Fully Playtested Bretonnian Team - Comments?

[Joemanji]

***The Bretonnian Team***************************************

0-2 110K Questing Knights 6339 G,ST block, multiple block, dauntless
0-2 70K Questor Squires 6338 G,ST guard
0-2 100K Errant Knights 7338 G,AG block, catch
0-2 60K Errant Squires 6338 G,PA Sure Hands
0-12 40K Peasants 6328 G -

ReRolls 70K. Apothecary and Wizard as normal. No Big Guy.
***********************************************************

Your list has too much easy access to new skills. Peasants should be 6 3 3 7 @ 40K. Its the most obvious thing in the world!

Creating a new team list is a whole lot harder than it looks! You have to consider what it would be like to play against, not just jot down a wish list of what you want. The only reason I could ever see for creating a new team is fluff, not performance. New teams should always be underpowered. That is the whole point! You can't have your cake and eat it. If you really, really want to field a Brettonian team, then you shouldn't really care if it wins every game. If you really want to be competitive, use the standard human team, and convert some knight models to 'count as' blitzers. You can then use SPP rolls to characterise them.

I worry about people who suddenly come up with a whole new team, that just 'happens' to perform really well on the pitch.

Blood Bowl teams are NOT represntations of WFB armies!

Do 'empire' teams have flagellants?
Do Dwarf teams have ironbreakers?
Do Skaven teams have plague monks?
Do Dark Elf teams have shades?
etc...

The only WFB troop types that appear in BB are members of religious groups or cults, such as witch elves, trollslayers and wardancers. Because these types exist in the everyday life of their race. People don't just walk off the battlefield onto the BB pitch!!

If you want a Brettonian team, it should consider the fluff. And that means the fluff of the RACE, not the army. A BB team would be put together from the general populace. Do manchester united recruit players from the SAS? No, because they would be rubbish!!! You have to imagine that BB players are chaps that have trained their whole life to get where they are. So, as you don'w wake up one day and decide to be a professional football player, you don't do so in BB!

I accept that members of the aristocracy might decide to play BB, and that they might dress up as knights. But there wouldn't be very many of them who could play BB that well. Most of the team would be made up of pro BB players drawn from the general populace.

If you really wanted a Brett team along those lines, to reflect the nature of Brett society, that:

a) people are generally poor, and couldn't afford much decent BB equipment

b) but there exist certain 'knightly' aristocrats who have a passion for BB

then I might use something like:

0-4 90K Knights 6 3 3 8 Block, Dauntless (G, ST)
0-2 70K Catchers 8 2 3 7 Catch, Dodge (G, AG)
0-2 60K Throwers 6 3 3 7 Pass, Sure Hands (G, PA)
0-12 40K Linemen 6 3 3 7 (G)

Rerolls 60K (they don't train as well as other human teams).

[plasmoid]

Hi Nazgit,
I've got to say that I think your critique misses the mark by a pretty large margin.

>Your list has too much easy access to new skills.
Explain. I'm not sure what you mean.

On a full 16 man team they have 14 skills among them. Many teams match that.

>Peasants should be 6337 @ 40K. Its the most obvious thing in the world!
Actually, we've settled at 6327.
If the peasants are AG3 then they can be expected to dodge and catch, taking preassure off the knights and squires. That wouldn't be good for team balance.

>Creating a new team list is a whole lot harder than it looks! You have to consider what it
>would be like to play against, not just jot down a wish list of what you want.
As mentioned, the team is based on around 300 test games.
As you can imagine, that means that a whole lot of coaches have played against it, and haven't had any reason to complain.
I'm very confident that team is by no means too good.
And, I think that that much play test gives me good reason to be confident.

I assume that your claims of the team being too good is speculation?

>New teams should always be underpowered. That is the whole point!
I take team design very seriously.
That also means that I try for "medium-powered".
I don't want to create teams that can then sit on the sidelines with the other stunties.
I do want to create teams that offer coaches some unique advantages and challenges.
IMO, I try for teams that could become official and would then fit into the middle power-bracket of the game, meaning that they would get played, yet wouldn't need any errata.

