NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - Change to Vampire Lord

Darkson - Nov 23, 2003 - 02:00 PM
Post subject: Change to Vampire Lord
This idea was suggested on the GW forum by Lord Havelock Vetinari (Lee Vann) and i wondered what anyone else thought about it.

Since the Vampire Lord was removed as a normal member of the team, he can be freebooted for the same cost and stats as Count Luthor. This is a bit boring and repetative, so how about this as an alternative.

Vampire Lord: 6/4/4/9 Block, Dodge, Leader, Hypno Gaze, Regenerate 180k (so freeboot for 90k)

Any feedback?

[edit]editted for missing the basics[/edit]
AnthonyTBBF - Nov 23, 2003 - 02:04 PM
Post subject:
No Hypno Gaze? Kinda seems like it's not really a Vamp without it.
Darkson - Nov 23, 2003 - 02:12 PM
Post subject:
Sorry, yes, hypno gaze and regen as standard Embarassed
Zombie - Nov 23, 2003 - 02:39 PM
Post subject:
Personally, i don't see the need for 2 vampire star players. I think they should just forget about the vampire lord altogether and stick with Count Luthor von Drakenborg.
Indigo - Nov 23, 2003 - 02:51 PM
Post subject:
I think that's kinda darkson's point - make the Vamp Lord toned down enough to allow him to be taken as a regular player.
Zombie - Nov 23, 2003 - 03:04 PM
Post subject: Re: Change to Vampire Lord
      Darkson wrote:
(so freeboot for 90k)


Doesn't seem to me like he's trying to make it anything else than another vampire star player.
Darkson - Nov 23, 2003 - 03:09 PM
Post subject:
The Lord has been removed from the vamp team as a standard player, and is going to stay that way. So it's was suggested, rather than a vamp team being able (in theroy) to field to Luthor's, that the Lord would have different stats.

All I've done so far is knocked him back to ST4 and added Leader, but I'm open to suggestions.
zeuzism - Nov 23, 2003 - 04:34 PM
Post subject:
I suggest that the vampire team needs a boost, because at the moment they s@#k (their team-mates). The only thing they do at the moment is eating there own alive! So I suggest: tone down 'off for a bite' AND introduce a vamp leader (on the roster), because it fits their culture.

Like Vamp Count: 6/4/4/9, Hypno Gaze, Regen, Leader, 150 k or something
(no off for a bite, since he is the leader he can do (you know, that thing!) whenever he likes. And besides, to drink the blood from his own vampire mates must give him strength enough to last through the game without s@#king.)
Give it a thought, then maybe one day someone will take a vampire team.
Bye, Sanne
Darkson - Nov 23, 2003 - 04:55 PM
Post subject:
I actually run a vampire team, and believe me, once they've got Pro, and as long as you don't put all 6 vamps on the pitch at once, they're not that bad. Definetly not as bad as the write-up in the BB mag made out.

The Vamp Lord was orignally a on-roster player, and was removed for balance reasons, sothere's little or no hope of him ever being put back on there.

I must get that letter to the BB Mag written up Rolling Eyes
Xtreme - Nov 23, 2003 - 05:44 PM
Post subject:
I would say just retire the Count. Do it with some fluff have Boarak interview him. I'm sure all of the BB coaches would relize why it was done.
Zombie - Nov 23, 2003 - 06:23 PM
Post subject:
And bring in a more powerful one with leader?
GalakStarscraper - Nov 23, 2003 - 06:32 PM
Post subject:
      zeuzism wrote:
I suggest that the vampire team needs a boost, because at the moment they s@#k (their team-mates). The only thing they do at the moment is eating there own alive! So I suggest: tone down 'off for a bite' AND introduce a vamp leader (on the roster), because it fits their culture.


From actual playtesting ... this is definitely not a bad team. A Vampire team in my league actually was in contention for the top 2 spots (and its not a small league at all).

Galak
Xtreme - Nov 23, 2003 - 07:11 PM
Post subject:
      Zombie69 wrote:
And bring in a more powerful one with leader?


