Last Poll on Brettonians - please give feedback

[rodders]

having fleeted through this thread where is the none of the above option I'm with Ironage man squires and runners = the same position in principle also the linemen should lose the loner and ag access, IMO the team sheet would be

0-16 linemen (or peasants after all this is brettonia)40k 6337 G

0-2 Yeoman 70k 6337 sure hands pass GP (brings them inline with most other races throwers)

0-2 Squires 90k 7338 Block, NOS G,A (akin to a norse runner gives the team the only AG access player not a true reciever but also not a true blitzer)

0-2 Knights 110k 6339 Block, Dauntless GS (maybe make this a 0-4 option but i wouldn't see that many knights taking to the field (too busy questing etc) but also theyre not scared of anything)

[Darkson]

But if I did such a poll, I guess I'd need 2 options:
* I don't want Brettonians in BB, Brettonians suck.
*I do want Brettonians in BB, just not your version. Your version sucks.

I missed this second poll. I like the first option in it.

Ta Dah!

[Mephisto]

I don't know if that roster performs well with the Brettonian background. I mean, normally Brettonia is composed of a few great knights and lots of squires who are nothing worth (cannon food).

So I would put 0-6 knights (or differents slots of knights) who are the stars of the team, and squires who should do all the possible to cover the knights.

0-12 Squire's 6 3 3 7
0-2 Young Knight 7 3 3 8 Dodge GA
0-2 Realm Knight 7 3 3 8 Block, Guard GS
0-2 Questing Knight (or Grial Knight) 6 4 3 9 Block, Dauntless, Juggernaut

And that their game-style should be based on running than on passing. I know that I'm late at this discussion, but I want to take part on it.

[Darkson]

Block on a rookie ST4 player is a big no-no.

[Lurtzo]

Block on a rookie ST4 player is a big no-no.

IMO a rookie ST4 Human is a big no-no

[IronAge_Man]

0-12 Squire's 6 3 3 7
0-2 Young Knight 7 3 3 8 Dodge GA
0-2 Realm Knight 7 3 3 8 Block, Guard GS
0-2 Questing Knight (or Grial Knight) 6 4 3 9 Block, Dauntless, Juggernaut

That's a horribly overpowered roster.

[Mephisto]

0-12 Squire's 6 3 3 7
0-2 Young Knight 7 3 3 8 Dodge GA
0-2 Realm Knight 7 3 3 8 Block, Guard GS
0-2 Questing Knight (or Grial Knight) 6 4 3 9 Block, Dauntless, Juggernaut

That's a horribly overpowered roster.

It was only a quick example. What I mean is that one part of the team should be great (knights), where the other part is "fluff".

And if the Questing Knight shouldn't have ST 4, they should have something like Block, mighty blow and one other skill. But that's my opinion. I see Bretionans as one part of them are great (knights) and the other are worth nothing. And better a knight running game than a squire passing game... it doesn't fit with the background.

[IronAge_Man]

It was only a quick example. What I mean is that one part of the team should be great (knights), where the other part is "fluff".

Oh, I see, sorry. Yes, I think you're right - each team works best if there's a central fluffy element - in this case, knights on the BB field. Everyone else on the roster is supporting cast.

To be fair, I think plasmoid is hovering around what knights should be - I said they were over-described, but if they're the stars and focus of the team, like Wardancers or Bull Centaurs, then why not? I think the major problem was the over-complication of the 'supporting cast', with too many squires, and linos that some find unacceptible (including me).

If you have two knight types, there should really only be two more positions, squires and linemen, or even just squires and keep the peasants off the field altogether - this isn't a cross-section of Bretonnian society, it's a hand-picked team of athletes.

Perhaps 2 Questing Knights, 2 or 4 Knights Errant (using the old positional names), and the rest standard (human linemen) squires would work? Maybe add two squire throwers (make them poorer than standard Human ones, as is the case in norse and Amazon rosters), RRs priced at 50 or 60k and you're done.

