) was that teams were a bit too samey and jack of all trades.

Personally I think it's weaker than Orcs. Lack of movement and ag 3 on only 6 players limits them in loose ball situations. The one team I'm using isn't doing very well anyway!

The bottom line though is that if each new roster has to add something new and have a unique way of playing, then yeah there's absolutely no reason for having this roster. It's more for having race 'options'.