Bretonnian roster... What's the deal?

[SunDevil]

I like the Bret roster as is and I find it interesting and fitting.

I do not see the point (or fun) in turning them into yet another 'blitzers hit, runners run, blockers block' team.

Though I also agree that Yeomen should have remained the name, not Blockers. Blech.

[odinsgrandson]

I know you would. Which comes back to the start of the apple. Cyanide are lose on the streets of metropolis with a tank cannon.

I don't know- do we know if Blood Bowl 2 is going to follow Plasmoid's narrowing of the tiers completely? That's sort of something I'd expect.

And I'm not sure that I'm against it, honestly.

For the most part, I agree with Plasmoid's fixes, even though I haven't pushed for playing with them. They're mostly subtle, and my only real trouble with him is upgrading the Vampire Thrall- but that's really because my Vamp teams rock and I have a hard time believing that they needed a buff.

Now, I'd rather the names were more colorful for the Brets- and yoemen/knights etc. is better than going with the same names that most teams have. But I don't usually worry much about names anyway (since I often write whatever I like on my roster anyway).

[harvestmouse]

lose=loose

@Sundevil: Blitzers do blitz, Blockers do block and Runners do run....that's their job and that's why they're called their position. In professional sports you don't hire a goal keeper or a quarter back and make him something different because it's boring. What's more, they are human. Is the air and water totally different the otherside of the grey mountains?

You want to make them different, you have to be conservative due to consistency. And if you want to make them different from normal positionals, don't make them normal positionals!

@odinsgrandson I don't think they're using Plasmoid's NTBB much at all or at all (still to be confirmed). They are using Plasmoid's CRP+ but not all of it. They are also using his Bretonnian roster, but have changed the Yeoman's name.

With some other wording, it seems they're using somebody with some knowledge, but they really don't know what they're doing.

At one point they're changing Yeoman to blockers (removing the warhammer influence) but changing dwarf blockers and skaven blitzers back to Longbeards and Stormvermin (adding back the warhammer influence removed by the BBRC). This totally doesn't make sense. I think bringing back the Longbeards is probably a good thing. Bringing back the Stormvermin is neither here nor there, they're perfectly fine as blitzers.

[Regash]

What's more, they are human. Is the air and water totally different the otherside of the grey mountains?

This is one of the main reasons why I don't need Bretonnians.
We already have two chaos teams, two undead and four elf teams. That is 8 out of 21 or 24 teams, a third of the total number.
Versatility is a good thing but different teams have to make sense.

Do we realy need 4 elf teams? Or another human team?
When will someone bring up a second orc team?

[Darkson]

When will someone bring up a second orc team?

Savage Orcs!

[Regash]

Savage Orcs!

Oh my god... Nooooooooo!

[TheAzman]

I don't know... Another Human team may not be needed, or we could maybe trim an Elf team off, but I wouldn't mind if they did add another Human team or didn't axe an Elf team. Even a couple of new and different stunty teams would be interesting, though I wouldn't know what races would work.

For me, variety is good. As long as it doesn't take away from the game or polarize the player base, it can't be all that bad, right?

Anyway, just my two cents

[SunDevil]

@Sundevil: Blitzers do blitz, Blockers do block and Runners do run....that's their job and that's why they're called their position. In professional sports you don't hire a goal keeper or a quarter back and make him something different because it's boring. What's more, they are human. Is the air and water totally different the otherside of the grey mountains?

An Orc Blitzer isn't so much a Blitzer as he is just a slightly faster Orc. To me, their identities are more important than their positions. Besides, how many times does a Blitzer roll an AG boost and become the ballcarrier? Or a Thrower gets +ST and starts hitting because the team needs him to? Players play the role that the team needs them to, not just what their 'title' decides for them and nothing else.

And what about Stunty teams? There is no Goblin Blitzer or Halfling Thrower or Snotling Blocker. Those teams have no positionals to speak of - players do what is needed for the team to win. Or at least try to win.

What about Dwarf teams that start out with a 'Blitzer' as the ballcarrier? Or Amazons that do the same? Or CDs using the Bull to carry the ball? Or Slann 'Blitzers' which are are obviously better suited to be safeties or sweepers? Or Slann/Norse 'Catchers' which make better runners? Should none of those players be used in those ways because it is not in their title?

This team (in my opinion) is trying to represent what entitled, selfish knights would do and what the trusty yeoman would do and what the uncoordinated peasants would do if they tried to play Blood Bowl. In this fantasy world, there are no requirements to create a team and start touring the Old World. In real life, there are a million hoops someone must go through to own or coach or play on a professional sports team. They are tied to those roles because that has shown to be the best way to compete (and hopefully win) under that particular ruleset. BB has none of that! Goblins can bribe the ref all day long and Amazons emphasize teamwork while Underworld mutates and Dwarves bring an actual steamroller onto the field! Teams play the game in a variety of ways and any team that can shake that up is fine by me.

