Amazons - Theoretical LRB7 Discussion

[Andromidius]

So what was the issue with Fend on the Linewomen, and GA access across the board?

~Andromidius

[oryxwild]

I would venture to say that fend is not very defensive, at least no more defensive than dodge or block... that could be a problem with av7 and agi3. Although, I'm an absolutely terrible amazon player, so...

[Joemanji]

I quite like 6337 sprint GA/SP linewomen. I think I prefer jump up instead as it makes for a very different play style. Jump Up also may affect survival rates since marking a prone line woman becomes more tricky - enabling them to avoid being pinned as much (a la Fend).

Sprint isn't going to be worth it for 50K. There is a 6337 Jump Up team in the MBBL2, and that seems to work pretty well. Jump Up seems like a good solution, as it definitely makes the team more mobile. I have been surprised at how effective not paying 3MA to stand up can be in that respect.

I'm not sure about GA access on this lineman though. Block, Dodge, SideStep is too obvious a build. On the other hand, an AG3 team with A access would be new to the game.

[Der_Doodle]

Why not try something different and make the lineman 6337 Wreste 50k with only Agility Skill Access

[DoubleSkulls]

I quite like 6337 sprint GA/SP linewomen. I think I prefer jump up instead as it makes for a very different play style. Jump Up also may affect survival rates since marking a prone line woman becomes more tricky - enabling them to avoid being pinned as much (a la Fend).

Sprint isn't going to be worth it for 50K. There is a 6337 Jump Up team in the MBBL2, and that seems to work pretty well. Jump Up seems like a good solution, as it definitely makes the team more mobile. I have been surprised at how effective not paying 3MA to stand up can be in that respect.

I'm not sure about GA access on this lineman though. Block, Dodge, SideStep is too obvious a build. On the other hand, an AG3 team with A access would be new to the game.

Sprint and A access sort of makes me think they might be worth 50k each. A skill that isn't that useful, plus skill access group that is. JU or "worthwhile" alternatives run the risks of the linewomen being too good a value for money.

If they all develop into blodge sidestepers then who gets kick, tackle etc? Also skilling AG3 linewomen to 31 SPPs takes time - how often will this sort of player survive to get there?

I wanted GA access because I wanted any linewoman to be able to convert into runner/catcher types easily to emphasise these as the "agile" humans. So easy access to dodge, sure feet, side step etc makes that a viable option.

[Joemanji]

Sprint and A access sort of makes me think they might be worth 50k each. A skill that isn't that useful, plus skill access group that is. JU or "worthwhile" alternatives run the risks of the linewomen being too good a value for money.

I think it has been shown many times that paying for skill access severely weakens a team. Chaos, Chaos Pact when they had 60K marauders etc. Overpricing linemen is also really ugly IMO. Making Skeletons 40K for example has totally removed them from play on the Undead team, and has played some part in making Khemri unplayable in LRB6.

Jump Up is a good skill, especially en masse. However at 50K a 6337 JU player is simply not as good as a 6337 Block or a 6337 Dodge player. I tried to run a Jump Up dark elf team recently, and found it to be loads less effective than I imagined. And that was with AV8 players.

[SillySod]

I would be afraid of 50k 6 3 3 7 JU being too weak, it certainly isnt too strong. While I do think you should pay for skill access, I dont think you should pay very much... I think that GA/SP is fair on this statline and actually makes the team a pretty interesting one to develope.

6 3 3 7 sprint is a ludicrously poor statline for a 50k lineman. Sprint is a skill that I wouldnt advocate for virtually any player, even if they have sure feet there are usually better choices. Linemen generally dont GFI very often, sometimes they have to but the number of times they need a 3rd GFI I can count on a blind butchers hand.

[Andromidius]

Could always cut their cost to 40k and give them no skills to start with at all, like Human Linemen (the 10k difference being their armour).

But then the team might be deemed 'boring'.

Or, in a strange twist, give all Amazon players Foul Appearence and Disturbing Presence. Not because they are ugly, but because having a team of athletic young women running around with barely any clothes on would be pretty distracting for most players!

