NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - Pro a trait?

Darkson - Nov 25, 2003 - 05:07 PM
Post subject: Pro a trait?

So in the rules review, Pro has become a trait.

Can someone please explain to me why this has come about? Was Pro so over used/over-powered?

Also, when TBB discussed the ogre team, one of the points raised against limting the Ogres to ST only was that there wasn't enough choice to justify it. Well, now, with the removal of a General skill, they've narrowed down the potential development of quite a few players. For example, in theory, every Norse Lineman/Wight could have exactly the same skills, if they were unfortunate enough not to roll doubles/stats to a 7 skilll career. Do I really need 12 Kick norse linemen?

jmccubbin - Nov 25, 2003 - 05:48 PM
Post subject:

IMO. Pro gives a %50 chance re-roll for all rolls, so effectivly it's a Dodge, Catch, sure Hands, Pass skill rolled into one. Granted it's only %50 for each, but hey it's versitile.

For Undead style teams or low agility teams, its a wonderful skill.

I was planning on taking it on all my Skeleton players until they made it a trait.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think they did the right thing by making it a trait.

Darkson - Nov 25, 2003 - 07:14 PM
Post subject:

Can't say I've ever seen it on multiple players in a team, except for the COFAB vamps, and for that they've given up block, dodge, mighty blow etc.

Guess I just can't see the reason for it.

Xtreme - Nov 25, 2003 - 09:28 PM
Post subject:

In our league there were quite a few Big Guys who took it, for obvious reasons. I think the change was meant to effect Big Guys and especially Vamps. But I think the bigger point is that we need more skills.

jejaatin - Nov 26, 2003 - 01:29 AM
Post subject:

I'm cool with pro being a trait, never had any use for BGs, but the change to PO was IMO not cool at all. I mean it kinda waters down the skill, it's not nearly as fun now as it used to be.

Quote:

But I think the bigger point is that we need more skills.

Have to agree with that, definitely.

Doubleskulls - Nov 26, 2003 - 05:13 AM
Post subject:

I guess its to hurt Big Guys and Vampires.

So rather than stopping them using Leader/Trophy rerolls they decided on this change instead.

IMO its a bad choice. Quite a few player types (Wights, some linemen) are going to struggle for a 2nd/3rd skill choice now, unless they get a double.

Sputnik - Nov 26, 2003 - 05:39 AM
Post subject:

Quote:

If your first statement is true, then IMO making pro a trait is not the most sensible decision. Vampires are not official yet, so why worry about OFAB that much? Or is Count Luthor soooo overpowered? Shocked

And with the leader/trophy rr one could have tweakened the big guys a bit without touching pro.

I have to admit, I don't have much experience with big guys + pro since block/PO was the more popular way to go in the recent past. However, I indeed liked my wights having pro. :lol:Good choice.

I think jump up was pretty popular as a skill, but since it has become a trait not many players get jump up any more. A double is worth quite a lot and other skill categories are too tempting. And I fear pro will join jump up in this respect. Seriously, a wight with a double won't get pro for sure! Evil or Very Mad

Sputnik

jmccubbin - Nov 26, 2003 - 07:21 AM
Post subject:

My whole point of taking pro was that I got limited access to free re-rolls for all actions without roling doubles. Now that I have to roll a doubles to get it, I will proably not take it. Although I must admit it is still versitile. With Pro, I would still get limited access to all tho other skills I would need a doubles to get.

Some teams don't have access to any agility. So pro has it's merits even as a trait. For elves/DE/WE Pro is almost useless.

Pro is still very useful for Khemri, Orc, Vamp, Chaos, Nurgle, and WA. For other teams, I can see why nobody would take it. The above teams don't have access to AGILITY without a doubles. Pro gives limited access to all Agility re-roll skills in one shot.

zeuzism - Nov 26, 2003 - 07:43 AM
Post subject:

PO=Piling On?
------
I agree with sputnik: if you roll a double you will probably pick dodge (Blodge/Dock!) or sidestep and on your second double (not going to happen most off the times) you might cosider pro. That's to bad, because I think they (I donno who is 'they') have nerfed the game enough by now.