No I wasn't saying that. Jsut get rid of the Count and leave everything else the way it is. The Lord is fine IMO, but there is no need for the count if you have access to the lord. I think it would make a lot more since to keep the Lord rather then the count. So that is what I came to. And now I am even confused. Idea
fnord23 - Nov 23, 2003 - 07:30 PM
Post subject:
Played the first 2 league games with my vamps yesterday --- 3 Vamps,
8 Thralls -- 4 re-rolls.

Lost the first game to Skaven(TR 150+) 2-4

Won the 2nd game against Dwarves (TR 100) 2-1

They do Ok --- ST4 AG4 ball carrier is hard to Blitz, even without Blodge.

all 3 have gone up after the 2 games, 2 with Pro & I got the one who rolled
a double Jump up.

The Hypnotic gaze is pretty powerful if it works -- I used it to make holes
in the (mainly) Dwarves line --- so that I could run other guys past the hypnotised guy --- this worked well.

Also, careful placement of the thralls before you move the other Vamps
is pretty vital -- I had moved a Thrall next to the endzone before I attempted to move my Vamp in for a TD -- I had no re-rolls & this Vamp
did not yet have pro -- he rolls a 1 & I move him in for a TD --- he bites
the thrall & scrores a TD at the same time.

sangraal

PS -- the thralls are fragile though......
Zombie - Nov 23, 2003 - 08:00 PM
Post subject:
You cheated. The vampire can't at any point move through the end zone while going after the thrall. At least that's what i remember reading at blood-bowl.net.
fnord23 - Nov 23, 2003 - 09:27 PM
Post subject:
I'll check it, but I think that was if he was on his way to the reserves box if
he could not get to a thrall.

sangraal
Darkson - Nov 23, 2003 - 10:43 PM
Post subject:
Nope, not cheating at all.

A correct move (and well coached). Just remember that the TD is not scored until after the thrall has been injured though.


@ Zombie - Some people may take offence at being told "You cheated", when at best they're correct, and at worst, misinterepted the rules. not everyone here knows your style of posting, so let's be polite? Thanks. Wink
Zombie - Nov 23, 2003 - 11:59 PM
Post subject:
Me, polite? You should know better than to ask that of me!
Redfang - Nov 24, 2003 - 02:39 AM
Post subject:
      Xtreme wrote:
...if you have access to The Lord....


Taken out of context, this can be kind of fun Laughing

On topic however, removing Count Luthor might upset Undead (and Human) coaches who tend to use him as a starplayer (not me). Other than that I see no problems, so a better solution might be to say that no Vampire Lord would want to see another Vampire Lord in his team and simply to ban Luthor from Vampire teams. This would really be appropriate fluff-wise and having two Luthors on one team would also be prevented...

R
Doubleskulls - Nov 24, 2003 - 03:19 AM
Post subject:
      Zombie69 wrote:
You cheated. The vampire can't at any point move through the end zone while going after the thrall. At least that's what i remember reading at blood-bowl.net.


I don't think that's quite right. If you fail OFAB and enter the endzone with the ball no TD is scored - unless you can feed. So having a thrall next to the endzone is very sensible.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 24, 2003 - 05:16 AM
Post subject:
      Doubleskulls wrote:
      Zombie69 wrote:
You cheated. The vampire can't at any point move through the end zone while going after the thrall. At least that's what i remember reading at blood-bowl.net.


I don't think that's quite right. If you fail OFAB and enter the endzone with the ball no TD is scored - unless you can feed. So having a thrall next to the endzone is very sensible.


Yup with the current rules that just good vampire coaching.

Galak
zeuzism - Nov 24, 2003 - 06:36 AM
Post subject:
      Quote:

New Racial Characteristic and Rules:
OFAB:
A player with this characteristic must occasionally feed on the blood of the living. At the start of any action, roll a D6. On a 2+ the player may carry out the action as normal. On a '1', however, the player is overcome with a desire for blood. The player's team loses the declared action for that turn and the player must instead make a Move Action. If the player ends his action standing adjacent to a Thrall from his own team, immediately roll for unmodified injury on that Thrall (an injury to the Thrall is not a turnover). If the player does not end his action next to a Thrall from his own team, then he runs into Reserves to find a pretty maiden groupie to quench his thirst. Place him in the reserves box, this is a turnover.

this quote was taken from blood-bowl.net, I assume these are the correct rules. According to these rules in combination with lrb, you need not put a thrall in the end zone. Because lrb:
      Quote:

