66 coaches online • Server time: 22:44
* * * Did you know? The highest combined winnings in a single match is 250000.
Recent Forum Topics  Cindy is back? | Gnomes are trash | ramchop takes on the... |
2011-04-23 10:39:05
38 votes, rating 3.7
38 votes, rating 3.7
One less dwarf team in [B]
Ok, I've got something I want to confess to the rest of the Fumbbl community - I once tried playing dwarves in BlackBox. It's lame and very uncool and I am ashamed of this blemish on my past record. For this reason I just retired the only dwarf team that I've ever had on Fumbbl:
http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=584388
It feels good - seeing that little orange 'R' at the top of the team page. I feel glad now that I've put this sad episode behind me, and I promise that I will never do it again.
Recently I have been realising more just how much I dislike dwarves and how broken the roster really is (que start of anti-dwarf rant). About a week ago I realised that I didn't have any teams at low enough TV in the Box to take part in a lightweight Minor, next time one comes along. So, I was thinking to myself: what would be a fun, different team to play at low TV that might be vaguely competitive if I get some nice dice? I briefly thought about making a halfling or underworld team, but then I realised that just the existence of the dwarf team, with their ubiquitous tackle, makes this pretty pointless.
And I think that's really tragic. That one team build can completely break the game for so many other races, even at low TV which is the only place where some of them might ever be competitive. I'm talking here about gobbos, flings, UW, ogres (and zons to some extent).
I know all this has been said a million times before, but the more I think about it the more I realise that actually dwarves are one of the most broken aspects of BB, and it seems that they have been for some time. I mean, no other team even has a positional that starts with tackle, yet your basic dwarf longbeard starts out with both block and tackle. C'mon, that's just nuts! And the dwarf blitzers don't have tackle? Right ... How does that make any sense fluff-wise? On what other teams do the positionals have less skills than the basic linemen?! It's just silly, isn't it? Surely the blitzers should start with tackle and the longbeards not. This is how I think your basic longbeard and blitzer should start off:
Dwarf Longbeard
4329 Block, Thick Skull - 60k
Dwarf Blitzer
5339 Block, Tackle, Thick Skull - 80 or 90k
(same skill category access)
The other guys are fine. This means that a rookie dwarf team still has access to Tackle, which no other team (except CDs) does. Also, the longbeards would be a bit cheaper to offset the lack of tackle. I think this might actually help make dwarves a bit more competitive at higher TVs against the CPOMB bashy teams, as they won't be wasting so much TV on mass tackle, which they don't need. CDs could then be allowed 2 CD blitzers and 4 blockers, so they fit the same pattern.
Some might then say that this would make zons too powerful, however there have been loads of suggestions elsewhere as to how zons could be tweaked to make them less dominant at low TV.
Well, cheers if you made it to the end of my dwarf rant. I know all this has been said before, but I think some things are worth saying again! :)
http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=584388
It feels good - seeing that little orange 'R' at the top of the team page. I feel glad now that I've put this sad episode behind me, and I promise that I will never do it again.
Recently I have been realising more just how much I dislike dwarves and how broken the roster really is (que start of anti-dwarf rant). About a week ago I realised that I didn't have any teams at low enough TV in the Box to take part in a lightweight Minor, next time one comes along. So, I was thinking to myself: what would be a fun, different team to play at low TV that might be vaguely competitive if I get some nice dice? I briefly thought about making a halfling or underworld team, but then I realised that just the existence of the dwarf team, with their ubiquitous tackle, makes this pretty pointless.
And I think that's really tragic. That one team build can completely break the game for so many other races, even at low TV which is the only place where some of them might ever be competitive. I'm talking here about gobbos, flings, UW, ogres (and zons to some extent).
I know all this has been said a million times before, but the more I think about it the more I realise that actually dwarves are one of the most broken aspects of BB, and it seems that they have been for some time. I mean, no other team even has a positional that starts with tackle, yet your basic dwarf longbeard starts out with both block and tackle. C'mon, that's just nuts! And the dwarf blitzers don't have tackle? Right ... How does that make any sense fluff-wise? On what other teams do the positionals have less skills than the basic linemen?! It's just silly, isn't it? Surely the blitzers should start with tackle and the longbeards not. This is how I think your basic longbeard and blitzer should start off:
Dwarf Longbeard
4329 Block, Thick Skull - 60k
Dwarf Blitzer
5339 Block, Tackle, Thick Skull - 80 or 90k
(same skill category access)
The other guys are fine. This means that a rookie dwarf team still has access to Tackle, which no other team (except CDs) does. Also, the longbeards would be a bit cheaper to offset the lack of tackle. I think this might actually help make dwarves a bit more competitive at higher TVs against the CPOMB bashy teams, as they won't be wasting so much TV on mass tackle, which they don't need. CDs could then be allowed 2 CD blitzers and 4 blockers, so they fit the same pattern.