Every single change (well almost) since the 3rd edition has favoured light armoured pancies with leather jumpsuits... Without being able to combine Mighty Blow, Razor Sharp Fangs, Claw and Dirty Player the game is far less fun IMO Wink

. Fouling is far less powerfull since you get send off all the time and you dont have a big chance to really injure your oppenent... may be I should start another thread...
Well (I just continue): Frenzy nerfed...; Special Play Cards (to stop those awfully slippery Elves) nerfed away; using RR to break armour/injure nerfed; Mighty Blow nerfed; Dirty Player nerfed etc...

A lot of the fun in the game came from the aspect of growing nursing your players to big stars with the ever present risk of them being killed. Now instead of that they grow old... That's boring. I want to kill people! And yes I do play Warhammer as well Wink

I think BB is not intended to be a nice smooth game where everything goes as aspected, it's the roughness that makes the fun. Compare it with a Van Gogh compared to a picture from a camera, Id prefer the Van Gogh.

Why doesn't the Rules Committee (?) forbid Blocking and Fouling and maybe Dwarfs/Undead/Chaos as well?

Ok I'm exagerating...

New thread: -> General -> Nerfing: not a good thing

Sanne

Zombie - Nov 26, 2003 - 07:59 AM
Post subject:

Most (all?) of the things you seem to hate so much about LRB are the things that most people love most about it. So much actually that most leagues already used them back in third ed. Not combining skills has been done by many since the early days of 3rd ed after JJ suggested it in a letter, and the same is true for Sigurd's, IGMEOY, no reroll on injury roll and in some cases on armour rolls as well. Those things were absolutely necessary to keep 3rd ed running smoothly.

You're pretty much alone in that line of thinking. Don't expect to ever see the game go back to the way it was in vanilla 3rd ed, because vanilla 3rd ed sucked and nobody played that. Everybody played modified 3rd ed with most or all of the above included in it.

zeuzism - Nov 26, 2003 - 08:04 AM
Post subject:

I edited 4th into 3rd I was wrong about that tnx Zombie for understanding, and replying that way.

Zombie - Nov 26, 2003 - 08:21 AM
Post subject:

By that, do you mean that 3rd ed already favored elves too much and you'd prefer playing 2nd ed? Otherwise, you misunderstood me. In 3rd ed, people already played with Sigurd et al.

zeuzism - Nov 26, 2003 - 10:07 AM
Post subject:

ehh now I'm confused...
I thought 3rd ed. is BB with Death Zone, special play cards and all that stuff. I dont know what Sigurd is, I play for some time but I'm on this forum (or any BB forum) just for a month, so I donno all the terms you use.
4th edition was the edition where they said: can only use one skill in a player turn, wasn't it? 4th edition was really a horror edition IMO. LRB is quite ok, allthough I do not agree completely with all the changes since 3rd ed.

or maybe there are two 4th edition? I'm getting really confused by now...

Sanne

Zombie - Nov 26, 2003 - 10:17 AM
Post subject:

3rd ed didn't officially include Sigurd's (rolling a D6 after getting an injury) or any of the other rules you mention above. But Jervis in an article suggested all those changes (i think it was in 95), and since then, most leagues have been using them, even though they were not official until 4th ed.

Those changes to the rule are so sensible and essential really, that 3rd ed was unplayable without them. That's why anybody with an internet connection played with modified 3rd ed, not vanilla 3rd ed.

And that's also why those changes are still essential today.

zeuzism - Nov 26, 2003 - 10:43 AM
Post subject:

Thanks Zombie, now I understand.