A team scores a touchdown when one of their players
ends an action standing in the opposing team???s End
Zone while holding the football. As soon as this
happens, play stops
,

A vampire can even ignore the fact that he rolled a one and run to the end zone, because play stops immediately. He doesnt need to suck a thrall even if he ended his move next to a thrall. It doesn't matter play is stopped and even if he was send to the reserves it doesn't matter, you can deploy your reserves for the next kick off as normal.
I know a few lines down lrb say's:
      Quote:

Note, however, that in order to score a
touchdown the player must end his action standing in
the End Zone; if the player failed to make a Dodge roll,
for example, and thus fell over in the End Zone then he
would not score a touchdown.

this note is not about ending his action (you couldn't finish a Blitz move either) it's about standing with the ball as opposed to being on the floor on top of the ball.

So concluding:
a. why do you need a thrall?
b. why do you have to suck the thrall first?

The rules state otherwise, IMO.

Grr, Sanne
Apedog - Nov 24, 2003 - 06:55 AM
Post subject:
IIRC this was dicussed on TBB and the general consensus was that it was fine.

As the Vamp ends his move in the endzone (and bites the thrall thus staying on the pitch) it is a TD, there's nothing in OFAB that says he can't move into the endzone.

Of course if the thrall is not there he leaves the pitch and does not end his move in the end zone so there's no TD.
Zombie - Nov 24, 2003 - 07:02 AM
Post subject:
Yuo guys are right (except for zeuzism). I checked blood-bowl.net, and the TD is valid if you can feed on a thrall. Otherwise though, the action is not ended and there is definitely no TD.

Sorry for the confusion.
zeuzism - Nov 24, 2003 - 08:21 AM
Post subject:
Based on the rules I quoted, I don't understand your comment:
You do not need to end your turn in the End Zone because if you are standing or moving into (not falling into) the End Zone your play end automatically and as soon as you do it.
      Quote:

Of course if the thrall is not there he leaves the pitch and does not end his move in the end zone so there's no TD

If the vamp is holding the ball and coincidently passes through the End Zone while looking for a nice bite it is still a TD, lrb is quite clear about that.

Or are there other rules applicable then the ones I quoted above?

Sorry for bugging Wink

Sanne
Zombie - Nov 24, 2003 - 08:38 AM
Post subject:
Your second quote says it all. The action hasn't ended, therefore the TD doesn't count.
Mordredd - Nov 24, 2003 - 09:39 AM
Post subject:
It does not appear to be totally obvious.

The Vampire is not removed from play until the end of his compulsory move action. If he is standing, with the ball in hand, in the end zone then he both scores and is removed from play.

The LRB also states that any player that picks up the ball in the endzone scores immediately. So if the Vampire goes into the endzone and picks up the ball while making the compulsory move he scores before his action is ended.

However this seems wrong, and rather 'rules lawyerish'. Under this interpretation of the exact wording a player with frenzy could block his way into, and then out of, the endzone and fail to score. Shocked Well, he didn't end his action in the endzone, did he Rolling Eyes .
phinal - Nov 24, 2003 - 09:54 AM
Post subject:
i'll just put my Reserve box next to my end zone so i'll tell my opponent that he runs with the ball to the reserve box and in turn makes a touchdown automatically Rolling Eyes

i don't recall seeing anywhere that your vampire drops the ball if he fails to suck a thrall. he is just placed in the reserve box. so what do you do ... just scatter the ball? it should be a little clearer or perhaps i'm just missing something that states a turnover always means the ball scatters or shoot i donno i should look over the rule book again.

anyway i played a game yesterday with a starting vamp team 8 thralls 3 vamps and boy they suck with the lack of skills. i did get 2 touchdowns all of them were with vampires and one was because he went into the endzone after rolling a 1 for OFAB. my opponent said it was ok after he read the rules. but i think perhaps if they want OFAB to show that the vampire really needs blood then perhaps he must move towards a thrall. this might make it a little harder to ignore it.
Mordredd - Nov 24, 2003 - 10:15 AM
Post subject:
If I recall correctly the vampire drops the ball in the square he ends his move action in, if he fails to stop next to a Thrall.