Some might then say that this would make zons too powerful, however there have been loads of suggestions elsewhere as to how zons could be tweaked to make them less dominant at low TV.
Well, cheers if you made it to the end of my dwarf rant. I know all this has been said before, but I think some things are worth saying again! :)
Comments
Posted by PurpleChest on 2011-04-23 15:33:14
So where are all these dominating uber dorf teams that everyone fears?
Show me.
Show me.
Posted by Cavetroll on 2011-04-23 16:25:17
haters gonna hat
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2011-04-23 16:33:21
Very Self-Righteous blog.
What you are basically saying is, because you have gotten rid of your Dwarves, you think everyone should?
What you are basically saying is, because you have gotten rid of your Dwarves, you think everyone should?
Posted by JellyBelly on 2011-04-23 16:48:07
@ PC: it's not dwarf dominance at high TV that I fear. As I said, it's the fact that they effectively make at about 4 out of the 24 available races pretty much non-viable, which I think is a real shame. In fact, as I said, I think the modifications I suggested would actually make dwarves [i]more[/i] competitive against bashy teams at high TV than they are now.
Posted by lizvis on 2011-04-23 16:55:39
wow............
a little over 400 games and you've already got it all figured out. would you plz rewrite the rest of the rules for all of us who have played triple digit games? because we're obviously too stupid and lack the expertise to do it ourselves.
very emo blog, i wristed myself and cried after reading it.
a little over 400 games and you've already got it all figured out. would you plz rewrite the rest of the rules for all of us who have played triple digit games? because we're obviously too stupid and lack the expertise to do it ourselves.
very emo blog, i wristed myself and cried after reading it.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2011-04-23 16:58:04
@ DukeTyrion: no, I don't think everyone should get rid of their dwarves. I got rid of mine 'cause I don't like them. I think the roster is broken and should be changed, for the reasons that I already gave. I've identified what I see as a problem and suggested a possible solution to fix it.
Under my proposed mod, I think dwarves would remain just as competitive against most teams, but they wouldn't have all of the tools straight out of the box to easily destroy gobbo, halfling, UW etc. teams. That way more people would play them, there would be more variety and I think that would lead to more fun for most people.
Under my proposed mod, I think dwarves would remain just as competitive against most teams, but they wouldn't have all of the tools straight out of the box to easily destroy gobbo, halfling, UW etc. teams. That way more people would play them, there would be more variety and I think that would lead to more fun for most people.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-04-23 17:04:42
welcome to the league of "I tried dorfs and retired the boring suckers".
congratulations sir - have a cigar.
congratulations sir - have a cigar.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2011-04-23 17:21:40
Alright liz. You guys should be able to use that triple-digit experience to pretty easily come up with a well thought-out and objective counter-argument to debunk my proposals then, shouldn't you?
No-one's done so yet, as far as I can see. Just thrown a load of flames around.
No-one's done so yet, as far as I can see. Just thrown a load of flames around.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2011-04-23 17:22:41
Thanks pythrr, don't mind if I do ... ;)
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2011-04-23 17:32:18
First off, there is nothing we can do about the rules, they are already set by games workshop, not us. Your only choice is whether you play the game or not.
Secondly, teams like Dwarves are needed, because the real broken starting rosters sit with teams like Amazons. Blodge available on all players and 4 starters?
Secondly, teams like Dwarves are needed, because the real broken starting rosters sit with teams like Amazons. Blodge available on all players and 4 starters?
Posted by JellyBelly on 2011-04-23 17:43:09
Yeah, I know this is all hypothetical and the rules aren't going to change any time soon. But that doesn't stop us blogging about how they could be improved and what changes we'd like to see though, does it? I'm not going to stop playing the game, just not play as dwarves ;)
I did mention at the end of the blog about zons being too powerful. I'd happily see them tweaked as well to prevent them from having access to so much blodge, so early.
I did mention at the end of the blog about zons being too powerful. I'd happily see them tweaked as well to prevent them from having access to so much blodge, so early.
