harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jan 13, 2013 - 18:46 |
 
|
No, you don't understand at all. It's not that hard to make a roster that is fun to use and very clever. There is nothing wrong with this roster playwise.
The problem is, and it's frustrating for me to say this again and again; it goes against the ethics of what Games Workshops games are all about.
I'd prefer Selfy_74 you'd stop goading me into bringing up points about a debate that was debated to death.
Anyone could make a fun interesting roster, that was enjoyable to use, and not overpowered. It's pretty easy to do. The problem is keeping it in character with beasts portrayed. This is a very important aspect of GW games, and as you were involved with the initial debates, you should know these points.
The bottom line is; it was a difficult theme made impossible by the constraints on the roster. And, even without the constraints, it would have been a pretty unwelcoming roster. |
|
|
neoliminal
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2013 - 19:13 |
|
| selfy_74 wrote: | The roster is sublime. Difficult to use and master, but with good positioning capable of some absolutely unbelievable plays. They are high risk and high reward and not for the faint-hearted. I can understand why a lot of coaches don't like them because they go against everything that is usually preached about good solid BB play. You have to go peddle to the metal; frenzy on everybody; blitz EVERY turn with the thirster; surf anything that gets into the wide zone; bust open holes so wide you could get a Sherman through; and don't stop until everyone's dead.
Of course, if you get it wrong, they come down like a pack of cards. They're up there in my top 5 most fun teams. And that includes stunty leeg teams. |
What TV are you currently at with your team? |
_________________
*
<BBRC>retired</BBRC><NAF>founder, 1st, 2nd Presidents</NAF><BB-Developers>retired</BB-Developers><Game-Developer>active</Game-Developer> |
|
oryx
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2013 - 19:19 |
|
This doesn't seem like a fun opponent to play against to me. It sounds a lot like playing against clawpomb. |
|
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2013 - 21:25 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | No, you don't understand at all. It's not that hard to make a roster that is fun to use and very clever. There is nothing wrong with this roster playwise.
The problem is, and it's frustrating for me to say this again and again; it goes against the ethics of what Games Workshops games are all about.
I'd prefer Selfy_74 you'd stop goading me into bringing up points about a debate that was debated to death.
Anyone could make a fun interesting roster, that was enjoyable to use, and not overpowered. It's pretty easy to do. The problem is keeping it in character with beasts portrayed. This is a very important aspect of GW games, and as you were involved with the initial debates, you should know these points.
The bottom line is; it was a difficult theme made impossible by the constraints on the roster. And, even without the constraints, it would have been a pretty unwelcoming roster. |
Ok, fair enough. I apologise because I'm not trying to goad you. I do agree with your bottom line, give or take a bit. I don't think it's an unwelcoming roster, but you are right it was a difficult theme. NAF aren't currently accepting the roster, but I hope one day they might. But if they don't then that's just the way it is. |
_________________
Selfy_74: Verified Stunty Leeg Master
 |
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 - 00:23 |
|
Late to the party, I know, but I just wanted to add my 0.02$:
I don't mind the verdict. Personally I quite like the roster, and with several years since the previous roster infusion I think it was nice with something new to play with. But as i said, can't fault the verdict.
That said, I can't help but mention that some of the reasoning isn't bullet proof:
| Quote: | | If we let Khorne in now under this approval mechanism, how do we say no to any future races coming in from the same route to market? We cannot because there will be global confusion about which races are approved and those not. Once we say yes to one….it stands to reason and logic that you would have to accept all. If you don’t, there will be chaos (no pun intended). |
1) The slippery slope argument doesn't stand up. There is nothing forcing the NAF to accept future rosters if they accept the Khorne one. Each such roster should (IMO) be judged on individual merits ( - and if Khorne is found wanting in this regard, then so be it).
2) I don't think there is more or less confusion either way. People who care about the NAF, go to NAF sanctioned tournaments or even know what the NAF is, will know where to find the NAF's stance on any new roster. Those who don't know or care about the NAF will do with any new roster as they please.
Or to put it differently: This (the current) decision will only affect those who know about it. And that would be true no matter which way the verdict had gone.
...That said, it is definately a sound decision to wait for further playtest results to come in 
But how much will be enough? Hard to say.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 - 00:34 |
|
Yes, like I said on page 2. There was no need to add that at all. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 - 22:30 |
|
Rough day?
In all fairness there was no _need_ to add that either 
Anyway, to add something new then, I disagree with you that it is particularly easy to create a roster that is both balanced, unique and interesting to play. I think the Khorne roster does a very good job at this, but unfortunateley, IMO, falls somewhat short on the fluff-match front.
But could it be fixed with something as simple as name-fixes?
0-16 Linemen 60,000 6338 Frenzy GP
0-4 Furies 80,000 6337 Horns, Regenerate Juggernaut GAS
0-2 Beastmen of Khorne 90,000 6338 Horns, Frenzy, Juggernaut GS
0-1 Bloodthirster 180,000 6 5 1 9 Horns, Frenzy, Claw, Juggernaut, Regenerate, Loner, Wild Animal S
(_If_ the roster proves to be a tad weak, then perhaps ST6 on the bloodthirster would make it more bloodthirsterlike - while at the same time strengthening the team's secondary theme 'big bad big guy')
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 - 22:44 |
|
Furies.... Face palm!!! |
_________________
 |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 - 22:44 |
|
| plasmoid wrote: | | 0-4 Furies 80,000 6337 Horns, Regenerate Juggernaut GAS |
You mean the kids who dress up in animal costumes? Like bunnies and squirrels and stuff?  |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 - 22:49 |
|
LOL |
_________________
|
|
spubbbba
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 - 22:55 |
|
Umm, Furies aren't Khorne. The fundamental point behind their fluff is that they never committed to one god and flitted about so were cursed as no god claimed their souls when they died.
Beastmen make sense if you want to make it a Khorne themed team, so why not keep the letters as they are.
The worst fluff crime was putting the Thirster in Bloodbowl. it's just too big and powerful and the rules can't adequately represent it. A daemon prince of Khorne makes more sense and gives a greater array of modelling opportunities too. |
_________________
British or British based and looking to join a League?
Then check out theWhite Isle Fringe |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 - 23:03 |
|
Good lord. It's deader than Lance Armstrong's career. Let it lie!  |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2013 - 00:06 |
|
@Spubbbba: Just trying to be constructive here. Taking your post to be in the very same spirit, I agree. Daemon Prince would fit the bill better.
@WhatBall:...No? ...Those are furries.
Furies. The GW generic daemons.
@Spubbbba (again): I know they aren't khornate. But AFAIK the point about furies isn't that they'd play for none of the gods, but rather that they'd play for all of them. I think they'd a be a good fit for low level daemon that wouldn't have "higher stats please" written all over them.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2013 - 04:40 |
|
| plasmoid wrote: | @WhatBall:...No? ...Those are furries.
Furies. The GW generic daemons. |
Great news!
Since you don't want the Furries in your roster I have the perfect thing to replace the Fairy team with. \o/ |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