>I worry about people who suddenly come up with a whole new team, that just 'happens' to perform
>really well on the pitch.
Furtunately, neither "suddenly" or "performs really well on the pitch" applies to this team.

>Blood Bowl teams are NOT represntations of WFB armies!
I fully agree.
But they do reflect the nations behind the teams.

>I accept that members of the aristocracy might decide to play BB, and that they might dress up
>as knights.
That's just the point.
In Bretonnia, the aristocracy doesn't "dress up as knights" - they ARE knights.
Born and bred - knights in the army, and on their spare time.
(example: "knight of the realm" means that the noble knight has a whole realm to manage! That is not something he does while he is on the battlefield).

"Knight" is a cultural title just like "longbeard". It is nothing like being a 'halberdier' or a 'swordsman' - it is your permanent status in society.

Consider the Bretonnian feudal society. There are the knights/aristocracy. Then there are the squires, who practically live with their lieges, and serve them in every way. If their masters should decide to take up a Blood Bowl career, they would be duty bound to serve them there too.

Finally, there are the peasants.
They are on the team to fill it up, because it is not every knight who chooses to play Blood Bowl. Peasants are the bulk inhabitants of Bretonnia.

By the way, there are no peasants in the army list.
There are men-at-arms, who are quite capable fighters.

>But there wouldn't be very many of them who could play BB that well. Most of the team would be
>made up of pro BB players drawn from the general populace.
That's one possibility.
I based my team on the fact that only the aristocracy would have the necessary leisure time and access to gold to be able to found a team.

Also, I assume that you haven't read my team background from another thread. It gives the knights a very good reason to be playing Blood Bowl.
I really like that background.
I hope you'll check it out at:
viewtopic.php?t=6866

>The only WFB troop types that appear in BB are members of religious groups or cults, such as
>witch elves, trollslayers and wardancers. Because these types exist in the everyday life of
>their race.
As mentioned, I don't consider knights or squires to be troop types. Indeed I consider them to "exist in the everyday life of their race" - as you say.

Also, you're wrong! The cults are not the only WFB representatives.
There are lots of other BB positions based in things you find in the armies.
And not just from cults.
But I do agree that they are there because they represent groups found in the nation behind the team/army.

>Do 'empire' teams have flagellants?
no.

>Do Dwarf teams have ironbreakers?
Nope. But they do have longbeards.
Runner is also very likely a reference to dwarven tunnelrunners.

>Do Skaven teams have plague monks?
Nope. But they've got Storm Vermin.
And Gutter Runners.

>Do Dark Elf teams have shades?
No. But they do have Witch Elves.

See what I mean?
There are ofcourse countless of "species" that are found both in BB and WFB.
Black Orcs, Beastmen, Skeletens, etc. etc.

But there are also "castes"
Like Gutter Runners, Longbeards and Chaos Warriors - as well as all of the "religious" ones: Slayers, Witch Elves and Wardancers.

And that is where the knights, squires and peasants fit in.

>If you really wanted a Brett team along those lines, to reflect the nature of Brett society,
[snip]
>then I might use something like:
>
>0-4 90K Knights 6 3 3 8 Block, Dauntless (G, ST)
>0-2 70K Catchers 8 2 3 7 Catch, Dodge (G, AG)
>0-2 60K Throwers 6 3 3 7 Pass, Sure Hands (G, PA)
>0-12 40K Linemen 6 3 3 7 (G)

As mentioned, I like new teams to offer unique advantages and challenges.
IMO, this Bretonnian list is so close to the "human" team list that I'd rather not have one.

Martin

PS - Again, I do hope that you'll check out my background.
It explains why it is the errant knights and questing knights (rather than grail knights and realm knights) who found Blood Bowl teams.
viewtopic.php?t=6866

[Joemanji]

Hi!

By skill access, I meant that you have a lineman with access to ST skills. And what's up with the errant knight? If he is a catcher, why does he have the stats of a human blitzer? If he is a blitzer, why does he have catch and access to AG skills? These do not match up.