~Andromidius

[DoubleSkulls]

Or, in a strange twist, give all Amazon players Foul Appearence and Disturbing Presence. Not because they are ugly, but because having a team of athletic young women running around with barely any clothes on would be pretty distracting for most players!

~Andromidius

Only for "human" teams. I doubt Zombies would find them that appealing!

[Andromidius]

Well that's the thing with such rules. I doubt Zombies would care about the Foul Appearence on a Beast of Nurgle either, but the rules still apply.

But it was a tongue in cheek suggestion, so don't take it too seriously

~Andromidius

[AK_Dave]

If you think that you can out-cas amazons without much trouble then you very clearly havent played a half decent amazon player, let alone one like Lucifer or Pip

The justification for changing a team should not come from the fact that a "decent" player can do well with it. A "decent" player can also do well with other teams. Maybe we should ban all "decent" players and only allow morons to play.

The justification for changing a team SHOULD be based on statistics. Does the team, on average, against a wide variety of opponents, when used by a wide variety of players, consistently with a statistically significantly higher percentage of their games than they are expected to win.

Their expected range is 45-55%, or 50% with a a margin of 5%. Where do they actually fall in this range? Just inside it, but with a much smaller set of data points than most other teams compared.

So, they may win more than average in the hands of a "decent" player but a "decent" player will win more than average with any teams. What is more important is the fact that if the team really does win more than it should, then it should be fielded more than it is, and would have more games recorded in plasmoid's stats, and be more obviously out of balance.

Perhaps the lack of sufficient data is a conspiracy amongst Amazon players to make an overpowered team appear handicapped. But there is no evidence to support this wild guess. More likely, there are a whole host of reasons that they're not a terribly popular team. But lack of popularity isn't being suggested as the justification for rewriting the team. The argument put forth is "game balance". But plasmoid's stats don't suggest that game balance is a problem.

[Andromidius]

How about Fend and Dodge for Linewomen for a small price hike, and Wrestle and Dodge on Blitzers for a slight price decrease? With Diving Catch Catchers and Accurate Throwers?

Would stop mass Blodging and make Linewomen slightly more survivable at the same time. Plus Wrestle is a skill that needs to see more usage.

Would possibly see Amazons becoming a non-AG4 finese team. I could imagine Blitzers getting Strip Ball and Jump Up rather then Guard, Guard, Guard, Linewomen getting Sidestep (truely useful when combined with Fend), with Hail Mary Throwers and Sprint Catchers.

Mmm...would make a change.

~Andromidius

[SillySod]

Firstly I listed a whole host of reasons to change them other than game balance, all of which you seem to have ignored.

The justification for changing a team should not come from the fact that a "decent" player can do well with it.

I said "half decent". By that I mean someone who can play bloodbowl ok, setup 2D blocks consistently, and play their turn out in roughly the right order. If you think that I'm talking about some kind of elite here you're wrong, I just happened to mention some of the elite to hammer the point in.

If you are playing against people who can play their turns out in roughly the right order and finding that amazons are really easy to wipe out then you should probably be winning tournaments... are you?

So, they may win more than average in the hands of a "decent" player but a "decent" player will win more than average with any teams.

There is winning more than average and winning especially more than average.

[AK_Dave]

Firstly I listed a whole host of reasons to change them other than game balance, all of which you seem to have ignored.

Yes, I did. Because game balance was the justification for all of the LRB6 changes and game balance was proposed as the justification for why Amazons should be changed.

The "whole host of reasons to change them" aren't reasons to change them at all, but benefits which could be gained from a change.

If you think that I'm talking about some kind of elite here you're wrong, I just happened to mention some of the elite to hammer the point in.

It was your strawman argument, not mine. I just set fire to it. Don't take it personally.

If you are playing against people who can play their turns out in roughly the right order and finding that amazons are really easy to wipe out then you should probably be winning tournaments... are you?

I don't travel much and am not a rated player, so I must be a schmuck.

I said "out-CAS". Not "wipe out".

There is winning more than average and winning especially more than average.

True, and statistically Amazons are not proven to do either. Maybe you need to get on the MBBL bandwagon and personally play a few hundred games with them to prove that they're whacked.