That is why I like the flavor names (Stormvermin, Longbeard, Yeoman) better than the positional names because while they often make (for example) the best blitzers, that is not how they play out.

You don't like the Bret roster and I have no problem with that. To each their own! But we will have to respectfully disagree on what 'boring' is. A roster like the Brets that will play differently and bring something new to the pitch just isn't boring to me but rather quite interesting. Of course, I am greatly biased by the Simyin (apes). If every team is just Blitzers/Throwers/Blockers and we are expected to not venture out of that box then too many teams (and coaches) will play the same way. That, to me, is the very definition of 'boring'.

[harvestmouse]

@Sundevil: Blitzers do blitz, Blockers do block and Runners do run....that's their job and that's why they're called their position. In professional sports you don't hire a goal keeper or a quarter back and make him something different because it's boring. What's more, they are human. Is the air and water totally different the otherside of the grey mountains?

An Orc Blitzer isn't so much a Blitzer as he is just a slightly faster Orc. To me, their identities are more important than their positions. Besides, how many times does a Blitzer roll an AG boost and become the ballcarrier? Or a Thrower gets +ST and starts hitting because the team needs him to? Players play the role that the team needs them to, not just what their 'title' decides for them and nothing else.

An Orc Blitzer is the total definition of a blitzer to me. He comes with the 3 core upgrades of a blitzer on a lineman. Those being +MA, Block and S access. This is the calling card of a starting blitzer. He has a clear role in the team. He is the one that is the most reliable to use for blitzes, he is suited to be a part of offensive running plays. Obviously, not all blitzers are exactly the same. As an example the Skaven blitzer. The race realise their hardness deficiencies so spend money to upgrade their blitzers armour. So have extra AV over MA. However how the player develops is one of the key and best parts of the game. There is the whole RPG element of your player rolling +AG and changing his role in life. This is essentially the most exciting thing about progression, the unknown of how your players will develop. However, they will always keep their 'blitzer' elements (without stat injuries of course) and therefore suited to this, even though they may become suited to another role better.

And what about Stunty teams? There is no Goblin Blitzer or Halfling Thrower or Snotling Blocker. Those teams have no positionals to speak of - players do what is needed for the team to win. Or at least try to win.

Hmmmmmm I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. My point is that if you're going to call a player a blitzer, or a thrower it should have the base of a thrower or a blitzer. This argument was mainly aimed at the Yeoman changing name to a blocker. Halflings do not have any positional names, and all have similar 'stunty' stats. They could be called 'lineman' as they were in 2nd ed, but that's neither here nor there.

What about Dwarf teams that start out with a 'Blitzer' as the ballcarrier? Or Amazons that do the same?

But this wasn't the design of the game was it? The designated ball carriers for those teams are those that have been given the role for carry the ball. The Runner and the Thrower. If those players are not the best (not getting into a yes/no issue there), then that is a design floor. Also don't get me wrong, you're free to develop your team and play your team how you like. My point is just about describing players to their role. Dwarfs are a bit weird but blitzers are clearly blitzers, Zons again quite weird but positions are described pretty well considering they're cookie cutter.

Or CDs using the Bull to carry the ball? Or Slann 'Blitzers' which are are obviously better suited to be safeties or sweepers? Or Slann/Norse 'Catchers' which make better runners? Should none of those players be used in those ways because it is not in their title?

Again as above, this has nothing to do with use, but description. The one exception I'll concede are Slann. Slann were always way out there (which does give some licence to totally new races being way out there). The problem with them, is that they had so many strange and new skills, that they'd be far too awesome if you also put on the regular skills. They are an exception though and not the rule.

This team (in my opinion) is trying to represent what entitled, selfish knights would do and what the trusty yeoman would do and what the uncoordinated peasants would do if they tried to play Blood Bowl.

Are you not contradicting yourself here? You are saying that players should not be pigeon holed into one role, but play to suit the team, yet are saying here that Bretonnians are, with each position having a definitive role (selfish knights, uncoordinated peasants and trusty yeoman?) However this is by the by (half anyway).

My points are "If you are going to call a player a blocker, make him a blocker." There isn't so much of a problem if they kept the name Yeoman. It doesn't confuse things with what we know about blockers. And also that "Humans are already described. How are Bretonnians (who have exactly the same make up as other regular humans) have such a different skill set?" Why are peasants a 1/3 less agile than the known poor scrub of the world (thrall) but come with the skill fend? Answer that how you like, you won't convince me.