I do not think it necessary to force the Vampire to move toward a Thrall. If they ignore it it is a turnover, if they don't a Thrall gets it. That is already a fairly high level of compulsion.
Tutenkharnage - Nov 24, 2003 - 10:44 AM
Post subject:
As I see it:

* Zombie's right: much better to ditch the Lord as a concept and simply run with Luthor. Use your imagination and call it "bribing the ref to let your VLord take the pitch."

* The entire "Is It A TD?" question leads me to believe that the current on-field OFAB is simply poorly worded. "Oh, look, I got out of my bad roll by scoring a TD!" The bad roll ought to penalize the rolling player, not give him a free pass just because he's holding the ball within scoring distance of the end zone. What kind of penalty is that?

-Chet
Zombie - Nov 24, 2003 - 01:13 PM
Post subject:
Chet, we've been agreeing too often recently. The apocalipse must be upon us!

Agreed with your second statement by the way. There's gotta be a penalty if you rolled a 1.
phinal - Nov 24, 2003 - 01:51 PM
Post subject:
was also curious about the part where you have to get your vampire to a thrall if they fail their OFAB roll. does the thrall need to be standing or can he be prone or stunned?

i haven't seen this covered anywhere.

also i don't know how many of you have played against vampires but for a starter teams their lack of starting skills makes this team very weak. i spent most of my time standing my guys back up because they were always on their bottoms and the teams poor armour over all meant nearly half the time my team was stunned. to make matters worse the team is fairly slow. with its low armour i was use to a little more movement as a human player, even dwarves were able to keep up with me.

they are an aggrivating team to play with and yet they are somewhat fun in a "'im going to suck your blood" kind of way.

i was thinking about getting the new team but after playing them i have to give it some thought. if the rules get changed a bit i'll probably have another look but with the rules that i got they are a bit bland and boring. anyone know if BB mag 10 has new rules? and if someone already answered i apologize for missing it.
Darkson - Nov 24, 2003 - 01:53 PM
Post subject:
@ zeuzism

You are correct that if a player finishes his action standing in the EZ with the ball then it's a TD, but the rules for on-field OFAB expressively states that the vamps action is not over until he feeds on a thrall. So if he runs into the EZ without feeding, it's a turnover, the vamp goes to the reserves box, and the ball scatters from the square he left the pitch.
Zombie - Nov 24, 2003 - 01:55 PM
Post subject:
Phinal, if you were playing against dwarves, that explains why your players spent most of their time on their butts!

I've played vampires before. They're pretty weak at first, but a tough nut to crack later on.
Darkson - Nov 24, 2003 - 01:56 PM
Post subject:
If a vamp is stunned he doesn't need to make an OFAB roll.
If he's prone then he does.

@ phinal - remember, the team is meant to be on the weaker side, above the level of gobbos/halflings, but below the rest of the LRB rosters.
Once the vams start skilling up, they can be a very powerful team (just beat a dwarf (TR200+) with a 160 TR team, and the dwarf coach is no mug, believe me.)
Zombie - Nov 24, 2003 - 02:00 PM
Post subject:
He was talking about the thrall, not the vamp. Yes, you can feed on a prone thrall.
zeuzism - Nov 24, 2003 - 02:11 PM
Post subject:
      Quote:
There's gotta
... we can agree on that. Smile

But the rules state otherwise: A move action (the action you have to do when you fail OFAB) can end whenever you like, just say it's the end!. All other rules after that fail to apply, because it's between drives and there are no rules written for between drives. The only exception is when you fall over, fail to catch or pick up. Since none of that happenes it is a TD. That simple.

Please let's not get in a discussion about the logic behind the rules, there is none, there has never been. It is a different world and none of the logic aplicable in philosphy aplies to GW. To avoid long and senseless discussions, we (in my leage) have agreed (and that counts for every GW game) that the rules apply as they are gramatically stated. And sometimes that is not how you expect them to be.

I know it is a bit ruleslawyerish, but we do not know a nice and smooth alternative. Because based on logic you get long and as I may say dreadfull discussions. Maybe GW could try to publish the rules in clear bullets accompanied by loads of pictures to clarify instead of stories... But then again, who wants to read that?