I didn't post this in standard roster format, as I don't want it confused in any way with plasmoid's 'official' roster, which I think it's fair to say he can claim ownership of, as its primary champion for several years

[Mephisto]

Let me see if I can explain me a little bit better... in English it's a little bit more difficut than in Spanish, German or Catalan...

1) I think Brettonian should not be a passing-style team, but a running one.
2) I think, that to differ it from the human roster, the team could be like the Chaos Team, where there are good players, who represent the core of the team (bullcent and dwarfes) and hobgobbos (even if they are the ball carriers). Or take Khemri for example: good positionals (for the team of course) and a lot of "bad" lineman (skelletons).

What I don't see is the passing-style...

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
thanks for your feedback.

As MJ guessed, I'm 100% against adding new skills or special rules to make a team work. IMO, it isn't necessary, and, from experience, I know that teams with new rules are less likely to be liked. So I prefer loner, as a mechanic that everybody already knows, and which shows quite well that in the feudal Brettonian team, the peasant linemen simply aren't as well trained as the nobles.

Anyway, 2 objections have been raised, and it is not the first time.
It should be noted, though, that others than I have argued against these before. Still, if it comes up often enough, perhaps it deserves to affect the team....(?)

1) I think Brettonian should not be a passing-style team, but a running one.
IMO, it really isn't.
Access to PA skills does not a passing team make. Think of the dwarf team.
But the team can do some quick pass plays, and needs it, because they are not strong enough to do solid cage.
But it is a running team.

Why do they have 5 positions/2 squires.
Well, they have the 2 kinds of servants to match their 2 kinds of lieges.
Also, it is worth noting that 6 other teams in the LRB5 have 5 positions, so it is not that uncommon - and that one other mono-species team actually has 2 "named" positions. (Dark elves: witch elf and assasin).

But perhaps the team would be more paletable with just 1 kind of "servant" position.

So, given the above 2 complaints, it might be a good idea to merge the squires and the yeomen into one 0-4 position - a position that is not a thrower type. This would mean more S-access and slightly higher AV8 on the team, but I think that it would be balanced out by the loss of sure hands and the PA category.
Looking at the other poll on squires that I did recently, I think that AV8 and wrestle is the way to go, so basically, the old thrower "yeoman" gets cut.

Finally, I'd use the yeoman name rather than the squire name - because the squire name implies that he will eventually grow up to be a noble, which was not the intent.
And, speaking of names, I think I'd like to add in a bit of Brettonian flavour, using the "Errant" name. This would allow players to better recognize the blitzers as knights/nobles, and would at the same time allow the team to have 2 blitzer types, rather than a blitzer and a runner.

So, with that, my alternative version of the team would be this:
0-16 40K Linemen 6337 loner GA
0-4 70K Yeomen 6338 wrestle GS
0-2 100 Errant Blitzer 7338 block, catch GS
0-2 120K Blitzer 6339 block, juggernaut, dauntless GS

(And yes, that does leave A skills on the linemen. I do think that it is a reasonable way of explaining their 40K price tag. And I want to keep that, because a 30K price tag has provoked a strong reaction of 'cry broken'.

Cheers
Martin

[IronAge_Man]

This roster is worse than the one in the OP:

1) Under LRB5 rules, the starting roster (11 players) could have ALL the positionals, 3 RRs and 1 FF. Tournament players would turn up with nothing but these guys.

2) Of those starting 11, Guard is a realistic first skill for 8 (!) of them. Aside from Dwarfs, I can't think of any other side that could be said of.

3) Despite the linemen being cheap line fodder, with two skill picks, they become Wrodgers or Blodgers. Loner isn't much of a problem to them, as there are so many positionals, they'll never do much more than stand up again (though I accept they'll never get the SPPs and thus skills doing that).

How to fix it:
A) Get rid of some of the S access, starting with the squires.

B) Get rid of those abominable linemen - their only job is to be cheap enough to allow lots of the very good positionals into the starting 11.

C) If the linemen don't go up in price, then consider raising RR costs instead. Pink Horror had a great idea for calculating RR costs based on lineman cost. I don't remember the details, but it basically meant RRs and linemen costs were inversely proportional to one another. I think it was 1RR+1Lineman=110GP or so.

