Norse Team Revamp (part 2) ... votes please

[Darkson]

Hopefully Galak will allow them in the MBBL when it gets up and running, eve if there's no chance of them becoming official.

[Highlander]

Well I can't say I'm too upset by Galak's decision. We've got to remember that the PBBL rules are what's going to eventually be the 20th Anniversary Edition rulebook. And I'm sure we'd rather that be the best product it can be and have it attract as many new players to the game as possible then just putting out some sort of unplaytested piece of trash that GW has been accused of doing before. And as Galak stated there's not been an overwhelming majority saying that the Norse need a change, or that the changes we've proposed are balanced enough. At this point it'd be fine just to settle on an appropriate Big Guy for the Norse that's fluffy and is fun to play for inclusion the PBBL v1.10 rules.

Now with that being said I also don't think we should just drop all this discussion on proposed changes. Even though they won't currently make it into the PBBL rules, there doesn't seem to be a reason why we cannot continue this discussion for a possible addition to the rules after the PBBL rules become the LRB.

Galak and Ian can pick the three or four most popular/realistic ideas for changes to the Norse team and post them in a separate post for discussion and playtesting feedback. After a good discussion with decent playtest result data to back up the best idea, we could then make that change to the rules.

[Tinkywinky]

My first thought of Gkens idea is that it sounds a bit much but when you compare norse to the dwarf team you get:

tr100: Norse are faster but weaker dwarves.
tr150+: Norse are faster but weaker dwarfs that don't get guard.

See, if they aren't thought of as unbalanced in the first scenario, why would they be in the second one? On the other hand its' a pretty boring solution and it makes Norse into some bland combination of the chaos and dwarf team lists. No the good solution would of course be to diversify the positions. I voted yes to this poll, not because I thought the suggested roster was great but because it was better than the current roster.

It really shouldn't be that hard to come up with something unique and fitting?? Like, from the top of my head:

Replace throwers and catchers with:

Code: Select all

0-2 runners 7337 block, sure hands 80K GA
0-2 blockers 5338 block 70K GS

[bigallium]

1stly exsqueeze me if during my skim reading of the six pages of this topic I missed a simular suggestion, but something I always thought would increase the long term survivability of the team without distrupting the balance of the team and at the same time emthasising the nutter flavour to the team would be to give all player thick skull and add 10k to their cost.

Norse have a real problem if reduced in number as they only have block to protect them (no high AV, no AG 4 to get out of TZs).
This would make that harder and less common.

for those who want MA 7 catchers, no problem give them MA 7 instead of thick skull.

this added 10k all round would make them less powerful at TR100, which is also a problem with the team.

[Geoff Watson]

How about having two separate rosters, so that people who like the old Norse can still play them?

Geoff.