Talk Fantasy Football

Hello, I am new to this forum so I hope this ideas
weren't mentioned already before.

Did someone thought about bringing back a more
universal position description like in the 2nd Edition ?
(every team used the same definition like blitzer, Catcher ...)
That would sound more like a Sportsgame and less like
Warhammer and some cool Ally rules could be based on that.

Another thought ...

What do you think of Special training moves instead of Re-rolls
to represent the training your team took. This way you could
(to tell my idea simplified) a training mark in interception
and gain benefits like an an extra blitz move on the ball carrier
for special headhunter training ...

What do you say ?

The first idea sounds like a good idea, and one that has been mentioned in passing around here before. I could live with renaming my Longbeards Linemen without any problems.

You'd have to add in a new position of "Runner" (for Ghouls, Dwarf Runners and probably a couple of other positions that don't spring to mind immediately) plus allow the occasional "race specific" (Dwarf Slayers, With Elves) but there's no reason why this shouldn't happen, and I'd be behind it. Maybe then Lucien could see his Base ring system make a comeback too!

The second idea is probably a better idea as a thing for assistant coaches rather than replacing team rerolls.

Relborn wrote: Did someone thought about bringing back a more
universal position description like in the 2nd Edition ?
(every team used the same definition like blitzer, Catcher ...)
What do you say ?

How would this work in a team like Chaos Dwarf where you have Chaos Dwarves and Hobgoblins.

Likewise the whole idea of a Chaos Team, already with Strength 4, now with Blitzing a nd Catching and Passing skills to boot, makes it too unbalanced. Ok drop the St4 and what have you got?

Answer: Humans

Relborn wrote: What do you think of Special training moves instead of Re-rolls
to represent the training your team took. This way you could
(to tell my idea simplified) a training mark in interception
and gain benefits like an an extra blitz move on the ball carrier
for special headhunter training ...

while a nice fresh approach, what is it that is so wrong with the Re-rolls rule anyway to make a change warranted. personally i like it as it is.

Also i am not sure how the Special training would actually work

Personally ... just me now ... I don't want to lose the special names ... except on a team like the High Elf where they really have pure fluff.

Somehow the Undead roster being:

Lineman 1
Lineman 2
Runner
Blitzer
Block

just doesn't do a single thing for me.

Galak

Maybe then Lucien could see his Base ring system make a comeback too!

the unbelievers will be converted... oh yes, you will....

Somehow the Undead roster being:

Lineman 1
Lineman 2
Runner
Blitzer
Block

just doesn't do a single thing for me.

i don't have anything to base this off of , but i suspect that in a few months the basic undead roster will not look like that anymore, however you want to name it...

McDeth wrote:
How would this work in a team like Chaos Dwarf where you have Chaos Dwarves and Hobgoblins.

'

Hobgoblin Linemen.
Chaos Dwarf Blockers.
Bull Centaur Blitzers.

McDeth wrote: Likewise the whole idea of a Chaos Team, already with Strength 4, now with Blitzing and Catching and Passing skills to boot, makes it too unbalanced. Ok drop the St4 and what have you got?

Answer: Humans

Why change the teams beyond the name?
Beastman Linemen, Chaos Dwarf Blockers. Simple. No changes to skill availability or anything.

Skeleton/Zombie Linemen.
Ghoul Runners.
Wight Blitzers.
Mummy Blockers. Simple. No flavour need be lost.

Why call a Wardancer a wardancer. Hes a Wood Elf Blitzer and we all know it. Similar with every damn position on the High Elf roster as Galak pointed out.

This is a purely cosmetic change BACK to something that got far too WFB for my tastes.

Perhaps i misunderstood. if the suggestion was only to change names ie Chaos Warrior becomes a Blocker and keeps the same skills. Then my personal preference is to keep it as it is. and anyway i still think there are players that would still fall outside the categories. IE Troll Slayer

Its a little different for Chaos, Chaos Dwarf and Undead teams...but in those cases its just a case of adding a word to the position... "counts as a..." rather than a renaming.

Its cases like those Elven examples I mentioned, and the Dwarf Longebeards where it should be changed. We are talking something minor and petty reallybut something that makes things a little easier if there are going to be any sort of Ally (BOO! HISS!) rules in the future.

And I feel daft calling my linemen Longbeards. Longbeards are meant to be aged veteran warriors. I'm sure there should be young Dwarf Linemen too. It doesn't even fit with the WFB fluff!

i though the fantasy battle names were utter drivel from the second 3e was released... and there really are very, very few players that don't convert well, and then only because there's already a player on the team with a better claim to the roster spot... (i.e. you have to keep slayers as slayers because while they'd make fine blitzers, the team already has some, same with witch elves... in the end, the half-dozen special title players add more by their exception than they take away from what is overall a game that feels more like it should when you call the rest by their deserved names)...

A man after my own heart. I think it lends a little extra flavour to those teams that have special players like the Slayers and Witches.
I think that trying to shoe horn a special player onto every team would be very artificial though. I guess I could live with Wardancers staying as Wardancers even (though they ARE blitzers...). Its the High Elf team and Dwarf "longbeards" that bug me though.

the only players on official rosters that i never switched over to a positional name (positions being lineman, thrower, catcher, blitzer, blocker, runner and at one time, kicker) are witch elves and troll slayers.... the rest of the players that get non-positional names in my neck of the woods were all on house rosters...

the only controversy is really what to do with little guys and big guys... are gobs & flings catchers or linemen? are big guys blitzers or blcokers....

yadda yadda...

Lucien Swift wrote:
the only controversy is really what to do with little guys and big guys... are gobs & flings catchers or linemen? are big guys blitzers or blcokers....

I say Linemen and Blockers respectively. (Still wants to see the return of the Ogre team with a significantly-worse-than-the-current-rookie-ogre Ogre "Lineman".)

i usually make the little squishers linemen too, though i'm very open to the argument that they're really catchers... with big guys, i tend to make trees and trolls blockers, ogres and cows blitzers... but again, it's purely cosmetic...

Hi!

If (sorry, I meant IF) there are new ally rules which are balanced and playable, I think a more general position would be nice...

To keep the "flair", the names could be maintained. Then we could go for racial characteristics like "elves are only allowed soandsomany blockers", "chaos is not allowed to have any catchers" combined with a choice of allied rosters to pick from...

well, reading through it again I noticed I have to work on the idea

Some races could keep a specialist position (slayer, witch elf) which cannot be chosen for an ally. By that way, positions could be blocked as allies. Someone posted to have a gutter runner as an ally demonstrates something is wrong with the system . I totally agree on that.

And big guy could be left as they are. make a slot for them on your roster and thats it.

As for the goblins, we could see a revival with lineman AND catchers, making them even more interesting...

On the other hand: many people on this board semm to dislike allies in total. Do you want allies?? then, how many, and which ones??

Is it o.k. to get a wardancer for your team shifting your racial abilities towards a total different style of play??

But the old colored bases would be nice....


Sputnik