NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - New Off-for-a-Bite Question

NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - New Off-for-a-Bite Question

Agentrock - Apr 03, 2003 - 09:50 AM
Post subject: New Off-for-a-Bite Question

I was looking over the experiment-revised OFAB rules and had a question about turn-overs. I understand that a Vamp with the ball who fails the roll must drop the ball and it is not a turn-over...since the negative skills now do not seem to cause turn-overs on failures.

BUT what if the Vamp feeds on a Thrall with the ball...the Thrall would go down due to an automatic injury and would drop the ball. Normally this would be a turn-over for other players but since it is due to a negative skill, would it a turn-over?

GalakStarscraper - Apr 03, 2003 - 10:04 AM
Post subject: Re: New Off-for-a-Bite Question

Agentrock wrote:

Actually its not a turnover because if you look at the rules of what causes a turnover, dropping the ball is not one of them.

[qutoe]
BUT what if the Vamp feeds on a Thrall with the ball...the Thrall would go down due to an automatic injury and would drop the ball. Normally this would be a turn-over for other players but since it is due to a negative skill, would it a turn-over?[/quote]

Again since the rules specifically say that the Thrall being injured is not a turnover, then the ball coming loose is not a turnover.

Galak

Agentrock - Apr 03, 2003 - 10:06 AM
Post subject:

Thanks!

snew - Apr 03, 2003 - 11:40 AM
Post subject:

Just because of Thrall getting injured doesn't cause a turnover has nothing to do with him dropping the ball not being a turnover. Your team just lost possession of it. I think it's the same as if a thrown team mate lands and gets hurt. If he's not holding the ball, fine, it's not a turnover. If he's holding the ball. BAM! END OF TURN.

It's definately a turnover just as if he were blocked and went down with the ball.

GalakStarscraper - Apr 03, 2003 - 01:16 PM
Post subject:

snotsngrots wrote:

It's definately a turnover just as if he were blocked and went down with the ball.

Actually Snots, no where in the rules does it say that dropping the ball is a turnover. The only reason a failed landing roll causes a turnover is because the LRB says it is.

If dropping the ball was a turnover, then failing a catch roll for a bouncing ball would be a turnover.

I realize that this is fine reading of the LRB, but until someone can seperate bouncing ball drop from dropping the ball, dropping the ball isn't a turnover.

I could say that injuring the ball handler of your team is a turnover to make it consistent with the Throw TeamMate trend .... hmmm okay understood.

Galak

Agentrock - Apr 03, 2003 - 01:21 PM
Post subject:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

I could say that injuring the ball handler of your team is a turnover to make it consistent with the Throw TeamMate trend .... hmmm okay understood.Galak

I was looking through my league rules and we have a house clarification for this: "if the ball carrier is knocked down or drops the ball for any reason then it is a turn-over".

GalakStarscraper - Apr 03, 2003 - 01:40 PM
Post subject:

Agentrock wrote:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

I could say that injuring the ball handler of your team is a turnover to make it consistent with the Throw TeamMate trend .... hmmm okay understood.Galak

I was looking through my league rules and we have a house clarification for this: "if the ball carrier is knocked down or drops the ball for any reason then it is a turn-over".

I suppose the answer here is that a player rolling to catch a bouncing ball is not considered the ball carrier. hhmmmmm ... okay ... I can see that, but its one of those things difficult to explain to folks who may not speak English as their first language.

I guess the easier option is to add to the official turnover list. Dropping the ball other than from a bouncing ball catch roll. Okay now that I could go with. I'm more than willing to allow the Vampires dropping the ball to be a turnover.

Galak

Agentrock - Apr 03, 2003 - 01:56 PM
Post subject:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

I guess the easier option is to add to the official turnover list. Dropping the ball other than from a bouncing ball catch roll. Okay now that I could go with. I'm more than willing to allow the Vampires dropping the ball to be a turnover.Galak

Yeah, I can see it either way...having a Vamp not causing a turn-over due to dropping the ball due to his negative skill is one thing...but the vamp attcking a fellow teammate, which happens to be the ball carrier, is another story. True, the Vamp player should try to find a Thrall that isn't carrying the ball but just in case that "what if" situation occurs it'd be nice to have this clarified.

Mordredd - Apr 04, 2003 - 03:34 AM
Post subject:

I thought that failing to catch a bouncing ball in your turn was a turn over. Hence the ruling that you did not have to try, but could let it bounce again instead.

Mordredd - Apr 04, 2003 - 03:36 AM
Post subject:

I thought that failing to catch a bouncing ball in your turn was a turn over. Hence the ruling that you did not have to try, but could let it bounce again instead.

GalakStarscraper - Apr 04, 2003 - 05:11 AM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

I thought that failing to catch a bouncing ball in your turn was a turn over. Hence the ruling that you did not have to try, but could let it bounce again instead.

