Talk Fantasy Football

Hi all,
thrice per year I organize 2-day BB tournaments in a 130TR environment. This, and 10 years of playtest has caused me to edit some of the official teams, and invent a few new ones.
This may not appeal to the conservatives of the list, but after 10 yers I do believe that we have a basis for some warranted change.

The teams presented have been worked on with a few goals in mind:
1) Balance, naturally.
2) Uniqueness. A few teams have been tweaked simply because they were too similar. IMO, each team should present the coach with unique options and challenges.
3) Competitiveness. This does not mean that all teams should be equal, but that some could be less weak or powerful. Also, the teams are meant to be competitive in a low TR invorenment, in which most tournaments are held - so starting weak and finishing strong tends to make a team non-tournament viable, causing tweaks.

Take a look at the short list, and potentially the actual team lists:
http://home.worldonline.dk/nyskes/bbowl ... _teams.htm

Cheers
Martin

Can't really comment on the 'New Teams' but both Elven changes look at the very least worth testing.

looks interesting and balanced.

high elf stat line looks tempting....especially in a bash league.

don't like the lowering of skink av to 6... this makes them worse than gobbos and they already take enough cas as it is. if you don't want to play with stunty +1 inj modifier, don't play with it....no reason to lower skink av to 6. on that theor...gobbos should have 6 and flings 5

liked to see rosters for those new teams.

I saw the idea for high elves earlier, thought it was a bad idea then. Still do. Compare orc lineman, with elf lineman. Exactly the same but elves have ag 4. Not very balanced is it

grotemuis wrote:I saw the idea for high elves earlier, thought it was a bad idea then. Still do. Compare orc lineman, with elf lineman. Exactly the same but elves have ag 4. Not very balanced is it

Er... there's also agility skill access, a $20k price difference and... oh, yeah... the rest of the team.

badmojo:
don't know if you agree with me or don't but in the long run the extra 20K doesn't matter and the acces to agility only makes matters worse

av 9 elves are a crime and should never be allowed

Not to mention... why nerf orcs? They don't seem overpowered normally.

grotemuis wrote:badmojo:
don't know if you agree with me or don't but in the long run the extra 20K doesn't matter

Er.. no, I don't agree with you. It's not just 20k, but 180-200k (9 or 10 linemen and (more importantly) +18-20 TR.

{ edit: I just noticed the 130TR part... ok, probably not 9 or 10 lineelves, then, but for standard 100 TR play, HEs frequently start leagues with 9-11 Linos. }

grotemius wrote:av 9 elves are a crime and should never be allowed

I sorta feel the same way about MA 5 elves. Still seems like it's worth trying.

I agree with bunnypuncher, however. Why the 'Goblin for BO' clause? Just to make it consistent with the Human's halflings? I sort of like the humans and orcs having loads of positional players... Was it a particular problem or just an organizational shift for its own sake?

Hi all,
some kind words - some thorny. As it should be

Grotemius,
compare Dark elf linemen to human linemen, or wood elf linemen to skaven linemen, and you get exactly the same thing: 20K for AG4 and agility access.
That's just the way of the elfs. Better, but more expensive.

And I'd also like to point out that compared to the orc team in general (and not just the linemen), the high elfs do have their advantages, but are sadly lacking the 4 ST4 players, the big guy, and all of the ST-skill access.
So while they share the MA and the AV, the team is definately not simply better orcs.

Cheers
Martin

Hi all,
the other issues that were brought up:

1) Removal of the stunty injury modifier.
This was done specifically to make halflings and goblins better - thats why we did not drop their AV. We removed the modifier from the skinks too, because not doing it seemed inconsistent.
However, we did not want to make the lizardman team better. It is one of the stronger teams in a low TR environment. So we dropped their AV.
IMO, this does not make them worse than goblins, most notably because they have MA8, but also because of their support players.

2) Goblins for black orcs.
It was not done to match the imperials. It was the other way around - meaning that the imperials got their halflings after the goblins.

It may not be a necessary change, but under our tournament rules the orcs is a very strong side, so even toned down orc teams show up every time!
And while others claim that goblins are not position players but linemen, and pretty close to worthless - I disagree when they appear on an orc team.
The goblins add a skill category to the team, as well as the potential for OTS on a pretty bashy side - and that is no small thing.

Cheers all,
(I hope that you found the link to the actual rosters, and not just the shortlist).
Martin

plasmoid wrote:Hi all,
the other issues that were brought up:

1) Removal of the stunty injury modifier.
This was done specifically to make halflings and goblins better - thats why we did not drop their AV. We removed the modifier from the skinks too, because not doing it seemed inconsistent.
However, we did not want to make the lizardman team better. It is one of the stronger teams in a low TR environment. So we dropped their AV.
IMO, this does not make them worse than goblins, most notably because they have MA8, but also because of their support players.

yeah but they cost 70K!! if you lower the av you gotta lower the cost...by 20k because they'll be takeing 100% more casualties with just 1 av drop.
gobs + flings = joke teams

gken1 wrote:...yeah but they cost 70K!! if you lower the av you gotta lower the cost...by 20k because they'll be takeing 100% more casualties with just 1 av drop.

Er... 60k. Just a typo, I assume, but lowering the cost of skinks to 40k? Sounds a little dubious to me.

my mistake...they should cost 50k with 6av since you'll be replacing them at twice the rate you were before.