Is this a nerf or a buff?

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
in a house rule setting, I'm considering a nerf to the dwarf team.
I've had the below team suggested to me, and I honestly have a hard time telling whether this would be a nerf, no-effect, or a buff.

Team as follows:
Blocker/Longbeards: Lose tackle [still 70K]
Runner & Slayer: Unchanged
Blitzer: Gain tackle, +10K price hike.

On the nerf side, the team becomes a tad more expensive, and loses some tackle.
On the buff side, tackle gets moved to players that are more mobile, and hence less likely to be tied up or in the wrong place.

Cheers
Martin

[rodders]

I'd say its a very minor nerf
longbeards will miss out on the odd cas they get from having to use tackle (lets face it they don't have to use it all the time so will skill up ever so slightly more slowly The blitzers will benefit alot from tackle and you may see more variation in dwarf rosters at tourneys.

As I'm writing this it occurs to me that you use the tackle on the blockers less for taking down dodgers and more for protection by making those pesky dodgers move that much further by positioning your blockers well

[Podfrey]

Against some teams, tackle is useless. Against others (eg Woodies) they use their speed to avoid it on LB. So minor overall reduction in less tackle, but minor plus that it's a bit more mobile (+1 AG, +1 MV)

Result? Meh.

Feels more like a change stemming from personal desire than game balance.

[nazgob]

dwarves dont really need the nerf in my opinion, but lowering the value of those line dwarves is a big one.

just dont see a Ma4, Ag2 Blocker being worth 70k. Regardless of Armour 9/Thick Skull.

[plasmoid]

Hi Nazgob,
I guessed I'd be explaining that within very few posts
So here is my rationale (beside the fact that I didn't want to improve the team by giving it a big TV reduction).

By formula, longbeards get a 40K price reduction (due to MA4 and AG2) and a 10K increase due to AV9.
So thats a baseline of just 20K. Which means that Block, Tackle, Thick Skull estimated to be 50K worth of skills.

My thinking is that the 40K "discount" is too much, because once you lose MA/AG then the other one becomes less important.
Zombies were certainly buffed up 10K, and they previously got the same discount.

So I think their statline is worth 10K more, evening out the loss of a skill.

Cheers
Martin

[Ullis]

I think Stunty and Amazon teams would welcome this change. I've never played Dwarves myself so cannot really say what the likely effect would be, but I'd think it's a nerf but not one that would have a big impact on the competitiveness of the team overall.

[plasmoid]

Hi Podfrey

Result? Meh.
Feels more like a change stemming from personal desire than game balance.

Ah, you can be sure that I'm looking for a nerf, and I base this on the league play stats I collected for the BBRC back in the day. I wanted to hit them harder than this, but me ears are already ringing with the pulling of beards and gnashing of teeth.

[rodders]

dwarves dont really need the nerf in my opinion, but lowering the value of those line dwarves is a big one.

just dont see a Ma4, Ag2 Blocker being worth 70k. Regardless of Armour 9/Thick Skull.

but its not just that its a 0-16 player with st access

[mattgslater]

I think you should consider cutting 10k off Runners, to separate the price bump from the cut in skills, and then see how it goes. After all, the justification on the icky Runner costing is that the linemen are too good.

[Rhyoth]

I think you should consider cutting 10k off Runners, to separate the price bump from the cut in skills, and then see how it goes. After all, the justification on the icky Runner costing is that the linemen are too good.

I don't really see the Runner as undercosted : he's a very important player for Dwarves, and he's still way better than an Amazon or Norse thrower, and a good deal compared to an Orc thrower (i think your opinion is disturbed because of the discount on Human thrower...)


On the other hand, 70 k Blockers without Tackle seems really unfair (compared to Chaos Dwarves), so, as i mentionned in the House rules section, if you take Tackle away from Longbeards, i think it would be more appropriate to make them cheaper, even if it means increasing Blitzers & Trollslayers price.

[JaM]

I'd up their rerolls to 60K, too.
40K was waaaay too cheap, and still think that 50K isnt enough. The team is good enough, you dont really need more than 3 anyway.
If a player wants more RRs, his TR will go up a tad more, too.

just my o.o2

[Asperon Thorn]

I voted for major Nerf.

The problem with tackle on Dwarf teams is not getting it to where it needs to be, it is the fact that it is already there.

The good dwarf players I have played against basically play Dwarf defense like a "Tower Defense" game. Place these longbeard pillars all over the place with overlapping fields of fire. They are too slow to react, so their defense is based on 1) staying on the pitch 2) taking away rerolls from faster teams and 3) Taking away block dice (once guard is spammed.)

This severely cuts into number 2. Without spammed tackle Any elf with dodge is going to get downfield. As it stands TRR's need to be used to get elves downfield.

Asperon Thorn

[mattgslater]

Have you thought about possibly making Blitzers a 0-4 position? That would give the team six AG3 players, but would bump its final TV by 40k and cut the starting Tackle from 6x to 4x.

Never mind. But some kind of 0-4 Tackle option would be nice.

[Kort]

Clearly a nerf, but not a strong one. The Dwarf team will still be tier 1. The good thing is that some Longbeards will perhaps take Tackle as a skill instead of Guard/Mighty Blow/Stand Firm. The bad thing is the boost given to Amazons and Elf teams.

I also agree with mattgslater that ideally a rookie Dwarf team should have the option to field up to 4 Tacklers. I am not sure I am ready to give the Dwarf up to 6 players with AG3 though. Maybe keep the current Blockers as a 0-2 position ?

Also, 70k is a bit too expensive for a Longbeard without Tackle, since he's basically a Zombie that loses Regeneration against +AV and Thick Skull, and access to Strength skills. Not worth 30k if you want my opinion.

[mattgslater]

The way Dwarfs are costed now, the critical AG3 players are marginal values and the rest are quality buys. If you're going to take that away, and it makes sense to me that you would because it's just a tad too good, then the best way around it would seem to turn the AG3 players into fair buys.

Put another way; if you're playing with the team's skills but not its cash flow, that makes a lot of sense to me. If you're going to cut into the team's starting cash, then maybe you shouldn't take away most of their Tackle. I don't think it's a big deal, though. I do think this change would be more fun than the Wrestle Dwarfs, even with only 2x Tackle.

I also think 2x Tackle is enough, though 4x would be nice, as I said. They also have 2x Frenzy. Undead have neither, and lots of MA4, and yet they still deal with Elves (yes, they have 2x MB, but they only have 2x Block, while starting Dwarfs have 9x).

I still think an Ironbreaker position (3/3/1/10 Bk/SF GS 80k) would be a fun way to solve the problem. Instead of spamming Tackle, a little Tackle, a little Frenzy, a little Stand Firm....