You have playtested these rules, that's fine. I don't think they look ridiculously overpowered.

But they do look like you have written rules for your team in terms of the STATS that you want to use. BB is moving away from player types named after WFB roles. Notice the norse team has blitzers not berserkers, and linemen not huscarls. This is an attempt on JJs part, I think, to restate BB's identity, separate from the WFB world.

Typical example - Peasants. You have written the 6 2 3 8 statline because that is what you want to use in game terms, and then decided to call them peasants. Peasants wouldn't play BB. If a bunch of knights wanted to start a BB team, they have the social authority to force ANY of their subjects to join their team. Would they walk down to the local hovel and drag a few peasants out, or order some pro BB players to join them?

But if Peasants did play, they would not have access to expensive armour. The knights DON'T CARE about them - they would not buy armour for a peasant! Jeez. They would be AV 7. Every single human in the game has AG 3. Giving them AG 2 is setting a precendent.

It looks to me as if you have thought "This team needs a cheap lineman so I can afford my position players. He needs a high AV to survive a bit longer, but if I give him a low AG, it will drop the price nicely." Rather than "If peasants played BB, what would their stats be like?"

JJ tries to fit stats to fluff, not the other way round.

Human linemen that start with Guard? C'MON!! How 'convenient' is that?

Team creation isn't a pick and mix counter. It isn't a case of "I want this" and "I want that". At least, not if you want to have them made official. Which at the moment, I don't think is very likely.

If you want to use this list, I would at least like to see you make it BB-flavoured. So call them 'knight blitzers' instead of questing knights etc.

Eg:

0-2 110K Knight Blitzers 5 3 3 9 Block, Tackle, Stand Firm (G, ST)
0-2 90K Knights Errant 6 3 3 8 Block, Dauntless (G, ST)
0-2 60K Squire Catchers 7 2 3 7 Catch, Dodge (G, AG)
0-2 60K Squire Throwers 6 3 3 7 Pass, Sure Hands (G, PA)
0-12 40K Linemen 6 3 3 7 (G)

Reroll 60K

Do you see what I mean? I would personally drop the 'squire' and just call them 'catchers' or 'throwers'. But still, they are trusted followers who the knights have trained to fulfil special roles on the pitch.

Remember, in reality a knight couldn't even stand up in full plate armour - it was only for use when on a horse. He certainly wouldn't be haring around a BB pitch. At least not very quickly!

Lastly, a Brettonian team should be 'like' a human team - because they ARE humans! The should at least be recognisable! Norse and amazons are recognisably human. Your team isn't really.

[Deacon]

Okay, just thought I'd throw in a Bretonnian team that I used some time ago.

• 0-12 Peasants 40K 6337 none G
  0-2 Squires 70K 6338 Honorable Sure Hands G,P
  0-4 Realm Knights 90K 6339 Block, Honorable G,S
  0-2 Grail Knights 110K 6339 Block, Dauntless, Honorable, Pro G,S
  Reroll : 60K
  Honorable players may not foul.
  Special Rule: In addition, all Knights are so arrogant and full of themselves that they will not hand-off or pass the ball to a player of 'lower caste', in this case, Peasants.

I used this lot over about 20 games. Lost on average 1-2 peasants a game so that the knights could steal all the glory. And the special 'Arrogance' rule deprived me of one or two TDs.

Terrific fun though.

[Robotorz]

I dont understand why the lineman are hobogoblins with less ag and at the same price?

And why drop multiple Block and not Block? Give the team a flavor. Having Blitzers with Block is dull and boring. Dauntless and Multiple Block is at least more refreshing than Dauntless and Block (been there done that...)

Honorable is a nice Idea but from my point of view the less new skills a team needs the more likley it is going to be accepted. Yeah I know that the MBBL 2 is doing well but my pub league is verry conservativ on such topics.... and I guess a lot of other Leagues are conservativ on such things too!