Sanne
Darkson - Nov 24, 2003 - 02:16 PM
Post subject:
No, you don't make a move action when you fail OFAB, you make a failed OFAB action, which states you must feed before you end you action.

I'm pretty sure thre was a "cleaned up" version of OFAB which expressly prevented this rom happening, but I can't remember if it was posted on TBB or in the BBRC hotlist.
phinal - Nov 24, 2003 - 02:16 PM
Post subject:
its just so depressing at the beginning and i saw over at TBB that they just reprinted the last list so i guess i'm not seeing any changes anytime soon.

aside from that can anyone clarify if the vampire has to get to a standing thrall for him to avoid an OFAB turnover? or can the thrall be on the ground?
Tutenkharnage - Nov 24, 2003 - 02:30 PM
Post subject:
      zeuzism wrote:
I know it is a bit ruleslawyerish, but we do not know a nice and smooth alternative.


Don't we? Just say that the Vampire has to be adjacent to the Thrall when he rolls a 1 or else he is immediately penalized. None of this running around, dodging, avoding-the-penalty-on-my-way-to-the-end-zone stuff. Just fail the roll and be gone. That's far simpler than the current OFAB description.

-Chet
Darkson - Nov 24, 2003 - 02:42 PM
Post subject:
The thrall just needs to be on the pitch, so prone/stunned is fine.

I had a game where one of my thralls got the "Ironman" handicap result. Guess who got bitten the most? Laughing

@ Chet - no thanks! Sad
phinal - Nov 24, 2003 - 04:36 PM
Post subject:
right now i agree with zeuzism as the rules are printed now that's how i'd play with them.

i also agree with chet that it needs to get fixed, as i was playing i didn't think i should have been able to score and ignore OFAB.

don't like the idea of having to always have a thrall next to a vamp. i'd like to see something like if you have an OFAB with a vampire and a thrall is ALREADY next to him he should be able to move after he bites/rolls injury on the thrall. you already would be losing a block from a vampire and you'd also be getting one of your players injured.

benefits of this team are obvious ... vampires are awesome. but for a somewhat newbie player i'm very scared to take them.

i'd also like to say ... wow you guys reply like a million times while i'm replying so when i reply i have to go back and read everything that was posted before i finished typing my reply ... you all are so speedy.
zeuzism - Nov 24, 2003 - 05:27 PM
Post subject:
      Quote:

i'd also like to say ... wow you guys reply like a million times while i'm replying so when i reply i have to go back and read everything that was posted before i finished typing my reply ... you all are so speedy.

same here!
Wink
Sanne
GalakStarscraper - Nov 25, 2003 - 07:45 AM
Post subject:
Two things ...

1) A matter of complete frustration for me has been that we cleaned up this wording issue with OFAB months and MONTHS ago which is why Darkson is confused. A fixed wording that solves this problem completely has been on the Hot List for at least 4 months at this point.

2) Despite emails to Andy about this fixed version when they printed the BB Mag with the Vamps, they printed the messed up wording version as a result ... problems still abound. I'm also sure that this created a similar problem in the Rules Review as everyone has the "official" rule and forget the fact that the MBBL has been playing a BBRC written fixed version of the rules for months.

Sigh

For anyone who actually cares what folks who do the playtesting outside one's the rule makers run ... the wording the BBRC gave to the MBBL to test was this (and this is the wording that Darkson is using when he's been posting and it doesn't have any of the issues that you all have been talking about here):

      Quote:
A player with this characteristic must occasionally feed on the blood of the living. At the start of any action where the player is not stunned, roll a D6. On a 2+ the player may carry out the action as normal. On a '1', however, the player is overcome with a desire for blood. The player's team loses the declared action for that turn and the player must instead make a Move Action. If the player finishes moving standing adjacent to a Thrall from his own team, immediately roll for unmodified injury on that Thrall (an injury to the Thrall is not a turnover unless he was holding the ball). If the player does not finish moving next to a Thrall from his own team, then he runs into Reserves to find a pretty maiden groupie to quench his thirst. Place him in the reserves box, this is a turnover (if he was holding the ball it scatters once from the final square of his movement.) The Vampire's Move action is not consided ended until he injures a Thrall or runs into Reserves.