Also I must admit that I agree with the "Sigurd" thing. It's senceless that you stand a better chance of killing someone then badly hurting. I had a player that killed the opposition on a 7+ during a foul.... that is bad! It's ok that they stopped that. But not all off the changes are as fair. And really, I must say that again: you can not win with a Dwarf team against a Wood Elf team if all of his players stay on the pitch, even just one wardancer can be a manice... Or you must be very lucky off course.

Sanne

Zombie - Nov 26, 2003 - 02:08 PM
Post subject:

You can, and you do.

But what i'm really saying here is that you don't have to take out *all* the players. Sure, it helps to take a couple out, but if you as a bashing coach remember that the main objective is TDs and not CAS, you can win with dwarves quite easily under the current rules.

I was recently beaten in playoffs with wood elves by dwarves.

zeuzism - Nov 26, 2003 - 05:23 PM
Post subject:

You can. I was exaggarating (how do you write that?! nasty word) and you are right. You can win even if you don't take out all the opposition and yes even as a Dwarf you have to concentrate on the ball to win and I do (both the ball and winning stuff).

My posting is not about the fact that I think it to be unfair. I think Dwarfs are still quite ok, and so are Orcs and Undead and even Chaos if they have enough SPP's in the long run.

I think it to be less fun. I enjoy the bashing and I enjoy the scoring, both. But it seems to me that the bashing stuff is getting less and less. And that is not an improvement IMO.

Just look at the cover of the Death Zone Rules:
Jordell bashing a Beastman; a Raging Bull (completely Wild, not a statue); a Goblin with a Chainsaw. And yes, the Ball and he is going to throw it! That is how I see BB. A lot of complete senseless stuf, and by the way: it is a sport to.

I think the sport part is taken to seriously. And the senseless part isn't. That is the whole reason I post this way. And yes sometimes I post unbalanced opinions. And you put me in my place over and over again.

May I ask you (and the rest of the BB community) this one thing:
Can you not find any truth in my words? Do you really think BB is supposed to be a sport, and by that smooth and fair? Or do you agree at least a bit and think: hey (!) bring on some more freaky stuff and lets not care about the balancing part.

That's all. Thanks for considering.

Sanne

Zombie - Nov 26, 2003 - 06:00 PM
Post subject:

In my experience, bashing is not less present now than it was before. On the opposite, it's more present. In my opinion, the current rules, with less money to replace dead players, slower progression for everyone, and many other changes, favors bashing teams more than it did in 3rd edition. As a result, more people around here (myself included) are taking bashing teams, and as a result there's more bashing going on now than there was before.

As for your other point. Yes, some people prefer the craziness. You're not alone. But the current trend is for balancing the game and making it more strategic, and i, like the majority of coaches, am all for that.

Also, with the tournament scene getting bigger every year, balance also becomes more of an issue than ever before. So don't expect the trend to turn around anytime soon.

Personally, i don't give a damn about miniatures. And the fluff is nice, but it's just a nice addition, not something that's really needed. It's the strategy that attracts me, and it's the strategy that drives me. I couldn't be happier with the direction the game has taken recently.

Now this doesn't necessarily mean that the game needs to be nerfed down. Once everything is cleaned up, we can add more stuff to the game (more teams, more skills, new stuff like on-pitch spellcasters etc.) But balance always needs to be the primary concern.

A good game is one that involves lots of strategy. The perfect game is one that's balanced as well. That's why i loved Starcraft and that's why i love Blood Bowl too.

noodle1978uk - Nov 27, 2003 - 05:11 AM
Post subject:

Sigurds rule is very good.

pro a trait is very bad and I disagree with it Very Happy

noodle1978uk - Nov 28, 2003 - 02:32 AM
Post subject:

Zombie69 wrote:

As for your other point. Yes, some people prefer the craziness. You're not alone. But the current trend is for balancing the game and making it more strategic, and i, like the majority of coaches, am all for that.