[plasmoid]

Hi Nazgit,
I was so completely put off by your post that it took me 3 weeks to reply.
Well, here it is:

You keep telling me how I go about designing teams. How would you know anything about that? I believe I have described the process, but you've obviously completely ignored that.

I do very much try to pick stats that reflect who the player is and what he does in the bb/WFB world - fitting stats to fluff if you will. I also consider how the team would work as a BB-playing whole - ignoring this aspect would be stupid.

You comment on the peasant stats in great detail - but you didn't even get them right. I asked you twice to check the updated stats, but you didn't. They are AV7, just like you wanted.

>Typical example - Peasants. You have written the 6 2 3 8 statline because that
>is what you want to use in game terms, and then decided to call them peasants.
6327
And, you're annoyingly wrong.

>Every single human in the game has AG 3. Giving them AG 2 is setting a
>precendent.

So, what. There are ST2 humans, why not AG2?
You said that stats need to reflect fluff - well if a well trained human athlete has AG3, then I figure that a not so well trained peasant would have AG2.

>Would they walk down to the local hovel and drag a few peasants out, or order
>some pro BB players to join them?

Would an undead team have just 2 mummies, when a rich necromancer could easily buy more? Sometimes team balance takes precedence over straight logic. With your logic, why would the human team ever use linemen when they could have blitzers instead?

>But if Peasants did play, they would not have access to expensive armour. The
>knights DON'T CARE about them - they would not buy armour for a peasant! Jeez.
>They would be AV 7.

Well you're the one who is so crazy about logic.
If the Bretonnian head coach wants to win, and isn't a total moron, don't you think he would get over himself and get a decent BB kit for his players?
Still, as I said, they have AV7 - not because of logic, but because peasants are feeble.

Since you have such a hard time seeing it, let me explain which fluff-thinking made me arrive at the stats:
Peasants: 6327 -
- linemen without the proper armor or ball-handling practice.

Questing Knight: 6339 block, multiblock, dauntless
- veterans of battle, questing for the grail (BB-trophy). Great fighters, yet no superhuman ST. Able to best 2 lesser men, or even terrible monsters.

Errant Knights: 7338 block, catch.
- Young reckless knights. Not unlike a human blitzer, but with a much bigger interest in the ball. Score on the pitch - score with the ladies!

Questor Squires: 6338 guard
- personal squires to the questing knights. How do they best help a master who is often in the thick of battle? Not by carrying the ball, but by giving him a helping hand.

Errant Squires: 6338 sure hands
- squires to the errant knights. These squires obviously help their TD-oriented masters by fetching the ball and serving them a good pass - allowing their masters to score both the TD and the glory.

You may not agree, but that's how I see them.

>By skill access, I meant that you have a lineman with access to ST skills.
[snip]
>Human linemen that start with Guard? C'MON!! How 'convenient' is that?

They're not linemen. They're squires (and position players).
And why do you persist in thinking that they are linemen.
Are skaven linemen and undead ghouls the same thing?
They share a 7337 template, yet one has both a skill and access to a skill category. Exactly like the human lineman vs. human squire.

>And what's up with the errant knight? If he is a catcher, why does he have the
>stats of a human blitzer?

Or the stats of a storm vermin. Strangely, there isn't one unique statline for each kind of player. This is why a human knight, who plays a lot like a human blitzer has the stats of a human blitzer.

>If he is a blitzer, why does he have catch and access to AG skills? These do not
>match up.

He is kind of like a human blitzer with a special interest in scoring, as opposed to bashing peoples brains out. Can you imagine that players could be something "in-between" the 5 basic categories of player?
Can you explain a saurus or a skink in these 5 basic terms?
Saurii are too fast to be blockers.
Skinks are too fast to be linemen, yet it is unthinkable that a team should not have a lineman position. Right?

>Remember, in reality a knight couldn't even stand up in full plate armour - it
>was only for use when on a horse. He certainly wouldn't be haring around a BB
>pitch. At least not very quickly!

