NAF World Headquarters
Rules Questions - Vampire Lord?
Rune_Master - May 27, 2006 - 05:41 AM
Post subject: Vampire Lord?
I was looking for tactics online for vampire teams, and I noticed a number of them (due to their age) made mention of using a Vampire "Lord". Even on the GW online store, the box set says it contains a Lord.
I assume the Lord player was removed for LRB 4, and I didn't see a mention of it on the LRB 5 linked at the Specialist Games forum. Can anyone explain why this player option was removed from that team list?
Darkson - May 27, 2006 - 02:43 PM
Post subject:
Because it was felt (and I agree) that a Vamp player without a negatrait was to powerful.
KarlLagerbottom - May 27, 2006 - 07:21 PM
Post subject:
Yep...I guess Wardancers starting as Blodgers with leap are really loads worse than a Vampire with no neg-trait. Especially considering that the majority of the team has no skills.
Having one player on the team that you can count on is more of a hiderance to the vamp player in terms of team development...but i don't agree that it makes the team a powerhouse.
-Rob
GalakStarscraper - May 28, 2006 - 08:24 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Having one player on the team that you can count on is more of a hiderance to the vamp player in terms of team development...but i don't agree that it makes the team a powerhouse.
-Rob
Last Vampire team I played with a Vampire Lord ... the Lord scored 51 TD BY HIMSELF (not counting the other TDs of the team) in 13 games.
Yup ... no problems there ... rrriiiiggghhhtttt
Galak
Rune_Master - May 29, 2006 - 06:28 AM
Post subject:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Last Vampire team I played with a Vampire Lord ... the Lord scored 51 TD BY HIMSELF (not counting the other TDs of the team) in 13 games.
Yup ... no problems there ... rrriiiiggghhhtttt
I don't know, doesn't sound like you were having any problems!
Anyway, I can understand if the Lord character was too unbalanced, but rather than eliminate, why wasn't he balanced? And didn't the Lord come with OFAB? Isn't that a neg-trait?
Just seems to me that, fluff-wise, having a Lord on the field for a Vampire team seems "right".
my two cents...
Clan_Skaven - May 29, 2006 - 08:50 AM
Post subject:
As far as I can remember the Vamp Lord was
6 movement, 5 strength, 4 agility, & 8 armour, not sure what his skills were, but he did not suffer from off for a bite like the other vamps did.
to me 5 strength, 4 agility player blows away a Wardancer (not even in the same book)
Rod
Rottweilerrme - May 29, 2006 - 02:33 PM
Post subject:
The Vampire Lord was a 0-1 at 180k Move 6, Strength 5, Agility 4, Armour 9.
Block, Dodge, Hypnotic Gaze and Regenerate. Page 12 2003 Annual. The negative object they thought of was I guess he could not get any more skills only stat incresess I guess.
Spazzfist - May 29, 2006 - 05:44 PM
Post subject:
I seem to recall there being something about the Vampire Lord being a freebooter, and that you would pay for him for the one game only. Was not playing vamps at the time, so the rules are fuzzy. Was that a rule?
If so, it was certainly a lot of cash to fork out for a one game player with a giant bullseye!
Doubleskulls - May 29, 2006 - 08:23 PM
Post subject:
One of the earliest versions of the current vampire team had him as permanent rostered player. Massively unbalanced as Galak pointed out.
@Rune_Master - according to BB background vampires are bad at BB so the current line up (where they are a real challenge) fits that better than a competitive team.
Rune_Master - May 30, 2006 - 08:58 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
@Rune_Master - according to BB background vampires are bad at BB so the current line up (where they are a real challenge) fits that better than a competitive team.
I'll can't argue that they are a challenge to play. Just thought it made more sense to balance the Lord character so he is only slighty better than a standard vamp, still at 0-1, just for the sake of having a central character to lead the team.
I'll probably be corrected on this, but in a WFB VC army, isn't the core of the army filled with zombies/skellies (cannon fodder like the thralls), backed up by the true power of the army, the vampires, often lead by a lord?