[plasmoid]

Hi Ironage Man,
please note that the change bewteen the OP roster and this one isn't that big. Yes, something is gained but something is also lost. So, we've got tons of playtest saying that the OP roster isn't broken by any stretch of imagination - meaning that despite your speculations about team brokenness, I have no reason to believe it to be true.

>1) Under LRB5 rules, the starting roster (11 players) could have ALL the positionals, 3 RRs
>and 1 FF.
Well, if having _all_ your positions is key, then halflings would be all the rage.
I guess what you mean is that having no big guy, 3 rerolls and the teams 8 best positionals is uniquely powerful.
But that is what you get for having no ST4 or AG4 players. Comes with being human.
Amazons can do this with 4 rerolls! So can humans!
Norse have to settle for 2 rerolls, but get 2 ST4 players to compensate.
Orcs can do it too (3 rerolls).

>Tournament players would turn up with nothing but these guys.
What? That simply isn't true.
With a win percentage of 48 in league play, they just aren't that good.
I've hosted several LRB4 tournaments with similar Brettonian teams, and suffice to say that they were not the only team.

>2) Of those starting 11, Guard is a realistic first skill for 8 (!) of them. Aside from
>Dwarfs, I can't think of any other side that could be said of.
Orcs? Chaos? Rotters? Chaos Dwarfs?
Besides, it wouldn't be a super win-all strategy.
(The old team could already do that with 6 players - enough for most tournaments. Didn't happen though).
For one thing, I'd miss the sure hands, and the access to leader skill.

>3) Despite the linemen being cheap line fodder, with two skill picks, they become Wrodgers or
>Blodgers. Loner isn't much of a problem to them, as there are so many positionals, they'll
>never do much more than stand up again (though I accept they'll never get the SPPs and thus
>skills doing that).

So many positionals? There are 8, and that's not unique.
And yes, the line-fodder is cheap, because it is not that good.
AV7 linefodder without regeneration won't stand up to a lot of punishment.
Using your suggested roster in a tournament would quickly see you outnumbered on the pitch.

And loner is a problem. As any Brettonian coach will tell you.
Your linemen just can't be trusted to do stuff like an innocent go-for-it.
Loner doesn't kick in often, but when it does, the result is usually catastrophic.
And - more importantly - even when it does not kick in, it affects your entire way of playing.

Finally - yes, With 2 skills they could be wrodgers/blodgers. That doesn't break the elf teams though. And between the 9 MBBL Brettonian teams (+ my own) there is 1 single living peasant with 2 skills. One.
Not to mention that due to loner, pro is not a bad choice for peasants.
Or you could go the dirty player + sneaky git route. Very in character.

>How to fix it:
>A) Get rid of some of the S access, starting with the squires.
a) No need to.
b) I won't let the team be the only one with position players with G-only access. They just aren't that good.
c) Only alternative would be 4 squires with P-access. Possible. But not necessary.
And In this issue, there is a faction that percieves passing the ball to be un-brettonian (and another that thinks that it isn't).

>B) Get rid of those abominable linemen - their only job is to be cheap enough to allow lots
>of the very good positionals into the starting 11.
No, that's not their only job.
They are cheap because they are "hobgoblins". Unreliable hobgoblins.
Is it is your position that 6337 loner 40K linemen is vastly better than 6338, or 6337 block linemen for just 10K more? IMO, the 10K saved do not rock the house.
If the "very good positionals" had been better, if there had been more of them, or if the linemen were cheaper, then there might be a problem.

>C) If the linemen don't go up in price, then consider raising RR costs instead. Pink Horror
>had a great idea for calculating RR costs based on lineman cost. I don't remember the
>details, but it basically meant RRs and linemen costs were inversely proportional to one
>another. I think it was 1RR+1Lineman=110GP or so.

I could go with 60K rerolls. But, as stated, I see no need to.
The Brettonians is actually a team that get very few discounts, unlike other teams.
Their linemen are expensive, compared to other similar linemen.
Their Blitzer is probably the only player in the game that pays the full 60K for 3 skills.
Smacking them with expensive rerolls is unneccessary.
Remember - in the MBBL: 89 games. 39 wins. No nerf required.

