Which squire would you prefer then?

[David Bergkvist]

Maybe I should go read the description again, but I always imagined Catch as the player having a good blend of body control and hand-eye coordination. It doesn't mean that he's making acrobatic catches (that's what diving catch is for), but rather that he has the skills to pluck the ball out of the air.

If that's true, that would basically mean that there are no acrobatic catchers in blood bowl, because nobody ever chooses diving catch.

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
sorry about the late reply. My access to TBB is very limited:

Mo said:
>Of course 61 of those folks don't think there should be a Bretonnian
>list at all, so voting
>on squires seems a bit redundant.
Fair enough. I tried to word the poll to get around this - every vote counts

David said:
>The reason for this is, as has been stated, that the knights are too
>lazy to pick up the ball
>themselves.
For the record, can I just say that that is not the reason.
IMO, it is not good fluff to claim that the knights are too lazy to pick up a ball - or, as has been stated here by some, too lazy to catch a ball. Come on. That's like claiming that they should have MA3 because they are too lazy to run.

I'm saying that Knigts are used to being served by lesser lights, and that they want all the glory for themselves. So, if at all possible, they want someone else to get them the ball, while they get stuck in the middle of the action.
They prefer not to bend over to pick up a ball.

I mean, sure, a Brettonian knight would unsheath his sword if he had to, but he'd prefer if his squire unsheathed it for him and handed it to him just in time to lop off the trolls head!

Snew said:
>Just post your Plasmoid team A, B or whatever and be done with it.
I have a team that I'm happy with.
I'm doing this to see if it is possible to tweak the team to make more people happy with it.

>From all the 'different strokes" comments with their ensuing blah
>blah blah, it seems you
>already have your mind made up
I do have my mind made up about some things.
More importantly, a _lot_ of online discussion has gone before this, so any single poster with a new idea will not change something that I've had a poll majority or very positive feedback about in the past.
That would just be dumb.

You'll notice that I used the "different strokes" comment twice, about suggestions that were mutually exclusive! It seems that everybody and their dog have their own ideas about the statlines of the squires. So, as I can't please everone, maybe not even a majority, I'm sticking with statlines that have worked in playtest, and which I believe make sense.

>I but you'll let them catch the balls though. QBs are the leaders
>in teams. In fact, passing
>skills are where Leader is found. There's a reason for that. You
>claim to be looking for
>flavor and fluff along with playability but you're not doing either.

Funny you should mention this, in the same post that you claim that I don't listen.
In my original team, the nobles were the throwers!
But this got shot down a long time ago.
In BB (not NFL) the real glory is in the TD, not in the pass (I was told).
And all the great star players are blitzers - not throwers.
So I changed the team accordingly.

And if you bother to check, you'll see that there was quite a bit of opposition to leader becoming a thrower skill, for that same reason. But the reply was, that being a leader is also about field position - and the thrower has a much better overview of the pitch than a blitzer, who gets stuck in.

So - that's why the knights aren't the throwers.
Based on feedback.

Cheers
Martin