Yet, knights in Warhammer world seem to be able to walk in armour just fine.
More importantly: While they are knights, who said anything about running around on the pitch in an armour made for war? They're wearing BB-kits, what else?

>Lastly, a Brettonian team should be 'like' a human team - because they ARE >humans! The should at least be recognisable! Norse and amazons are recognisably >human. Your team isn't really.

Strangely enough, nobody has ever brought this up.
Perhaps it is in the eye of the beholder?

Martin

[Circular_Logic]

I have read the thread since it was started and in my opinion, this is a team I would consider to play. But not because it´s overpowered... I like the interesting idea of a few specialists.
Lets be honest:
Anyone facing this team would take out the Errant guys and have an easy game, because with the questing guys tight up to be the ballhandlers, an orc-team or even norse could easily tear through the crappy rest of the peasants.

[plasmoid]

Hi Circular Logic,
thanks for the kind words.
As mentioned, we've run a lot of playtest and development, and the team is not a powerteam. It is however, (IMO) a unique team, and fun to play.

Most of the comments on this thread have been positive too, so I consider the current version (i.e. the one modified after the TBB comments) to be ready to play.
Enjoy

Martin

[no_dice]

1. The errant knight starting with block doesn't seem to fit. Maybe dodge as an eqaully useful alternative?

2. There should only be 1 kinda squire, you shouldn't have 5 positions on your team

2a. Why do the squires have sure hands? doesn't seem to fit.

3. I would leave the peasants at 2 agility, but raise their armor, 30k models are rediculous 6 3 2 8 40k should be fine

I'm sure I have more to say but I have to get back to work

hehe

[Wonder]

***The Bretonnian Team***************************************

0-2 110K Questing Knights 6339 G,ST block, multiple block, dauntless
0-2 70K Questor Squires 6338 G,ST guard
0-2 100K Errant Knights 7338 G,AG block, catch
0-2 60K Errant Squires 6338 G,PA Sure Hands
0-12 40K Peasants 6328 G -

ReRolls 70K. Apothecary and Wizard as normal. No Big Guy.
***********************************************************

Hi,

This team is really interesting, especially because you can imagine a background behind the stats (where, for example, the chaos team is a really bad with all the players looking the same).

There is only 1 points that "tickles" me : having guard on the questors squires at the start, which allows to easily break defense tactics on early games, since you can have several block well assisted on the line (with 4 guys having block and 2 having guard, there are only ST4 players lines that can stand).

But in the same time, I don't see what other skill would be accurate, looking at the background and the desesperate need of the squires to help the knights.

Good job !

W

[plasmoid]

Hi wonder,
I'm glad you liked the team/stats

And don't worry about the 2 guard players.
Many teams have big guys, and a lot has access to ST4 players. These teams break defense formations just as easily.
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi No_Dice
regarding your comments:

>1. The errant knight starting with block doesn't seem to fit. Maybe dodge
>as an eqaully useful alternative?
I wanted them to move them away from standard catchers with catch+dodge. They are more like ball-oriented blitzers.

>2. There should only be 1 kinda squire, you shouldn't have 5 positions
>on your team.
Fair enough. But I don't agree.
IMO, the squires matching their lieges is one of the charms of the team.
Besides, the Necro team has 5 positions too - and if you count big guys then many teams have 5 positions.

>2a. Why do the squires have sure hands? doesn't seem to fit.
The squires are fetching the ball for their masters.
The noble knights wouldn't want to pick anything up when they can get their servants to do it for them

>3. I would leave the peasants at 2 agility, but raise their armor, 30k
>models are rediculous 6 3 2 8 40k should be fine.
Seems that people disagree.
I started out with the stats you mention, because they would then only have 1 "sub-human" stat. However, several people on this list convinced me that AV7 would be more peasant-like.

Martin

[Chris]

>>>>>>>..
Do Dark Elf teams have shades?
>>>>>>>

They could if you used a little nit of modelling putty and painted them plack and silver.