Posted by lizvis on 2011-04-23 18:45:45
well jellybelly, if i counter argued with everyone who played a few games and thought they knew how to write the rules better, i wouldn't have much time for playing blood bowl now would i? replying to you is mostly a waste of time as you will move onto to another game soon, everyone who tries to rewrite the rules after a handful of games normally does move on. you think your opinion matters, but it doesn't, get over it. off the top of my head though, gee let me see.............. tackle is a regular skill, available on EVERY skill roll. +MA is available only on 3 skill rolls, and there are 36 possible combinations, making it a 1/12 possibility. dropping tackle and adding +MA for 10k more seems about right. but then again, maybe you now have a problem with the broken dwarf blitzer, who doesn't get charged enough for his +MA. maybe you should write another blog? as far as dwarves being better at lower TVs, if all the teams were equal at all TVs, i would have given up on blood bowl a long time ago and concentrated on being a better chess player. but, maybe you only like blood bowl for the fluff and don't really care about strategy and tactics. /me shrugs. lastly..........if dwarfs are so 'broken', then how come your record with the team you linked is 5/4/7? perhaps you'd have a different opinion of dwarfs if you could win with them.
Posted by uzkulak on 2011-04-23 20:24:00
Dwarves suck at winning in my experience. Only very good coaches can make them work, because positioning is so important. Having tackle isnt much use when u only have mv4 and ag2 and the other team has the ball. Bad dwarf coaches make easy wins for the rest of us, so Im sad to see you retired your team.
Posted by jimimothybodles on 2011-04-23 22:03:32
why do people get attacked for having opinions? these blog comments are weird.
anyway, i quite liked your opinion. as a coach that likes those stunty teams you mentioned, i happen to agree with your opinion that dwarf vs stunty games are horrible and boring... at any TV!
anyway, i quite liked your opinion. as a coach that likes those stunty teams you mentioned, i happen to agree with your opinion that dwarf vs stunty games are horrible and boring... at any TV!
Posted by PorkSol on 2011-04-23 22:47:01
Dwarves aren't broken in the same sense that say Wood Elves are; winning too high a percentage of their games.
Rather they're broken in that they really make the game a lot less fun. They're a hard counter to the stunty teams, they are a real problem for some other marginal teams, they have only one play style which is the slowest and most tedious caging game possible, and they're extremely unrewarding to play against as you likely won't get to do anything exciting or hurt any dwarves.
The game could be more fun if GW had designed Dwarves better. Zons are also poorly designed but they end up being less significant for a variety of reasons.
Rather they're broken in that they really make the game a lot less fun. They're a hard counter to the stunty teams, they are a real problem for some other marginal teams, they have only one play style which is the slowest and most tedious caging game possible, and they're extremely unrewarding to play against as you likely won't get to do anything exciting or hurt any dwarves.
The game could be more fun if GW had designed Dwarves better. Zons are also poorly designed but they end up being less significant for a variety of reasons.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2011-04-24 00:07:04
@ jimimothybodies: yeah, I don't get it either. There are several people on the site who just seem intent on stifling any sort of discussion or debate. I really don't understand it.
@ Porksol: yep, that's precisely my point. It's not about the w/d/l of dwarves at all, but rather the fact that they are such a hard counter to the stunties that it makes the game less varied and interesting.
@ Porksol: yep, that's precisely my point. It's not about the w/d/l of dwarves at all, but rather the fact that they are such a hard counter to the stunties that it makes the game less varied and interesting.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2011-04-24 00:19:46
So lizvis, how many games do I have to play before I'm allowed to have an opinion? 1000? More? Might as well lock off the forums from people who've played less than 1000 games then and prevent them from writing blogs as well. If you think my opinion is rubbish then fine, but I don't see the point in criticising me for voicing my opinion in my blog. If you don't like it you can just rate it 1 and move on. No-one forces you to read the forums or people's blog posts.
No, I don't think my opinion matters any more than anyone else's on this site. There are millions of people posting their opinions in blogs all over the internet every day, about all sorts of things. Do their opinions matter? Probably not. Do they care? Probably not. ;)
No, I don't think my opinion matters any more than anyone else's on this site. There are millions of people posting their opinions in blogs all over the internet every day, about all sorts of things. Do their opinions matter? Probably not. Do they care? Probably not. ;)
Posted by JellyBelly on 2011-04-24 00:28:00
To address your suggestion, so you're saying that longbeards should have MA5, as well as dropping tackle? I don't know ... I think MA4 is a fair trade for them having Block and AV9 (plus strength skill access & thick skull). I think dropping to 60k would be about right, but I think the exact costing is something that could be worked out later, and might possibly need a bit of trial and error.
The main crux of my point was the dropping of tackle from the longbeards and giving it to the blitzers. I know, it's not rocket science ...
The main crux of my point was the dropping of tackle from the longbeards and giving it to the blitzers. I know, it's not rocket science ...
Posted by MrFoxTalbot on 2011-04-25 16:25:00
Rated 6 for drama.
Posted by t0tem on 2011-06-23 22:06:00
Rated 6 because it annoyed Lizvis.
Posted by the_Sage on 2011-07-11 00:33:18
JellyBelly bla bla bla... Lizvis bla bla bla.
400 is three digits though.
400 is three digits though.