In this fantasy world, there are no requirements to create a team and start touring the Old World. In real life, there are a million hoops someone must go through to own or coach or play on a professional sports team. They are tied to those roles because that has shown to be the best way to compete (and hopefully win) under that particular ruleset. BB has none of that! Goblins can bribe the ref all day long and Amazons emphasize teamwork while Underworld mutates and Dwarves bring an actual steamroller onto the field! Teams play the game in a variety of ways and any team that can shake that up is fine by me.

Great.

That is why I like the flavor names (Stormvermin, Longbeard, Yeoman) better than the positional names because while they often make (for example) the best blitzers, that is not how they play out.

Which is one of my points. Longbeards and Yeoman should have stayed as Longbeards and Yeoman. Neither realy fits as a blocker. Stormvermin it doesn't matter either way because they are blitzers. Keep them, change them it doesn't really matter, however changing the name couldi erase a bit of background colour.

You don't like the Bret roster and I have no problem with that. To each their own! But we will have to respectfully disagree on what 'boring' is.

Could you link me to where I said that? I'm not categorically denying that I haven't said they're boring (I'm a terrible drunk poster). However, that certainly isn't my feelings, as well as Khorne. I just have no recollection of ever saying Khorne, Brets or Simyin are boring, have a boring theme or are boring to play.

A roster like the Brets that will play differently and bring something new to the pitch just isn't boring to me but rather quite interesting. Of course, I am greatly biased by the Simyin (apes). If every team is just Blitzers/Throwers/Blockers and we are expected to not venture out of that box then too many teams (and coaches) will play the same way. That, to me, is the very definition of 'boring'.

Yes again, I don't think you quite understand my stance. I don't think every team should stay in the box. I don't think every team has to name their players blockers, blitzers etc (just when they do, describe them as such). I also do not hold coaches to play their blitzers in a conventional way. However the player should be suited to do such.

I think really, our only argument is this new way of making rosters. "Let's make players with interesting skill sets and put them all on the same roster, then make some fluff that someway goes to explain why we did this." That is called over describing. Sure they play well, but they just don't sit well with the conservative roster making style of the majority of the rosters available.

[spubbbba]

Which is one of my points. Longbeards and Yeoman should have stayed as Longbeards and Yeoman. Neither realy fits as a blocker.

I agree with you on Yeomen, but why are Longbeards not suitable as blockers? They are slow, lack agility, are tough to hurt, have strength access and are good at hitting things.
The only thing they lack is ST4, but get block instead. Which seems more appropriate seeing as how they are called blockers. There are only a handful of teams that have players that qualify as blockers with some delectably being part blitzer or big guy.

[harvestmouse]

Well I brought the same subject up on FUMBBL and Wreckage said they're clearly linemen and JimmyFantastic said they're clearly blockers. Some ambiguity there.

Of course it's not as bad as Yeoman, but would Cyanide have been confused and called Yeoman blockers if Longbeards and CDs weren't also called blockers?

I think Longbeards are linemen with benefits, so another name would fit better, and Longbeard seems to fit that perfectly to me. As it's a status, not just an elite warhammer unit, I think it fits fine and doesn't have to be classed as a Warhammer crossover.

For me the archetypal blocker/blitzer combo are Orcs. With that in mind a Dwarf Blocker would be 3 4 2 9 TS (i'd probably make a case of them being AV10 though), as these guys would be immensely tough.

Block also has a few meanings. To block the way, to make (or take a block) and block as in the skill. Blocker the positional is the first and a bit of the second..

[plasmoid]

Hi Harvestmouse,
just following up on this old post. Sorry for the delay. It happens a lot with me, unfortunately.

Yeah, as I said I don't think we'll agree, we're just polar opposites. However I feel the original teams were made in way on purpose, clarity and to represent physical capabilities, that each exception (that isn't explainable) dilutes what they achieved.
The Skaven Blitzer has extra AV, he wears extra armour. That's allowable.

I do like the purpose and clarity. But I also think that the situation is not the same now as when we had 14 rosters.
I don't think I've broken the system.
I know you think they're over described. But I can't see that they are in an objective way. A roster with no extraordinary stats are gonna need a few skills to be viable. Two of the positions has just 1 skill. I don't think that's pushing the envelope at all.

I also agree that stuff needs to be explainable. I just disagree that this isn't.
I also think that there is a line to walk here. Half of the opponents of Brets in BB will say that they're not Unique enough to have their own team. At the same time, the fluff has to be respected.
And to my mind I did.
I think you know me well enough to know that I do value fluff and I do think about what I do. Even if you disagree with the result.

I'm happy with your blitzer type, I think you can be creative with him. I just think you go too far and blur things with the others. Is it coincidental that Fend and Wrestle are 2 new skills? I believe not.