I wonder if it is the majority of coaches. Certainly the majority of vocal coaches on the boards. I prefer more randomness. If every change to the game which makes it more "balanced" also makes things more restrictive then soon our league at least will revert to a modified 3rd Ed, which I don't want...

Zombie69 wrote:

Also, with the tournament scene getting bigger every year, balance also becomes more of an issue than ever before. So don't expect the trend to turn around anytime soon.

I don't understand the reason why this "trend" needs to continue just because of tournaments! 1) Why can't it STOP! How much more "balancing" of the core rules do we need!! And whats wrong with having a limited set of rules for tournaments - just go over to a warhammer board and look at the "COMP" arguments. We allow up to 4 stars and 4 big guys in leagues, but only 1 in a tournament...

Zombie69 wrote:

Personally, i don't give a damn about miniatures. And the fluff is nice, but it's just a nice addition, not something that's really needed. It's the strategy that attracts me, and it's the strategy that drives me. I couldn't be happier with the direction the game has taken recently.

love Blood Bowl too.[/quote]

I respect your opinion but I really wonder why you feel like this. To me the miniatures and fluff are key to enjoying the game. Without that it would be about as intereting as Ludo...

But then I am what you would term a "fluff" gamer.

I think there needs to be a balance between the strategic elements and the fluff/background of the game - in the rules - or risk losing a large portion of the Blood Bowl community.

Indigo - Nov 28, 2003 - 02:41 AM
Post subject:

I think the latest rules changes have been more in the direction of game balance, and for a large part people who haven't been happy with them have used the fluff argument as an excuse to hide the fact they have issues with their team being degraded/balanced slightly.

When you play BB, do you get your biggest kick from sitting have a giggle when inane, random events occur or a freak series of events result in comedy moments? Or do you get your kick from playing a sporting, fair game against a friendly opponent then kick back in the pub later and lament your bad luck?

For me, the most important thing about BB is not the background, the models or even the complexity of strategy needed - it's about having fun, with a mate or a stranger. If you and your mates can only have fun with randomness then use the special play cards. However, I've never yet seen a "randomness dominated" game that has been remotely as fun as a tense, balanced game where it goes right down to the wire. Not wanting to seem insulting, but random "wacky" games, although alright for a one-off, have little lasting effect on me. Once it's finished, I'm looking for something else to do. But a tense, close tournament game, or even a thrashing/walkover leave a bigger imprint on me and I'm thinking about them for hours or even days afterwards - take Spiky and CamCarnage. I was thinking about the match I played against Dwarfcoach for DAYS! *must not leave guys within frenzy range of the crowd*

While the fluff is fun, and painted miniatures really bring the game to life the best thing about BB is the challenge. Play cards if you want randomness Wink

Indigo - Nov 28, 2003 - 02:49 AM
Post subject:

Re-reading that, I think my last remark was a little TOO flippant. However, the point is we must have a solid, stable core of balanced rules to which we add "fun random" stuff too so people can use what they like. As it stands, the core stuff is pretty good but not there yet hence the BBRC keeps going.

As we progress, I can see the BBRC mainly reviewing house rules submitted by third parties to decide whether or not they should be added as optional extras. Eventually, the Annual will be twice the size of the rulebook which is a good thing - although we will have a "tournament base" we can add other things to customise it to our tastes.

noodle1978uk - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:01 AM
Post subject:

I really think you are overstating the randomness of the game - even in vanilla 3rd Ed.

I'm not talking about games where you just set up and see what happens - no control at all. Adding randomness - cards, secret weapons etc does not necessarily make the game "unbalanced" or dominated by those random events.

In fact games without cards and other "wacky" insertions can infact all hinge on one dice roll - just like any other game of Blood Bowl. Its still luck when it comes down to it.

There does seem to be a fundimental (why do I keep picking words I can't spell?) misunderstanding about the nature of the game. It will always be a game of strategy - a game where to win you have to be able to play in a way which reduces the impact of unforseen and uncontrollable events.