Failing to catch a bouncing ball is not a turnover ... AND ... there was never a ruling that you did not have to try. In fact to the contrary, you currently HAVE to try to catch it no matter what.

Galak

Mordredd - Apr 04, 2003 - 08:28 AM
Post subject:

Where did I get that idea from then? Embarassed

Damn, that's going to bug me for ages.

snew - Apr 04, 2003 - 12:38 PM
Post subject:

I never said anything about dropping the ball. As far as I know, COFAB is the only instance of dropping the ball even becoming an option. I suppose anyone can do it, I've just never heard of anyone doing it.

I was talking about the Vampire causing an injury on the Thrall holding the ball. If the Thrall with the ball goes down, I think it should be a turnover. It's a shame your own player took him out but thaen's the breaks, kid. Bummer having a ST4 AG4 player on the pitch huh?

Bevan - Apr 04, 2003 - 04:15 PM
Post subject: Losing possession of the ball

There are some anomalies such as players falling over not causing a turnover (e.g. throw team-mate, pilling on etc.) and failing catches not being an automatic turnover. Nevertheless the rules are always consistent that if the moving team has possession of the ball and loses possession (after the bouncing stops) then it is always a turnover. Events in which a non-moving player, not holding the ball, falls over are usually not a turnover.

Just because they didn't think of thralls dropping the ball after a vampire attack and didn't spell that one out in detail doesn't mean it is not a turnover.

Mordredd - Apr 04, 2003 - 05:08 PM
Post subject:

Having recovered from my earlier embarrassment Sad

I've gone back to the book to try and work this one out for myself.
This hurts my head Mad

Quote:

Turnovers
2. A player on the moving team is knocked down or falls over
3. The ball is passed and not caught
4 A player from the moving team attempts and fails to pick up the ball

These cover all the ways in which a team can normally drop the ball, including the likes of wild animal. 2. does not cause a turn over, as this is stated in the OFAB rules text. 3. and 4. do not apply either. Throw team mate is only a turn over if the player thrown has the ball (stated in the text). This keeps throw team mate consistent with 3. as the player must land on his feet to have 'caught' the ball. I think therefore that there is no turn over.

What I don't get about OFAB is why it has to be a Thrall, and not the nearest member of the opposition?
It could be a little like wild animal. Something like must go first, if roll failed must block/blitz adjacent/nearest player (friend or foe?) without offensive assists. With frenzy? It would make the team very hard to control, especially if the chance was a high one, or the failed dice roll could not be re rolled.

snew - Apr 04, 2003 - 05:30 PM
Post subject:

It's a negative trait. If the Vampire got to put one of the opposing players down, even if it didn't cause injury, that wouldn't be so negative.

That and the Thralls are more likely to allow the Vamp to slake his thirst on them than an opposing player. That's not to say they like it, they're just conditioned to allow it.

GalakStarscraper - Apr 04, 2003 - 06:35 PM
Post subject: Re: Losing possession of the ball

Bevan wrote:

Got it Bevan.... I'm amending the COFAB rules to show that.

Galak

GalakStarscraper - Apr 04, 2003 - 06:37 PM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

What I don't get about OFAB is why it has to be a Thrall, and not the nearest member of the opposition?

Because it was the only way to balance out an ST 4/AG 4 team ... that and getting rid of the Lord in a way that still has a lot of fluff flavor.

Galak

Mordredd - Apr 06, 2003 - 10:14 AM
Post subject:

I'm sorry snotsngrots, can you explain to me again how wild animal is not one of the most negative traits around? I seem to have missed that. Our leagues Norse team just bought a minotaur. It ended his turn on the first action for around half of it's first game. The Vampires strength advantages are not that massive when you compare them to Laizardmen, Khemri, Chaos and Orcs, who all have a large number of ST 4/5 players and big guys.

Galak, I don't think it is the only way. I think that forcing them to mostly use either their ST or their AG but not both at the same time would be one. I also prefer the "not on the pitch" OFAB to the one where they mutilate their own team, as much for fluff as for mechanics.

GalakStarscraper - Apr 06, 2003 - 10:51 AM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

Galak, I don't think it is the only way. I think that forcing them to mostly use either their ST or their AG but not both at the same time would be one. I also prefer the "not on the pitch" OFAB to the one where they mutilate their own team, as much for fluff as for mechanics.

I've played Vampires in a league setting for 3 years, and pretty much dominated my league before retiring them. Plain and simple they are broken with any off-pitch mechanic you can dream up. AG 4/ST 4 on the pitch without something to get in the way doesn't work. After 3 years of proving this to myself, it would be difficult to presuade me differently. I've never seen any off-pitch mechanic proposal that did not become less negative with the team puchasing more Vampires.