Yes and no I suppose.
I'm super happy with Wrestle. I think it fits perfectly.
Fend is not as perfect a match. That said, my very first Bret concept had Dodge on the linemen (and AG2) But Dodge is powerful, and had to go. So I chose another less powerful defensive skill. It least it shows consistency in the mindset. This was never about fudging anything.
If this was just about new skills (and over description) I'd have slapped Grab on the Yeomen and Juggernaut on the Blitzers as well

To explain the lineman: Why isn't he just 6337?
I wanted him - in the feudal spirit of the team - to be ill equipped and ill trained. The nobles would never let commoners touch the ball in training. Unlike a thrall.
Could have used animosity - but that would be overdiscribing to me.
Over the years he has been 6227 Dodge, 6327 A-skills only, 6337 Loner, and 6337 Fend. AFAIK. Fairly unreliable the lot

However, that was not my original point and why I brought it back up. Yes, you know I don't like the roster, but I've known they're using it so........it was purely to point out they've now made a blocker positional out of a player that isn't a blocker (or a known positional).

I get that, and I agree.
I wish they had kept the Yeoman title - many rosters have 1 player breaking with the basic 7 positions, to add flavour.
But I'm happy to see that AFAIK, nobles, yeomen and peasants are still mentioned in the team blurp. So I think/hope people will get the point.
And that said, I don't think he is far removed from a blocker concept. Someone not particularly fast, more AV than a lineman, access to S-skills, starts with a blocking skill. Admittedly, the Classic Blockers had block, not wrestle. But then Again when Classic blockers were designed, there was no wrestle.

Ah, this turned out longer than I wanted.
I hope it doesn't read as aggressive.
I respect your position, and just wanted to explain mine.

Cheers
Martin

[garion]

It's a team ruled by arrogant twats, who aren't overly keen on team Work (certainly not with the lower classes) - and bolstered by lineman levy WHO only get the most rudimentary training

Then why do they have P access? if they dont like team work who are they passing to? Or is it just a gimmick to give them easy Leader access? Seems very odd to me... Also why do they have worse skill access than any other human positional in any team? (other than throwers) Arent these guys meant to be the stars of the team, arent they meant to be blitzers?

Dauntless is a good fit, and the team will no doubt do well straight out the box because of 4block and 4 wrestle. But I don't see anything new here, or anything that would suggest these guys are Bretonnians based on their stats and skills.

Bretonnia is about chivalric code of combat, its about heavy armoured knights, and their caste system (which you do address).

I dont get it. Its just Quorn all over again.

[harvestmouse]

@Plasmoid. Discussing it, is pretty pointless. It's just circular, and has been for years. The few things I'll add is that bar none, I disagree with every single one of your arguments.

Even your new points. I don't see blockers coming with block at all. This is a different nuance on the word block. Blockers are a player that 'blocks' the way. He's pretty unskilled, probably stupid, very very big, strong and tough. Most blockers would be pretty much skilless, apart from any racial traits. The fact you don't think this, suggests that blurring the lines of postionals confuses players over the rolls. The BOB is the definitive blocker. I'd say Nurgle Warriors and Golems are too. I can't think of any others of the top of my head.

The Yeoman as a blocker is the most ridiculous blocker that could be thought up. A player that blocks the way by lying on the floor. They've looked at the positions, and thought 'Which would this fit best?' Like playing one of those child games where you put the shapes in the holes, and having a round piece left and no round hole and deciding which one you're going to ram it into.

I also think you're contradicting yourself on your linos. Your argument was that fend fitted their cowering nature and that is why they were given a skill, yet you point out that you've tried to wedge all sorts of combos on them. Also, there's nothing stopping them from having the ball. Why not give them no hands, as a ruling that they're forbidden to handle the ball. That, I could understand.

And as Garion has highlighted, the playstyle in perpetual, isn't going to work out either. Competitive gamers will skill 2 blitzers at best, more likely one, and recycle. The Blockers will be the stars of the show, and the ones that are promoted. Rosters will be small, and TV kept low.

[garion]

Indeed, you really need to be more careful who you take advise from plasmoid. looking at just this thread alone and nowhere else the reputable people - Joemanji, Spubbba, Darkson, Jimmy fantastic, both Matts, HM and a number of others all dislike this roster that have all be playing for at least 25 years or more. You were actually closer with your previous version (apart from Ma8 on the blitzer).

I have not seen any good feedback for this roster from anyone that knows the history of the game to be honest. Only the relative newcomers seem to think it’s okay for the most part, which should tell you a lot.

It’s not like there isn't anything to go from either, even a direct translation from the knights and peasants roster of 1st edition would have been preferable for Bretonnia tbh, or the 4th edition roster, without the names. e.g. change them too Blocker, Blitzer, Thrower peseant would have sufficed.

It’s nothing person Martin, I like some things you do for the game, but this is so wrong, Blitzers with no S access, they are meant to be the stars......

You just needed to keep it simple straight forward and in keeping with the theme.