NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - Stunties with Thick Skull

NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - Stunties with Thick Skull

Skinhead - Mar 14, 2009 - 12:07 AM
Post subject: Stunties with Thick Skull

ok probably not a likely situation, but, under the proposed rules, if a stunty player had thick skull, would he not be KO'd on a 7, Stunned on an 8, and Badly Hurt on a 9?

ie, if the inj result ends up being 7 they are KO'd due to stunty. If it ends up being 8 they aren't KO'd because of Thick Skull.

It seems odd, but maybe it makes sense mathematically?

Doubleskulls - Mar 14, 2009 - 03:30 AM
Post subject: RE: Stunties with Thick Skull

it is odd, but why would you give a stunty thick skull?

Skinhead - Mar 14, 2009 - 04:32 AM
Post subject:

well, you wouldn't, but it is possible. maybe if you got the magic helmet card it would come up.

DarkDancer17 - Mar 16, 2009 - 04:50 PM
Post subject:

Stunty adds +1 to all injury rolls.

Thick skull makes a total roll of 8 not KO'ed.

Ergo -

7 (die) +1 (stunty) = 8 = Stunned.
8 (die) +1 (stunty) = 9 = KO'ed
9 (die) +1 (stunty) = 10 = Injured Stunty.

Bryan

Frantic - Mar 16, 2009 - 05:22 PM
Post subject:

DarkDancer17 wrote:

Skinhead -> ...under the proposed rules.

The one youre explaining are in the LRB5.0

Doubleskulls - Mar 17, 2009 - 12:12 AM
Post subject:

All injury results are determined by the final total - otherwise Niggles & Mighty Blow wouldn't work.

smeborg - Mar 17, 2009 - 04:31 AM
Post subject:

I could conceive of giving a Stunty player Thick Skull as a late skill (say 5th skill advance) if he is already well tooled up, and his prior skills make you want to keep him on the pitch.

Bear in mind that Stunties will survive longer in 6th Ed.

Hope this helps

Welshy - Mar 17, 2009 - 01:24 PM
Post subject:

Frantic wrote:

Skinhead -> ...under the proposed rules.

The one youre explaining are in the LRB5.0

I am hoping they do address the wording in LRB6. TS/Stunty may not be a common occurance but the +1/-1 to injury is a much better way to write it.

Mathematically... maybe, 7 being the most common 2D6 number after all, but it just don't feel right!

In the current wording (LRB5 +2008 review) the stunty/TS combo does indeed read as:
Stunned 1-6
KO on a 7
Stunned on an 8
Injured on 9+

Frantic - Mar 17, 2009 - 05:51 PM
Post subject:

Well stunty in the proposed rules are better then LRB 5.0. I thinks that better.

Doubleskulls - Mar 18, 2009 - 05:02 AM
Post subject:

smeborg wrote:

5th double in a row? Block/Wrestle, Strip Ball, Sure Hands, Guard etc

Or are there stunties with S access Wink

Last time this came up it was because someone wanted a custom team where his "turtles" started with TS.

Skinhead - Mar 20, 2009 - 01:50 AM
Post subject:

So it has come up?

It is unlikely to come up very often, but it could still be a cause of arguments. I'm loathe to suggest a rewording, but unless the intent is to have 7: KO and 8: stunned should it not be reworded?

It could just be that you add 1 to inj after any other modifiers, but if this takes the total from 9 to 10 the cas result is badly hurt, don't roll on the cas table.

Or something like that, not wanting to imply that i can write rules better than you guys or anything, but i think this needs to be looked at.

Doubleskulls - Mar 20, 2009 - 04:10 AM
Post subject:

Its only come up with theory bowl and one person was creating a house rule team of turtles which had TS Stunties in it.

SolarFlare - Mar 20, 2009 - 06:47 AM
Post subject:

Actually, stunties with thick skull are very possible in Street Bowl. One of the Lil Shoppes items is "Pots and Pans." This allows you to give the thick skull to any one player on your team that does not have the loner skill.

Doubleskulls - Mar 20, 2009 - 03:05 PM
Post subject:

More house rules Smile

Skinhead - Mar 20, 2009 - 09:33 PM
Post subject:

Magic Helmet isn't a house rule, nor is taking ST skills on doubles.

The current wording requires making a house rule to make the stunty rule work like it should if a stunty has TS.

Is there any reason not to fix it?

Doubleskulls - Mar 20, 2009 - 11:41 PM
Post subject:

I wouldn't fix it because it isn't broken. What is unclear, ambiguous or contradictory in the rules?

A stunty with thick skull is KO'd on a 7, Stunned on a 8 and Badly Hurt (or cas) on a 9.

Its just an oddity that a lower value gives a worse result - so an opponent could elect not to use Mighty Blow for example.

Frantic - Mar 21, 2009 - 01:16 AM
Post subject:

Have to agree with Ian, but I think it would be cool if thick skull canselled out stunty damage. Wink

Skinhead - Mar 21, 2009 - 01:49 AM
Post subject:

oh okay, it's meant to be that way?

well then there isn't anything to fix. it just seems odd.

GalakStarscraper - Mar 22, 2009 - 09:57 PM
Post subject:

Skinhead wrote:

oh okay, it's meant to be that way?

Yes its meant to be that way.

Galak

Skinhead - Mar 23, 2009 - 01:43 AM
Post subject:

Interesting.

Why did you make it that way?

Darkson - Mar 23, 2009 - 02:48 AM
Post subject:

Because I imagine if they made it work the "expected" way, it would a) add more lines to the rulebook, and b) be an exception, when one of the goals of lRB5 was to remove as many exceptions as possible.

Skinhead - Mar 24, 2009 - 09:53 PM
Post subject:

The purpose of the rewording is to make a casualty resulting from the stunty skill only badly hurt right?

The fact that the current wording also means that a stunty with thick skill is stunned on an 8 and KO'd on a 7 is merely a side effect of that wording isn't it?

That is basically what i am trying to find out here.

GalakStarscraper - Mar 25, 2009 - 02:34 PM
Post subject:

Skinhead wrote:

Its a side effect yes ... but its a side effect we were completely aware of when we made the change. BBRC discussed it and at the end of the day ... the concept that a high roll HAS to result in a worse result isn't anywhere in the rulebook. Its also matches % wise the fact that Thick Skull on a Stunty just doesn't work as well as on a normal player. So is it a side effect ... yes ... but its one that was known about up front and worked for us. There is no rule conflict with it.

Galak

Skinhead - Mar 25, 2009 - 04:25 PM
Post subject:

Ok, thankyou Galak.