Eh, whatever....I'm going to build a team anyway, and I may not coach them well, but I'm up for the challenge! Somebodies got to be #2 in the U.S.!!!! 
Clan_Skaven - May 30, 2006 - 09:03 AM
Post subject:
Rune_Master wrote:
Doubleskulls wrote:
@Rune_Master - according to BB background vampires are bad at BB so the current line up (where they are a real challenge) fits that better than a competitive team.
I'll can't argue that they are a challenge to play. Just thought it made more sense to balance the Lord character so he is only slighty better than a standard vamp, still at 0-1, just for the sake of having a central character to lead the team.
I'll probably be corrected on this, but in a WFB VC army, isn't the core of the army filled with zombies/skellies (cannon fodder like the thralls), backed up by the true power of the army, the vampires, often lead by a lord?
Eh, whatever....I'm going to build a team anyway, and I may not coach them well, but I'm up for the challenge! Somebodies got to be #2 in the U.S.!!!!
As stated many times in the past , The BloodBowl Universe & WHFB Universe are two completely diferent Universes & timelines. So what Vamps are in one has no bearing on the other.
Rod.
Rune_Master - May 30, 2006 - 10:01 AM
Post subject:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
As stated many times in the past , The BloodBowl Universe & WHFB Universe are two completely diferent Universes & timelines. So what Vamps are in one has no bearing on the other.
Rod.
I don't know about "completely different", there are similarities. But that's fine, with good reason I wasn't asked to write the rules, so I'll just play the game.
Doubleskulls - May 30, 2006 - 07:44 PM
Post subject:
The similarities are delibertely being reduced. JJ wants to move away from WFB and back to the cyber-fantasy theme of 2nd ed.
KarlLagerbottom - May 30, 2006 - 08:19 PM
Post subject:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Last Vampire team I played with a Vampire Lord ... the Lord scored 51 TD BY HIMSELF (not counting the other TDs of the team) in 13 games.
Yup ... no problems there ... rrriiiiggghhhtttt
Galak
Big difference? ON Pitch OFAB...where you are killing your own players...what was the worst thing that could happen before...2 vamps miss the drive. Now 5 vampires could be gunning aftyer your own players each drive...then they are targets on offense and on defense.
EDIT: Sure the Lord was a SPP Hog...but as I said earlier that will severly hamper the team's development.
P.S. My Vamp Lord also managed to get a Magic Helmet. He was unstoppable, but was still only one player.
KarlLagerbottom - May 30, 2006 - 08:24 PM
Post subject:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
As stated many times in the past , The BloodBowl Universe & WHFB Universe are two completely diferent Universes & timelines. So what Vamps are in one has no bearing on the other.
Rod.
SO DECREES THE SPIKE? 2006 CHAMPION!!!
SO SHALL IT BE SAID...SO SHALL IT BE DONE!!!
Got it Rune_Master?
KarlLagerbottom - May 30, 2006 - 08:28 PM
Post subject:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
As far as I can remember the Vamp Lord was
6 movement, 5 strength, 4 agility, & 8 armour, not sure what his skills were, but he did not suffer from off for a bite like the other vamps did.
to me 5 strength, 4 agility player blows away a Wardancer (not even in the same book)
Rod
Well lets just put it this way...the WEs can have 2 WarDancers that can skill-up and become effectively better than the 50% more expensive single player who is "capped". Let's not forget that mith MA 8 they can cover alot more ground than the Vamp...play solid positional defense and you can minimize his production. Stop him entirely, no...marganilize him yes....then what to the rest of the bleeding thralls do?
Clan_Skaven - May 30, 2006 - 09:36 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
As far as I can remember the Vamp Lord was
6 movement, 5 strength, 4 agility, & 8 armour, not sure what his skills were, but he did not suffer from off for a bite like the other vamps did.
to me 5 strength, 4 agility player blows away a Wardancer (not even in the same book)
Rod
Well lets just put it this way...the WEs can have 2 WarDancers that can skill-up and become effectively better than the 50% more expensive single player who is "capped". Let's not forget that mith MA 8 they can cover alot more ground than the Vamp...play solid positional defense and you can minimize his production. Stop him entirely, no...marganilize him yes....then what to the rest of the bleeding thralls do?