Cheers
Martin

[IronAge_Man]

A few quick counter-points:

1) On Guard first for 8 players - I think Orcs are broken two, but there's not a hope in hell they'll get nerfed now (2 BoB's max, and they're fine). None of those other teams (Chaos? Rotters? Chaos Dwarfs?) would take Guard first on all their Str access players - they'd need Block or Wrestle first.

2) When you refer to their MBBL record, that's not the roster i was referring to in the last post. Just to be clear, if given a choice, I'd take the team in the OP ahead of the one a few posts back you suggested.

3) As for the linemen...well, we'll have to agree to disagree. They really jar with me - I'd prefer a straightforward Thrall/Hobbo statline at 40k. The fact that they can have DP+SG is something I hadn't thought of, and that's a combo I don't want to see on such a cheap player.

The things I have no problems with are the Knights (both types) - they're the players this team is all about - my quibbles are only with the supporting cast. If they were all squires (i.e. Human linemen), that wouldn't be bad, especially as General skills are much better in LRB 5.

[David Bergkvist]

I believe that Plasmoid's argument against thrall statlines for peasants is that then you might as well try and score TDs etc with them, since they are no worse than anyone else, considering their AG 3.

However, with AG access, there's a large incentive to score TDs with the peasants -- they're the only ones who can have blodge with no doubles rolls. So people might try to score with the peasants just to skill them up, in the same way people score with black orcs just to skill them up.

[plasmoid]

Hi Ironage_Man (and David),
to reply

Re: 1
a) If they are "as broken as orcs" then I'm fine with that. Orcs are an accepted part of BB, and don't win an unsemely ammount of tournaments or leagues.
To me, "broken" means must be fixed.
b) Yes, they could take 8 x guard. I just don't think it would be a sure fire winning strategy.
Personally, I'd take other skills.
And in many tournaments, you don't play enough games to take more than 6 skills. I've hosted tournaments in that format, with the old roster that could take 6 x guard. And that is not what the attending caoches took.
c) As for the team I mentioned, they could take 8 x guard. And like the Brettonians, I think that if they did they wouldn't win too much. They could do it, and lots of guard on a high-ST team is potent, but IMO, not more so than a number of other skill choices (just like with the Brettonians).

Re: 2
I understand. I just wanted to point out that the difference between the 2 is not that big.
Certainly not big enough to go from 39 wins in 89 games to ba-roken.

Re: 3
I get your position. And I guess some share it. I also know for a fact that others prefer the worse-than-hobgoblins linemen, and find them to add Brettonian character to the team. So I can't please everyone with this.
At least, loner is only a small step from 6337. Less significant than a stat decrease (which I used in the past), so I see the statline as kind of a happy medium - and I do think that it reflects their lack of training rather well.

Now, I'm not particularly in love with their AG access.
But it serves a purpose.
We had Brettonian coaches in the MBBL ask why the linemen aren't 30K, until we pointed to the added A access, and they accepted that reply.
So, it keeps the linemen at 40K - without really getting them much. Trust me, they skill up very slowly, and really need at least 1 general skill (block/wrestle) to compensate for loner.

Finally, you said that the linemen are just that cheap to allow the coach to have the nobles.
Joemanji has said the same thing in the past, and it really rubs me the wrong way.
Please note that if they were not loners, they'd still be 40K. So the loner is not there to cut the Brettonian coach any slack, only to add flavour and to balance the team.

My problem with removing A access is that I don't want the linemen to be 30K - and as a lot of players on the team are already high-end priced, it would be (IMO) going too far to simply have 6337-loner-G for 40K.

Personally, I could see the peasants without access G, so just A.
But I think it would be a massive blow to an otherwize balanced team.

Cheers
Martin

PS, David. As you can see, the loner is there to add flavour, and the A is there to not cut the team any price breaks. Skilling up has very little to do with it, but it is worth noting that on the 10 Brettonian MBBL teams, only a single living peasant has acquired 2 skills.
The team is designed to focus on the nobles (and sometimes their squires) and it works.