[Chris]

Incidentally you should state that all the good BB players go off to join the proper human teams for the money and affections of beautiful women. What you get left are those bound to the realm through honour, but noneverless want to female attention and ready cash - everyones human!

>>>>>>>.
>Peasants should be 6337 @ 40K. Its the most obvious thing in the world!
Actually, we've settled at 6327.
If the peasants are AG3 then they can be expected to dodge and catch, taking preassure off the knights and squires. That wouldn't be good for team balance.
>>>>>>>>

I agree, 6, 3, 2, 7 seems a good peasant stat line. You need some terrified looking models though :)

>>>>>
Questing Knights 6339 G,ST block, multiple block, dauntless
>>>>>>>
Calling them Knights of the realm instead of their army name?
I think you should consider dropping the move to 5 (and use bow legged models :) ), and definatively drop Block. it's ano brainer skill, of course you would want it on this model. perhaps it should instead be the first thing you get for them, as the knight in question acclimitises from the world of warfare to the world of sport. They have the fighting spirit (MB and Dauntless) just need the experience of playing the game in a competitive setting to become really good fighters.
Would also increase there numbers to 0-4. Oh, and drop the price to 90k

>>>>>
Questor Squires 6338 G,ST guard
>>>>>>>

I really don't like these guys. Guard as a first skill is a bit good and 2 gives you a tremedous boost on the line of skrimage. Doubled with a MB dauntless knight and he's a bit fearsome.
I would want my opponent to consider something else.

>>>>>
Errant Squires 6338 G,PA Sure Hands
Errant Knights 7338 G,AG block, catch
>>>>>

I think these possitions should be merged into
0-4 Squires 6 3 3 8 G, PA, with sure hands. What they then become depends on the skills they develop. After all they are apprentices, their future is ahead of them! I like the idea of giving them passing skills though, so they can serve their masters even qicker!

>>>>>>>>
40K Peasants 6328 G
>>>>>>>

These guys seem fine appart from the high armour.
I think it would be more peasanty to have armour 7, as I think you have already agreed?

I think you should also consider another class of peasant. This is for several reasons.
Some peasants can go on to do great things (look at the terrorist Robin of Sherwood), and possess ability their masters all to eagily utilise.
Knights would use peasants for the dirty work, like sticking your head round the corner to see if the ballista is still ready to fire.
And for some humour, the list can't be too serious and embodying chivalry, as this is blood bowl, a game to appeal to the masses, and in which no trick, piece of journalism or comment is too low!

So, some sort of
0-2 'Talented peasants' (think of something else to call him). Marked for greatness or death the stats are 50k 7 3 3 7 G, AG. This chap in the empire would no doubt develop into a position player. Kept down by the stifling social mores of bretonian the only way out is bandetry or BloodBowl. As a threat to the social order though such men don't live long, sent into the heart of danger in the opposing half. Such a fate is desired by the lords however, such talented men, though useful, can never be allowed to rise to a position of power.

So how about
0-4 90K Knights of the Realm 5339 G,ST, multiple block, dauntless
0-4 60K Squires 6338 G, PA Sure Hands
0-2 50k Threats to the social order 7337 G, AG
0-12 40K Peasants 6328 G

ReRolls 60K. Apothecary and Wizard as normal. No Big Guy.

The team needs the odd double to properly develope, but even without it is the best ball handling team in the human world, clearly the knightly values of grabbing everything going and hanging on till death do you part (otherwise known as chivalry) live on in this team. The cancer within though could potentiall grow and threaten the apportionment of glory in the team, until a fortuitous death that is :)

[Chris]

Actually, reflecting on this on the train, I think the team I suggested was a bit harsh. PLus I got the armour wrong for peasants. Saying that, AV6 sounds really good, so how about:-

0-4 100K Knights of the Realm 6339 G,ST, multiple block, dauntless
0-4 60K Squires 6338 G, PA Sure Hands
0-2 50k Threats to the Social Order 7337 G, AG
0-12 30K Peasants 6326 G

RR 60k

The difference in AV in the peasants (6 and 7) simply reflects how hard they are, or not in this case.