Man your starting to sound like an opponent I had at a tourney who whined by saying that Gutter Runners are wrong because they should only be 8 MA from 2nd. Eddition convertated to 3rd eddittion.... C'mon Rob don't put yerself in his class yer better than that.
Wooden Spoons or not or above that man!
Rod.
Darkson - May 31, 2006 - 04:39 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
As far as I can remember the Vamp Lord was
6 movement, 5 strength, 4 agility, & 8 armour, not sure what his skills were, but he did not suffer from off for a bite like the other vamps did.
to me 5 strength, 4 agility player blows away a Wardancer (not even in the same book)
Rod
Well lets just put it this way...the WEs can have 2 WarDancers that can skill-up and become effectively better than the 50% more expensive single player who is "capped". Let's not forget that mith MA 8 they can cover alot more ground than the Vamp...play solid positional defense and you can minimize his production. Stop him entirely, no...marganilize him yes....then what to the rest of the bleeding thralls do?
But the original Lord wasn't capped, he could happily earn SPP like any other player.
KarlLagerbottom - May 31, 2006 - 06:59 PM
Post subject:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
Man your starting to sound like an opponent I had at a tourney who whined by saying that Gutter Runners are wrong because they should only be 8 MA from 2nd. Eddition convertated to 3rd eddittion.... C'mon Rob don't put yerself in his class yer better than that.
Wooden Spoons or not or above that man!
Rod.
Rod-
You should stick with the "Late Night Drunken Poster" style...it really suits you better than the "Pompus, I think I know something because I won the Special Olympics of Blood Bowl Tournies" style. The latter doesn't really suit you. 
To use your example, Gutter Runners are sweet...there are four of them...and the Skaven are competitive with them. Imagine the team without them and you would likely have a team as nerfed as the Vamp team. Imagine then complaining about the removal of the Gutter Runners from the Skaven roster and having someone respond with something like..."Oh come on man...they're rats...should they really be a competitive team? Just have fun with the Wacky RatOgre. Grrr....shouldn't that be enough? Just play with Orcs if you really just want to win. Oh, and buy the way...we are increasing the prices of the Blitzers and Black Orcs to 500,000 GC because this game is about the linemen."
The Vampire Lord was this teams one reliable player and was a target. Given the fact that they have changed the way that OFAB works, that is enough of a nerf to that team...but I'm sure somone will reference some scribbling of fluff in some obscure Citadel Journal that explains why a given team SHOULD lose more often than other...anywayit's just my opinion.
-Rob
KarlLagerbottom - May 31, 2006 - 07:00 PM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
But the original Lord wasn't capped, he could happily earn SPP like any other player.
You're right...but didn't they grow at the slower "big guy" rate?
Clan_Skaven - May 31, 2006 - 07:51 PM
Post subject:
Rob I'm not being pompos, but honestly man the Vamp Lord was broken!
Comeone how can you compare 2 Wardancers to one Vamp Lord?
IMO Wardancers are not the tuff to deal with (with the help of Tackle that is), & everyone knows once they are on the ground that the Wardancer becomes huge FOULbate!
Wardancers still only have an AV of 7 & very expencive to replace.... (I love fouling the Wardancer they are right up there with Mummies , Bull Centaurs , & any Big Guy)
Wardancers are by far one of the best if not the best rookie player, but with only 7 AV & a huge cost they are not broken
The Vamp Lord on the other hand 5 strength, 4 agi with no negative traights is not broken? (WHAT???)
& the rest of the team had OFB sure , but still 4 strength 4 agility so much made up for it!.
IMO opinion Wardancer is not even close to the Vamp Lord, but thats just my opinion...
(I'm not drunk )
Rod.
KarlLagerbottom - May 31, 2006 - 08:05 PM
Post subject:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
Rob I'm not being pompos, but honestly man the Vamp Lord was broken!
Comeone how can you compare 2 Wardancers to one Vamp Lord?