Thats it!

Introducing more or taking away "luck" elements doesn't actually change the dynamic all that much - and trust me I've seen it after 8 years of running leagues! No matter how the rules come and go the same people always end up winning (not usually me Sad

). Regardless of cards, rules version (4th ed - eek!)...

The ONLY time when this goes awry is when something is overpowered in comparison to everything else - say for example a rule allowing gutter runners to start with ST5 and AG5 (obviously daft!)

Once these anomalies are "fixed" (what I think the BBRC ought to be about and for the most part it is doing a good job) the game *IS* actually balanced...

It has NOTHING to do with using "the fluff argument as an excuse to hide the fact they have issues with their team being degraded/balanced slightly" at all. There is no need to cover it up. I don't like rules (ageing etc) which arbitrarily make all that careful and enjoyable team building much harder and less rewarding. Team building is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game for many - and moving more and more skills to traits makes this process less enjoyable... And its not about building an "uber-team" either.

It comes down to game enjoyment. I'm talking long term big leagues here, not tournaments. Where tournaments are concerned I'm all for these changes.

I don't really know how to explain it any better - but I think people are missing the point when they read posts complaining about "nerfing" etc. Its not powergaming!

noodle1978uk - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:03 AM
Post subject:

Indigo wrote:

Damn it I agree with that! Rolling Eyes

I think we need to distinguish between TOURNAMENTS and LEAGUES - after all I always think of the new rules in the context of our 29 member 7 year old league, rather than tournaments

zeuzism - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:20 AM
Post subject:

Talking about balancing: I think that the old rules with the old special play cards worked quite well balancing the game out. with these rules you could try to take on a far better (in TR) opponent and still stand a decent chance of winning, or at least not plummeting down TR-wise. because you had some extra mvp's and money from the cards. now with the new handicap table I would think twice about chalenging a high TR opponent, it's suicidal. I did it a few times and I lost a lot of games and money and players. the fun was you could actually win if you used the randomness in your favour, that is also good coaching, being prepared for dirty tricks and random events and it has nothing to do with powergaming.

i agree with noodle, whatever rules you use, always the same people seem to win and the same loose.

on top of that I do not like the ageing rules, they are a patch for a rule that worked fine in the first place: fouling. Take the IGMEOY out and the ageing rules as well. there is your balance, no more STR5 wardancers, just bash them to the ground (using tackle and dauntless and frenzy) and foul them to oblivion.

Sanne

noodle1978uk - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:33 AM
Post subject:

zeusism - I agree with you for the most part...

People must remember that all changes to the rules must be taken in context. If you change one thing you may have to change another to "re-balance"

EG:

We started in 97 using vanilla 3rd ed:

- result average 10+ casualties per game - unhappy players

Introduced Sigurds rule

- result average 5 casualties per game Very Happy

- result spiralling team ratings Sad

Using LRB on its own (started 2002)

- result = general boredom - after all we'd done it all before...

Re - introduced star players, optional teams, cards

- result = star players take over game

- result = cards too powerful at higher team ratings

Make star players unable to use rerolls....
Make card handicap based on PERCENTAGE difference of TR

- result Very Happy

So you see each change has to be balanced. For example we have introduced a FORM of ageing which is characterful and teams now "peak" at about 250 - 300 which is what we wanted...

The IGMEOY rule is used by our league, but if you can't re-roll fouls the old system would work fine - but you MUST use sigurds rule in this case.

Special Play cards are in no way as lethal as people once feared. But seven years of playing with them makes you very aware of their strengths and weaknesses...

The distinction is between league and tourny play. I agree with Indigo:

Core rules = how the game is played, team progression TOURNAMENT RULES
- Optional rules = Kicking rules, secret weapons, extra teams, stadiums, ENHANCED PROGRESSION/LOANS etc -why not put star players in here?
- Fluff stuff

Zombie - Nov 28, 2003 - 07:07 AM
Post subject:

zeuzism wrote:

i agree with noodle, whatever rules you use, always the same people seem to win and the same loose.