Forgive the attitude, but I've grown to the opinion that playtesting and thoughts by the online masses doesn't matter for jack recently so it affects my thoughts on topics like this one.

Galak
zeuzism - Nov 25, 2003 - 08:01 AM
Post subject:
Thanks Galak,
This is a clear answer. I think with this wording you have a lot less to discuss about. I only joined this forum last month, so I'm sorry if I am raking up old discussions here. If I do it again just give me the URL to the relevant discussion and I wil shut up. A clear aswer like the one above also helps...
Thanks again, Sanne
Indigo - Nov 25, 2003 - 08:09 AM
Post subject:
Apologies if it's been discussed before, but:

1) What happens if there is nothing in range of the Vampire - where does the ball scatter from? Since the coach MUST make a move action, can they move the Vampire nearer his own players so when the ball scatters from his final square it might bounce near/onto one of his own team? Must the vamp NOT move if he can't reach a thrall?

2) Can a vamp GFI to reach a Thrall?

3) Can a vamp GFI to reach an opposing player? The ball then scatters into the opposing player, is not caught and bounces to a friendly player and it IS caught - is this a turnover?
GalakStarscraper - Nov 25, 2003 - 08:55 AM
Post subject:
      Indigo wrote:
Apologies if it's been discussed before, but:

1) What happens if there is nothing in range of the Vampire - where does the ball scatter from? Since the coach MUST make a move action, can they move the Vampire nearer his own players so when the ball scatters from his final square it might bounce near/onto one of his own team? Must the vamp NOT move if he can't reach a thrall?

2) Can a vamp GFI to reach a Thrall?

3) Can a vamp GFI to reach an opposing player? The ball then scatters into the opposing player, is not caught and bounces to a friendly player and it IS caught - is this a turnover?


      Quote:
The player's team loses the declared action for that turn and the player must instead make a Move Action. ... If the player does not finish moving next to a Thrall from his own team, then he runs into Reserves to find a pretty maiden groupie to quench his thirst. Place him in the reserves box, this is a turnover (if he was holding the ball it scatters once from the final square of his movement.)


From above ... its a normal move so yes you can GFI and it scatters from the final square of that normal movement where you are standing and this drop is automatically a turnover as stated above regardless of what happens with the scatter.

Galak
Tutenkharnage - Nov 25, 2003 - 09:55 AM
Post subject:
      GalakStarscraper wrote:
Forgive the attitude, but I've grown to the opinion that playtesting and thoughts by the online masses doesn't matter for jack recently so it affects my thoughts on topics like this one.


How coincidental! I was just thinking that certain good minds in the on-line community have become a bit locked into a particular way of seeing a certain problem (e.g., OFAB), and that opinions expressed contrary to that particular way of seeing that problem (both backed and unbacked by playtesting efforts) don't matter for jack recently.

Consequently, this has certainly affected my thoughts on topics like this one, although I'm trying harder of late to let it slide. It's that self-awareness that helps me take a step back and consider the issue a bit clearer than I might if I let myself get a bit hard-headed instead.

Food for thought! Today's leading item: mint candies Smile

-Chet
GalakStarscraper - Nov 25, 2003 - 11:35 AM
Post subject:
With the new rules review ... expect to see OFAB change. With Pro as a trait, the skill as its stands will probably need to be simplified.

Chet eariler in this thread suggested something like:

On 1, Vampire loses his action for the turn. In addition, if not standing adjacent to a Thrall (prone, stunned, or standing) Vampire runs off pitch causing turnover.

No more INJ roll to the Thrall. This would make the team play similar to my Snotling team in the MBBL2 or the Ogre #2 roster in the MBBL where the Snotlings have to get next to the Trolls or the Goblins to the Ogre Blockers to make sure that everyone works right for the turn when the Big Guys start to move.

I'd be willing to test Chet's recommended change in light of the change to Pro. And I'm not that hard-headed ... really.

Galak
AnthonyTBBF - Nov 25, 2003 - 12:11 PM
Post subject:
Hmm I like this idea... I might have to convince the boys to playtest this one.
Tutenkharnage - Nov 25, 2003 - 01:03 PM
Post subject:
OFAB got a lot of attention during the Rules Review. We played around with many options, ultimately deciding to table it until the Playtesters Vault goes live (which will be a few weeks from now). Most of the permutations suggested here and elsewhere have been used to suggest a few alternatives to the current version. (I myself am allergic to causing turnovers on failed negative trait rolls and to injuring your own players on those rolls; I'm not at all allergic to an on-pitch variant that keeps Vampires near Thralls for feeding, however.)