Oh ... mutilating your own team is ENTIRELY optional if you read the rule. You can gladly choose to have the Vampire run into Reserves to feed off the groupies. Its just that that is a turnover and mutilating your own team is not. Nothing forces you to make a single injury roll ever with this team.

Galak

snew - Apr 06, 2003 - 04:19 PM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

I'm sorry snotsngrots, can you explain to me again how wild animal is not one of the most negative traits around? I seem to have missed that.

I think this is sarcasm but I'm not so sure. I re-read my posts very carefully and have no idea where you got that I think WA is not the most negative trait around. I play Skaven with a rookie Rat Ogre. I know all about WA. Why are you asking me that in this thread?

Mordredd wrote:

The Vampires strength advantages are not that massive when you compare them to Laizardmen, Khemri, Chaos and Orcs, who all have a large number of ST 4/5 players and big guys.

I've played against all the teams you've mentioned and coached most of them as well. It's clear that you haven't when you make a statement like this. You clearly don't understand the implications of ST4 and AG4 on the same player. You mentioned Chaos. Those ST4 AG3 Warriors are as close as you can come and they're not even close.

Mordredd - Apr 07, 2003 - 10:01 AM
Post subject:

Yes it was a sarcasm. This was because I suggested a skill very much like WA and you then told me it would not be very negative. Confused

I have played all the mentioned teams, and at some point coached all but the Lizardmen. I was refering to their ability to put forward a powerful blocking line, not their ability to handle the ball at the same time. I'm sure you will agree that 6 saurus and a kroxigor can be quite nasty. I have had one or other of my teams punched around the field by a similar line up on many an occasion.

snew - Apr 07, 2003 - 02:23 PM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

What I don't get about OFAB is why it has to be a Thrall, and not the nearest member of the opposition?

This is what I was talking about in that thread.

Mordredd wrote:

It could be a little like wild animal. Something like must go first, if roll failed must block/blitz adjacent/nearest player (friend or foe?) without offensive assists. With frenzy? It would make the team very hard to control, especially if the chance was a high one, or the failed dice roll could not be re rolled.

This won't work for two very important reasons.

#1 There is more than one Vampire on the pitch so all one has to do is start with the least negative of the throws. This was a major problem with the Minotaur team. Did you ever try them? I did.

#2 It's the Vampire TEAM. THey get to use re-rolls.

Hope that clears up some of the confusion. You really threw me with that question.

Mordredd - Apr 08, 2003 - 04:44 AM
Post subject:

Sorry for throwing you with that one. I will try to be a little clearer in future. Very Happy

#2 is relatively easy to sort out. Simply ban them from rerolling. Vampires are not exactly team players. I know it's not quite the same, but when I get my Ogre team painted I'm going to try to get someone to test it with the line "1s may not be rerolled" added to the bone head trait.
#1 requires a little more thought. Big guy teams never really appealed to anyone in the leagues in which I have played. Obviously the vampires would require a second negative trait in addition to a WA type one.

GalakStarscraper - Apr 08, 2003 - 08:36 AM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

Sorry for throwing you with that one. I will try to be a little clearer in future. Very Happy

Or forgive me Mordredd ... you could just use the new OFAB rules that have been tested for an entire league season at this point and are working. I've haven't seen the justification for throwing out a working fix in your comments to date.

Galak

snew - Apr 08, 2003 - 03:21 PM
Post subject:

That was what I was thinking too, Galak.

Dave - Apr 10, 2003 - 04:55 AM
Post subject:

Mordedd:

The problem is not St4, the problem is not Ag4, the problem is St4 AND Ag4.

Also the 'no RR option' works only for a short time. Untill they get Block..

After that they're still a nightmare..

Trust me, I've been on the recieving end of an old Vamp team

GalakStarscraper - Apr 10, 2003 - 05:37 AM
Post subject:

For those that don't know the new OFAB rules are now the official experimental ones as of BB Annual 2003.

However, the new description in the Annual really needs cleaned up in two places.

1) As it currently reads, a stunned Vampire must make an OFAB roll to go prone and if it fails its a turnover ...... (I think that was just an editing mistake and the MBBL is adding back the text that Stunned vampires don't roll for the new OFAB).

2) It says missing the fact that injuring the Thrall with the ball should probably be a turnover.

Otherwise the wording got a good clean up in the Annual.

Galak

Agentrock - Apr 10, 2003 - 07:15 AM
Post subject:

Thanks for the clarifications!