IMO Wardancers are not the tuff to deal with (with the help of Tackle that is), & everyone knows once they are on the ground that the Wardancer becomes huge FOULbate!
Wardancers still only have an AV of 7 & very expencive to replace.... (I love fouling the Wardancer they are right up there with Mummies , Bull Centaurs , & any Big Guy)
Wardancers are by far one of the best if not the best rookie player, but with only 7 AV & a huge cost they are not broken
The Vamp Lord on the other hand 5 strength, 4 agi with no negative traights is not broken? (
WHAT???)
& the rest of the team had OFB sure , but still 4 strength 4 agility so much made up for it!.
IMO opinion Wardancer is not even close to the Vamp Lord, but thats just my opinion...
(I'm not drunk
)
Rod.
That was better, tone-wise, but I am saying that each positional should be compared in the context of the team...not just one-to-one. Comparing The Vamp Lord directly to a Wardancer? Sure the VL blows him away...but in the context of what each means to the team and the value on the team they are close. The Vamps have multiple players on their team that can ravage their own team...and the rest are just fodder. Given that the large majority of opponent blocks are going to be against the Thralls...that AV 7 is not built to last.
The Woodies have the speed and agility to play keep away if/when they need to and still have the ability to score when they are down players. The vamps have none of that.
In terms of fouling a WD...the same can be said for the Vampire Lord...the extra 2 AV are not as big a deal as you think...you will need those assists to get him down in the first place so they will be in place for the follow-up foul. And he will get fouled evey time he is on the turf...and is alot more expensive to replace.
Finally, as Rune_Master asked earlier...if he was found to be unbalanced...why not tweak him to make him work...instead of eliminating him altogether? Even if he acted in the same way as a Big Guy and provided a detterent/distraction from pulping the thralls...he would be worth the cost.
Rod...this all comes down to maintaining them as a fluff team. Therefore any conversation we have in terms of what would or might work is moot since it'll fall on deaf ears.
P.S. Why aren't Treemen broken? Given that they are the strongest rookies in the game with a neg-trate that keeps them on the pitch and available to perform what is arguably their primary role. (In the offense) Its because the Flings are otherwise defenseless...the context of the team is what keeps the fact that you can have two of these guys from being broken.
Rune_Master - Jun 01, 2006 - 10:12 AM
Post subject:
Saying the Vamp Lord was too powerful as it previously existed is fine, can't really argue that one. But does removing him as an option leave the Vamp team as a viable team? I'm thinking no, as it seems everyone believes they are far too hard to win with. Esp. in tournaments as evident by the whopping 2 coaches (US/Canada) with a ranking using Vamps. I just believe that having a tweaked Lord makes them a more viable team.
two cents...
(ok, ok, so I'm up to four cents now... 
)
Darkson - Jun 01, 2006 - 11:27 AM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Darkson wrote:
But the original Lord wasn't capped, he could happily earn SPP like any other player.
You're right...but didn't they grow at the slower "big guy" rate?
There was no "slower big guy rate" when the Vampire Lord was on the Vampire team (2003 or there abouts).
Darkson - Jun 01, 2006 - 11:39 AM
Post subject:
Rune_Master wrote:
Saying the Vamp Lord was too powerful as it previously existed is fine, can't really argue that one. But does removing him as an option leave the Vamp team as a viable team? I'm thinking no, as it seems everyone believes they are far too hard to win with. Esp. in tournaments as evident by the whopping 2 coaches (US/Canada) with a ranking using Vamps. I just believe that having a tweaked Lord makes them a more viable team.
Now you're treading on dangerous ground.
The Vampire team works fine for the enviorment it was designed for, Leagues. The team is meant to suck (sorry, pun intended), and to be as bad as the Halflings and Goblins, and before the removal of the Vampire Lord, it failed to do that. Remove the Lord, and it's right where it's meant to be, at the bottom. The only way a Lord character should be allowed back on the Vamp team was if it had a WORSE negatrait than te normal Vamps, in the same way a BG has a worse than his teammates (as in he has one).