Of course! That would still be the case even if the game was 99.9% luck and 0.1% strategy. But the more luck is involved, the less frequent it will be for the best coach to win, even if on average the best coach will win more no matter how much luck is involved. Hope this was clear, not sure it was, but it's a very important point you have to understand.

zeuzism wrote:

on top of that I do not like the ageing rules, they are a patch for a rule that worked fine in the first place: fouling. Take the IGMEOY out and the ageing rules as well. there is your balance, no more STR5 wardancers, just bash them to the ground (using tackle and dauntless and frenzy) and foul them to oblivion.

A lot of people don't like aging. But the problem with it is not what it does. Rather, it's how it does it. You can be sure that they'll replace it with something else next year. Let's just hope it will be better, not worse!

As for your suggestion, that's not balanced at all. It's way too slanted against low AV teams.

noodle1978uk - Nov 28, 2003 - 07:21 AM
Post subject:

Actually, things were very unbalanced back then, because a team that was 11 or 31 TR lower than its opponent had a much bigger chance of winning than the other one, which doesn't make sense at all. The cards were way too powerful. Not to mention when you rolled a 1 for cards and the opponent rolled a 6.

- Not true if you calculate Handicap on % difference and make sure only ONE person rolls for the cards (none of the 1 and 6 rubbish) Wink

But the more luck is involved, the less frequent it will be for the best coach to win, even if on average the best coach will win more no matter how much luck is involved. Hope this was clear, not sure it was, but it's a very important point you have to understand.

- In theory true, however this trend has never been seen in our league. Each coach win % seems to be independent of cards etc... Which implies that the way we have set it up at least, *is* balanced.

A lot of people don't like aging. But the problem with it is not what it does. Rather, it's how it does it. You can be sure that they'll replace it with something else next year. Let's just hope it will be better, not worse!

- Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Which is why I like in game niggling injury effects etc... The objection is to the ageing mechanism (and name - it shouldn't be "ageing" it should be "wear and tear" or "stress" - they ain't old!)

Apedog - Nov 28, 2003 - 10:48 AM
Post subject:

IMO Pro being a skill hurts more players (like those mentioned) than it solves problems.

Vamps have already had Hypno Gaze reduced and judgng from recent BBB league stuff and the BB Mag I would think at least 2 of the BBRC thought they didn't need toning down.

Big Guys problems are a lot more fundamental I think than the overuse of Pro, can't see this being adopted in my league.

Tutenkharnage - Nov 28, 2003 - 12:38 PM
Post subject:

Apedog wrote:

Vamps have already had Hypno Gaze reduced

I'd call it "modified," but it's not "reduced." It's clearly more effective at what it's supposed to do, since it now works on a roll of 2-6 regardless of the opponent's AG. It's no longer "free," but since nothing else in the game allows you to take an action and do something else useful besides, I don't see a problem there.

-Chet

Zombie - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:48 PM
Post subject:

Well, i think it was reduced all right. You can barely use it anymore. You need either someone next to the vampire who's worth hypnotizing more than he's worth blocking (pretty rare when you have ST4), or you need to sacrifice your blitz action.

Sure, it's easier to pull off now, but since it's become useless, that doesn't help.

Apedog - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:54 PM
Post subject:

zeuzism wrote:

Do you really think BB is supposed to be a sport, and by that smooth and fair? Or do you agree at least a bit and think: hey (!) bring on some more freaky stuff and lets not care about the balancing part.

I think Blood Bowl is meant to be a game, and to be honest I'd much rather play a game that's balanced, where in the main I win or lose by my own skill than where a freak dice roll could cost me the whole game, no matter the relative skill of the players.

I also think that many of the rules tweaks were inroduced to help circumvent boring play. Basing may be fun but taken to extremes being bashed is not when the other player only cares about hitting you andignoring the ball (note i'm not accusing anyone on this thread).