Darkson - Apr 18, 2003 - 12:52 AM
Post subject:

And I'm losing my lord Crying or Very sad

Dave - Apr 18, 2003 - 03:10 AM
Post subject:

there's allways the big une up in the sky Cool

Agentrock - Apr 18, 2003 - 06:35 AM
Post subject:

And Nuffle, don't forget about him! Or her!? Or it?!? Wink

snew - Apr 18, 2003 - 06:54 AM
Post subject:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

1) As it currently reads, a stunned Vampire must make an OFAB roll to go prone and if it fails its a turnover ...... (I think that was just an editing mistake and the MBBL is adding back the text that Stunned vampires don't roll for the new OFAB).

If Bonehead and Really Stupid need to be rolled to turn the player over, don't you think the Vamp should need to do it too? Being a turnover for failing to roll over, though, is a bit harsh.

Agentrock - Apr 18, 2003 - 07:01 AM
Post subject:

snotsngrots wrote:

If Bonehead and Really Stupid need to be rolled to turn the player over, don't you think the Vamp should need to do it too?

That's true...they should be consistant.

Gattolardo - Apr 18, 2003 - 08:33 AM
Post subject:

Well, there MIGHT be some consistency...
While it's quite likely that a stupid player wold stay down staring at the grass carpet, a vamp would, at least, be able to control himself enough to make a try to get up...
What would hr do once up it's another matter altogheter...
So, while a stupid player should test even when rolling over, the first test of the vamp would be upon getting up... Confused

Well, as long as logic is applicable ina fantay setting Smile

Cheers
Rob

Agentrock - Apr 18, 2003 - 08:41 AM
Post subject:

Maybe one could argue that "hunger pains" inflict the vamp so much that it won't roll over from a stun on a failed OFaB... Wink

Gattolardo - Apr 18, 2003 - 09:06 AM
Post subject:

Yup

but i fear that "Hunger Pains" would only speed up a Vamp getting up Shocked

Agentrock - Apr 18, 2003 - 09:58 AM
Post subject:

Hmmm..."since the vamp is stunned his/her body doesn't react well to the pains, so his/her body enters a state of temporary hybernation until the next turn"...of course I'm pulling this outta no-where but it sounds good!

GalakStarscraper - Apr 18, 2003 - 10:56 AM
Post subject:

Agentrock wrote:

Uh.... isn't it easier to just say they don't roll if Stunned ... (extra 3 words in the text description) ... I'm trying to keep the skill easy. If the Vamps are too good from extra testing ... fine have them roll for Stunned to Prone ... but causing a turnover for this is a pretty big negative.

Galak

Agentrock - Apr 18, 2003 - 11:19 AM
Post subject:

Sure it is...someone was just mentioning why would they have to test to roll over...

But I agree, it shouldn't be a turnover if they fail while stunned.

Darkson - Apr 19, 2003 - 02:30 PM
Post subject:

Agentrock wrote:

And Nuffle, don't forget about him! Or her!? Or it?!? Wink

Nuffle sucks, whatever it is!

Please, stop hurting my vamps anymore than they are. I just killed my only thrall that gained a skill with a COFAB roll.

With the new list I wouldn't risk having anymore than 6 vamps on the roster until they had PRO, and I'd probably start with 4 and as many thralls as I could afford.

snew - Apr 19, 2003 - 04:48 PM
Post subject:

Darkson wrote:

With the new list I wouldn't risk having anymore than 6 vamps on the roster until they had PRO, and I'd probably start with 4 and as many thralls as I could afford.

You say that like it's some substandard roster or something.

Darkson - Apr 19, 2003 - 06:28 PM
Post subject:

snotsngrots wrote:

Darkson wrote:

With the new list I wouldn't risk having anymore than 6 vamps on the roster until they had PRO, and I'd probably start with 4 and as many thralls as I could afford.

You say that like it's some substandard roster or something.

It is when the vamps all catch the Elven Curse Laughing

snew - Apr 19, 2003 - 08:36 PM
Post subject:

Darkson wrote:

snotsngrots wrote:

Darkson wrote:

With the new list I wouldn't risk having anymore than 6 vamps on the roster until they had PRO, and I'd probably start with 4 and as many thralls as I could afford.

You say that like it's some substandard roster or something.

It is when the vamps all catch the Elven Curse Laughing

You need to teach them to stay away from those slender Elven necks then. Laughing

Dave - Apr 24, 2003 - 02:33 AM
Post subject:

Yeah, do that...

Maybe I lack some eye - sight but where should the vamp, who rolled a '1', make his move action to?

Towards his nearest team member, tot he dug out or where ever?

I can't seem to find it.

Embarassed

Gattolardo - Apr 24, 2003 - 04:56 AM
Post subject:

The move action is controlled by the coach.
If actually THERE is a thrall within move distance, that's all a matter of choice between a out of play Vamp with a TO, or a injury roll on a thrall usually without a TO.
It's your choice mate!!
Smile

Cheers
Rob