NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - NURGLE'S ROTTERS IN NEED OF RULES REVIEW?

NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - NURGLE'S ROTTERS IN NEED OF RULES REVIEW?

CoachBlackBear - May 21, 2004 - 07:04 AM
Post subject: NURGLE'S ROTTERS IN NEED OF RULES REVIEW?

I have been playing Nurgle's Rotters for half a year, 15 games. I think they are balanced but the turnover rate for beastmen i terrible. Our league states we get 1.100.000 gp, and have to start with 12 players. I started out with 11 beastmen and the beast of Nurgle. I now have 4 rotters, but only 5 of those 11 beastmen left. Two of those have 1st niggling. Six have been lost to niggling from CAS (I retire them at 2nd niggling, sometimes rookies at first if there's alot of players with niggling). I have heard of Nurgle being discussed on some forum (but apparently not this one), and it was said first trait one should give spikes to the beastmen, to keep them playing longer. It may be that this can work, I'll definitely start doing just that. But: why can't the team be allowed an apothecary ONLY for use on the non-regeneration players, i.e. the beastmen. What's the news on Nurgle, and especially, are there any rule-changes coming for nurgle this year?

Zombie - May 21, 2004 - 07:43 AM
Post subject:

Maybe you should consider keeping the niggled players until you have money to replace them. I know that's what i'd do.

A player with 2 nigglings is the perfect guy to put on the line of scrimmage on defense, especially on a team with no apothecary.

They shouldn't have one because they don't believe in healing! They like having their plague...

CoachBlackBear - May 21, 2004 - 08:14 AM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

Thanks for the input Zombie. What I really was asking for was if it is being discussed in the BB board? What do Galak(?) & Co say on this?

Then, yes, I do keep them for a while. But too many double-niggled players become a liability. Raise the TR, don't play. At present I have 13 players on the rooster at present, despite sacking those 6 beastmen. Bought several new ones. Never had fewer than 12 coming for start-up.

OK then, they like the plague. Why don't their God show some appreciation by giving them Regeneration powers? Or maybe the Apo in this case could be let heal on 3-6 instead of 2-6, since it is more difficult to tie togheter their rotting flesh? After all, is it any moore realistic that an Apo can miraculously bring back a dead human blitzer, right then and there on the field? But we're not talking realism in BB, are we? We are talking balance, IMO. Smile

Zombie - May 21, 2004 - 08:33 AM
Post subject:

Think about this. On the old undead team, 4 of your most important players (the ghouls) had no regeneration and no access to an apothecary. They also had AV7. The same can be said about the Necromantic team (4 crucial players with no regen and no apo). Funny that those are considered two of the best races in Blood Bowl.

If this is balanced, i don't see a problem with having the same thing for Nurgle's Rotters. Yes they have more players without regeneration, but only 6 on the field at a time on a complete team, and those are your 6 least important players, and they have AV8, and cost less then ghouls and flesh golems.

slup - May 21, 2004 - 09:32 AM
Post subject:

Nurgle is not meant to be balanced.
The main setback is the lack of an apothecary.
The general rule amongst those creating new teams to blood bowl is that a new team should be a bit less powerful than the old but more fun to play than the old.
This is so you do not create an arms race in which each new team is more powerful than the last (as opposed to warhammer battle where each new army is created to be the most powerful, or at least thats what i am told).

Doubleskulls - May 21, 2004 - 10:41 AM
Post subject:

Nurgle are supposed to be a 2nd rate team. Better than stunties but not as good as the core teams.

CoachBlackBear - May 21, 2004 - 05:54 PM
Post subject:

OK, thanks Zombie, Slup & Double skulls. Point taken, there's reason to that. It is probably a really good idea not to start an arms race. Guess it figures GW will want to make each new army better than the last; sells more armies I suppose. Well, I'm happy with this. Enough of BB for today. I'm off to bed to dream of the amazing games I have played today (with my wood elves!)!
King

DivingCatch100 - May 22, 2004 - 05:31 AM
Post subject:

I don't think newer armies are any more powerful than older ones really, for warhammer or 40k. Bit of proof if you like, Marine armies are still very poular as are eldar, especially in tournements for the exact reason that they are still hard to beat, where as Tau are not so popular.
From a warhammer point of view, elves(of any kind) , skaven, dwarfs all relatively old races but still used alot because they are good. It's not that new armies are better its just that they are new, thats why people think they're better cos they suddenly see a whole load of new dirty tricks (wraithlord conga anyone?)
Back to Blood bowl though at present I would have to say that it is the most balanced GW game out there, I wont say don't change it, but there should definitly be a good reason for doing so.