-Chet
GalakStarscraper - Nov 25, 2003 - 01:48 PM
Post subject:
      Tutenkharnage wrote:
(I myself am allergic to causing turnovers on failed negative trait rolls and to injuring your own players on those rolls; I'm not at all allergic to an on-pitch variant that keeps Vampires near Thralls for feeding, however.)
-Chet


With that in mind ... you could go with this instead:

On 1, Vampire loses his action for the turn. In addition, if not standing adjacent to a Thrall (prone, stunned, or standing) Vampire becomes Stunned from the lack of blood (this does not cause a turnover even if the Vampire was holding the ball).

I could live with testing that.

Galak
Tutenkharnage - Nov 25, 2003 - 03:47 PM
Post subject:
Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. I'd probably add that the Thrall goes stunned if he's standing next to the Vampire, too. So on a roll of 1, you lose the action AND someone goes stunned.

Make that a standing Thrall and I think you've got a really good basis for a test rule. (Standing because, again, you should get penalized for failing the roll, so stunning an already-stunned thrall should be out.)

Slightly easier version: If the Thrall is standing, he immediately falls prone. If no standing Thrall is adjacent, the Vampire is prone.

So that's a pretty good on-pitch version, IMO. A good starting point, at any rate. Continually passing out from lack of blood might seem a bit silly, but no more so than continually running of the field to be absolutely useless, IMO.

-Chet
Darkson - Nov 25, 2003 - 04:15 PM
Post subject:
Sigh, now I have to find 3 teams for the new MBBL. I enjoyed injuring my thralls! (And Pro a trait??) Sad
Zombie - Nov 25, 2003 - 04:57 PM
Post subject:
I would like this new version a lot. It's simple and effective.
OrtharRrith - Dec 10, 2003 - 02:14 PM
Post subject:
As a Vamp player I too like this idea.
Apedog - Dec 15, 2003 - 05:53 AM
Post subject:
My gut feeling is that I prefer the old version. I quite liked the injuring the Thralls idea and it made the Vamps the proper stars of the team.

The new version seems like the Thralls will be doing most of the work and supporting the vampires who will be doing the bashing on the line, because the Vamps will move last.

I realise they are still experimental though and could live with playtesting the new rules. I might even like them once i change tectics a bit Smile
Zombie - Dec 15, 2003 - 07:09 AM
Post subject:
Good point. I don't think we want a team where the thralls are more important than the vampires. I retract my earlier comment. This might not be such a good idea after all. In terms of balance, it seems fine. In terms of fluff though, it's not as good as the old one.
GalakStarscraper - Dec 15, 2003 - 07:33 AM
Post subject:
      Zombie wrote:
. In terms of balance, it seems fine. In terms of fluff though, it's not as good as the old one.


I long since gave up trying to win fluff battles on the Undead Zombie. As long as the rule works at this point I'll be happy.

Galak
Tutenkharnage - Dec 15, 2003 - 09:33 AM
Post subject:
Fluff isn't always the best guide. Crippling the team by making constant injury rolls against the Thralls is just poor mechanics, no matter how fluff-worthy it is. I don't see that much changes here: either the Vamp is alone and goes prone, or a Thrall is adjacent and goes prone (or stunned). Seems "fluffy" enough for me.

-Chet
GalakStarscraper - Dec 15, 2003 - 11:05 AM
Post subject:
Chet ... I've been thinking about this ... and the Vampires are starting to do well in the MBBL. Makes me think you'll need to go with the more serious version to have the impact you want:

IE

Before taking an action, roll a D6. On a 1, Vampire loses his action for the turn. In addition, if not standing adjacent to a standing Thrall, the Vampire becomes Stunned from the lack of blood. If the Vampire is standing adjacent to a standing Thrall, the Thrall is place Stunned from becoming a quick snack. No turnover is caused by either Vampire or Thrall going stunned even if holding the ball.