Indigo: I think I'm trying to say the same thing, you said it better Smile

Tutenkharnage: For the record I don't mind whats been done to Hypno Gaze, I always thought it was a bit good when just Luthor had it, just think with the Pro thing as well it may be a bit too much.

Personally I would prefer to have pro as a skill and the new version of HG.

BTW, any chance of the official reason(s) for changing pro, i'd be interested to hear the reasoning as it kind of took me by surprise.

Doubleskulls - Nov 29, 2003 - 06:16 AM
Post subject:

I think of you could move & gaze people wouldn't be complaining.

Cervidal - Nov 29, 2003 - 01:17 PM
Post subject:

Yeah they would. That would be similar to having access to 6 blitzes in the same turn.

Tutenkharnage - Nov 29, 2003 - 08:40 PM
Post subject:

You can move and gaze. But it's going to cost you your Blitz action. And as Cervidal said...that would be like having 6 blitzes in the same turn. Not cool.

HG is still your best weapon against Side Step and Stand Firm. And if the Vampire team that isn't supposed to be a top-tier team has been stripped of its free blitzes...well, I won't be shedding any tears for it. I know I'm not alone there.

-Chet

Zombie - Nov 29, 2003 - 09:55 PM
Post subject:

Hey, i have no problem with hypnotic gaze having been toned down. What i didn't like is you saying that it hadn't been!

Darkson - Nov 30, 2003 - 04:08 AM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

And if the Vampire team that isn't supposed to be a top-tier team has been stripped of its free blitzes...well, I won't be shedding any tears for it.

So I take it theres no chance the Bloodlust from#10 will be official then Wink

Tutenkharnage - Dec 01, 2003 - 06:47 AM
Post subject:

Zombie69 wrote:

Hey, i have no problem with hypnotic gaze having been toned down. What i didn't like is you saying that it hadn't been!

It's a matter of perspective. In a certain way, it's been "toned down": you can no longer move and gaze. Fair enough. But in another way, it has been improved: the gaze functions properly on a roll of 2-6. Against all players whose AG is greater than 2 (i.e., almost every player you'll see on the field), the effectiveness of the gaze has been improved.

Whether you see this as "mostly toned down" or "mostly improved" or "not really enough of either to call it one way or another" depends on your perspective. On a team-wide level, I say it's been toned down; on an individual level, I say it's a little of both. Categorically, it has not been "toned down without question," "absolutely downgraded," "nerfed," whatever else people might use to categorize something that got no improvement anywhere.

That's all I'm saying.

-Chet

noodle1978uk - Dec 01, 2003 - 07:30 AM
Post subject:

Er... You can no longer move, gaze a member of the cage, then blitz the ball carrier? Isn't this why people see it as having been "toned down"?

Mordredd - Dec 01, 2003 - 07:48 AM
Post subject:

Quote:

Against all players whose AG is greater than 2 (i.e., almost every player you'll see on the field), the effectiveness of the gaze has been improved.

Greater than 1 surely, seeing as you had to beat AG to hypnotise, not just equal it. If everyone played it like that I can half see why people thought it was overpowered. I'm still not convinced that it was (at least when you had to use it during the player's action).

I don't particularly like equating it with a blitz either. I think it may just make the trait too unusable. We shall have to wait and see how much it's used by the leagues new Vampire team, but I can see it becoming something that is too easily never used in a game at all.

Doubleskulls - Dec 01, 2003 - 08:16 AM
Post subject:

Chet - Even if you don't, I think everyone else believes Hypnotic Gaze has been toned down. The fact its more likely to succeed (especially against Elves) is more than outweighed by the fact you'll rarely ever use it. With S4 vamps are far more likely to hit than gaze - because you don't get SPPs and opponents off the pitch by gazing them.

Does this mean we are going to see a less negative version of OFAB?