Comments:
1) I like the onpitch mechanic and the fact that no running off the pitch is involved ... that is a plus.
2) Going stunned ... "should" be a big enough negative. This team is so good that a greater negative is needed to have it work ... I'm almost positive that going Vampires going prone will not be a big enough negative to offset the ST 4/AG 4 players (especially since they can use rerolls to reroll failures). More importantly AH said that he and JJ wanted this to be a challenging team to play ... I don't think prone results give you that effect.
3) As long as the roll to go from stunned to prone requires negatrait rolling, this rule would mean that it takes a Vampire about 3 turns to stand from being stunned. Because rolling a 1 when stunned or prone would mean becoming stunned again. Again because of the power of the Vamps ... I don't have any issues with this negative extra.
The math ... stand up in 2 turns: 69%, 3 turns: 81%, 4 turns: 93%, 5 turns: 96%

Just my thoughts from looking over Joe's Crimson Jyhad team and Darkson's Darkstars in the MBBL.

Galak
Darkson - Dec 15, 2003 - 04:43 PM
Post subject:
Just a quick thought though.

With the nerfing of the Hypno gaze skill, the vamps will already be weaker than they were with the old team list.


Oh well, when we get round to TT BB again, I'll just have to houserule in the old COFAB Rolling Eyes
Tutenkharnage - Dec 16, 2003 - 11:23 AM
Post subject:
I'm with Darkson on this one. The change to HG will definitely have an impact. How much impact? I don't know. I'm pretty sure the modified OFAB will show up shortly after the Vault opens; assuming the feedback mechanism is good, we should know relatively quickly whether the new rule needs tweaking (and in which direction).

-Chet
Apedog - Dec 18, 2003 - 05:44 AM
Post subject:
      Tutenkharnage wrote:
Fluff isn't always the best guide. Crippling the team by making constant injury rolls against the Thralls is just poor mechanics, no matter how fluff-worthy it is. I don't see that much changes here: either the Vamp is alone and goes prone, or a Thrall is adjacent and goes prone (or stunned). Seems "fluffy" enough for me.

-Chet


The difference is that before the Vamps could go first and just had to end up near a Thrall, now the Thralls have to move first to end up near a Vamp, 'just in case'

I'm not sure if this is supposed to Strengthen or Weaken the team but if strengthening is the intention now HG is less poweful then could we use the old must take a move action mechanic but make the end result either a Stun on the Vampire or the Thralls.

This would keep the same team dynamic as before but prevent the horrific damage to thralls that was possible under the old rule.
Boblo_Jellyroll - Dec 18, 2003 - 07:50 AM
Post subject:
I'm not sure if a vampire coach should worry about injury to the thralls. It seems that vampire team strategy would include disposable thralls.
Taking away the vamps' "free move" in the current OFAB is a good idea IMO. And letting the thralls possibly move before the OFAB roll is a good trade off. Is it a big deal if the dinner thralls have to roll for injury?
Tutenkharnage - Dec 18, 2003 - 10:56 AM
Post subject:
It's a big deal for keeping the team playable, I think. And enjoyable. Sure, watching a Vampire kill a Thrall is funny, but I wouldn't find much humor in it if I were the Vampire coach shelling out 40K each time it happened. The team's not so good that it needs that kind of balancing mechanic, in my opinion.

-Chet
GalakStarscraper - Dec 18, 2003 - 11:01 AM
Post subject:
Okay when is the Playtest Vault supposed to be up???

I want to get this programmed into the tool and out there to start testing ... same is true for FUMBBL.

Galak
Tutenkharnage - Dec 18, 2003 - 12:49 PM
Post subject:
It's supposed to go up soon. That's all I have at the moment.

-Chet
Darkson - Dec 18, 2003 - 04:49 PM
Post subject:
      Tutenkharnage wrote:
It's a big deal for keeping the team playable, I think. And enjoyable. Sure, watching a Vampire kill a Thrall is funny, but I wouldn't find much humor in it if I were the Vampire coach shelling out 40K each time it happened. The team's not so good that it needs that kind of balancing mechanic, in my opinion.

-Chet


I dunno, what other reason do I have for fielding a ) SPP thrall? Laughing
All times are
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2009 The Zafenio Team
Credits