Tutenkharnage - Dec 01, 2003 - 11:39 AM
Post subject:

Sorry, I meant "AG of 2 or greater," not "AG is greater than 2." Regarding OFAB, a new version will be in the Vault. I think Tom and I worked out a pretty good version in another thread; I'd say it's definitely "less negative" than the current on-field OFAB.

And no, that Bloodthirst from BBmag is DOA Smile

-Chet

fnord23 - Dec 01, 2003 - 03:31 PM
Post subject:

I've only played a couple games with Vamps, both a week or so before the
new rules came out.

I can see the new version being useful, especially when you need to get
through a line to score to get a draw or win late in the game especially ---
1 or 2 vamps use it & then your ball carrier runs through the hole that
the lack of TZ's created.

Later on in the Vamps development, once they have Block/MB/ Tackle &
stuff like that --- perhaps it wont be used so much.

sangraal

Zombie - Dec 01, 2003 - 05:43 PM
Post subject:

I guess it can be useful if your opponent is stupid enough to leave his players next to your ST4 vampires all the time. Oh that's right, he won't. Oh well...

fnord23 - Dec 01, 2003 - 06:20 PM
Post subject:

Well, lets see, your Vamps would Block anyone instead of HG if they could
get 2 dice on them......

So it follows that HG will be useful if they cant get the 2 dice Block --- what type of player will that be ---- yep, you guessed it, Big Guys & ST4 players.

Now what types of player find it hard to get away from other players due to
their low AG & lack of Dodge --- once again, you guessed it, Big Guys & ST4
players......

sangraal

Zombie - Dec 01, 2003 - 08:25 PM
Post subject:

So what's your point? You should hypnotize big guys because they can't dodge away from you? I fail to see your point.

fnord23 - Dec 01, 2003 - 08:47 PM
Post subject:

Hypnotise BGs & ST4 guys so that your ball carrier does not have to make
3 or 4 Dodge rolls (with negative modifiers) to get through the line --- instead that Ag 3 Thrall with the ball just runs right by them.

Cant see much use for HG apart from this, can you?

sangraal

Tutenkharnage - Dec 02, 2003 - 06:22 AM
Post subject:

HG is also good for eliminating TZs. In the middle of a scrum, this can be more useful than simply blocking an opposing player, because without a knockdown the opposing player still cancels assists in a wide area. And it's still your best weapon against any player with Side Step or Stand Firm.

-Chet

noodle1978uk - Dec 02, 2003 - 08:56 AM
Post subject:

The last statement is true. However the primary use of hypnotic gaze has always been:

Declare blitz.
Run to cage.
Attempt hypnotic gaze on cage member
IF fails then hit player
ELSE hit ball carrier...

Which is why its less useful now.

Mordredd - Dec 02, 2003 - 09:56 AM
Post subject:

And the secondary use was to avoid making a dodge roll when leaving a tackle zone (especially that of a tackle player). Either to enter multiple tackle zones (like in the cage), or just to reduce the chances of a turnover.

So now we are left with the third use, making holes for other players to exploit.

Zombie - Dec 02, 2003 - 10:44 AM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

So now we are left with the third use, making holes for other players to exploit.

And even for that you usually had to move first.

coachblacknife - Dec 03, 2003 - 04:17 AM
Post subject:

jmccubbin wrote:

IMO. Pro gives a %50 chance re-roll for all rolls, so effectivly it's a Dodge, Catch, sure Hands, Pass skill rolled into one.

It doesn't act as Block, Dodge, or Sure Hands when you're being blocked.

noodle1978uk - Dec 03, 2003 - 07:54 AM
Post subject:

Pro as a trait will never be used if a player rolls a double.

Might as well delete the entry....

Mestari - Dec 03, 2003 - 11:42 AM
Post subject:

Might be the case... or at least it will become one of the last skills taken, most likely. Apart from Big Guys of course, who might be willing to take that on doubles.