Now, this does mean that unfortunately, Vampires aren't really a viable tournament team, certainly not for a player with any hope of winning whatever tourney they go to (the same could be leveled at Chaos). The only option then would be to make a set of rosters (and rules) that are specifically aimed at tournaments only. But that's missing the point. Why do people turn up at tornaments with Goblins and Halflings? They (normally) realise they've little chance of winning any awards, other than the wooden spoon, and yet they still show up.
Perhaps people need to stop focussing on winning so much, and just go for the social atmosphere. Personally, if I can ever get the bug to do some painting, I'm going to take a goblin team as a years tourney team. I'm at best an average coach, so to hell with those whisperings in my ear that I might just win it, let's go for a laugh.
Bottom line, if you want to play a competative team, don't take Vampires. If you want to take a Vampire team, don't complain because it's not competative.
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 01, 2006 - 01:06 PM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Darkson wrote:
But the original Lord wasn't capped, he could happily earn SPP like any other player.
You're right...but didn't they grow at the slower "big guy" rate?
There was no "slower big guy rate" when the Vampire Lord was on the Vampire team (2003 or there abouts).
I think you're wrong about this...I'll have to pull my cr@p out tonight to confirm for myself.
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 01, 2006 - 01:25 PM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
Bottom line, if you want to play a competative team, don't take Vampires. If you want to take a Vampire team, don't complain because it's not competative.
Sorry but I just don't get this...the INSISTANCE that fluff has to make one team intrinsically better than another. Why not make all teams balanced and let the fluff define the strengths and weaknesses of each team and determine what they have available to them? To me this would be a better approach then purposely breaking teams as a patch for game design problems.
And for whatever it's worth...I suck, so this my point is not coming from a place where I MUST win...it's just the principle of the thing. I'll play the game regardless 'cause the concept is fun...but the idea (Jervis's or whoever) to design only 5-6 teams as "competitive" and the rest as "jokes" is silly.
Darkson - Jun 01, 2006 - 01:33 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
but the idea (Jervis's or whoever) to design only 5-6 teams as "competitive" and the rest as "jokes" is silly.
Well, it's actually 3 or 4 as "jokes" and the rest competative.
I've no problem with that.
Darkson - Jun 01, 2006 - 01:36 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Darkson wrote:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Darkson wrote:
But the original Lord wasn't capped, he could happily earn SPP like any other player.
You're right...but didn't they grow at the slower "big guy" rate?
There was no "slower big guy rate" when the Vampire Lord was on the Vampire team (2003 or there abouts).
I think you're wrong about this...I'll have to pull my cr@p out tonight to confirm for myself.
BB Annual 2003 p.12, so that's about LRB 2 or 3.
By this time (in fact, LRB 1) there was no difference to the rate that BGs earnt SPP compared to normal players.
Spazzfist - Jun 01, 2006 - 01:48 PM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
but the idea (Jervis's or whoever) to design only 5-6 teams as "competitive" and the rest as "jokes" is silly.
Well, it's actually 3 or 4 as "jokes" and the rest competative.
I've no problem with that.
Actually I kindof like this in a way as it can allow you to give yourself a "handicap". This mightbe because you want the extra challenge, or maybe you are playing against someone who is learning the rules and while you don't want to throw the game in their favour, you do want them to have a fighting chance.
But if you look at it from a fluff standpoint or whatever, what reason should the halflings have to be anywhere near as competitive as the other teams? Or goblins for that matter?
Sure, vampires could be a more competitive team, but they're not. It just makes the victories more sweet when you do win with them! 
(Not to mention the fact that it is easier to be #1 in your country when there are only a couple of coaches - if any - who play the sucky teams! Just ask the #1 Nurgle's Rotters coach in Canada!) 
Spazz
Rune_Master - Jun 01, 2006 - 02:02 PM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
Now you're treading on dangerous ground.
Why would you say that? I'm just posed a question and tried to back it with my opinion, albeit a newbie's opinion. Did I offend?
Quote:
Perhaps people need to stop focussing on winning so much, and just go for the social atmosphere.
Obviously, you haven't seen my tournament record. I'm quickly gaining on Rob in spoons! Not to mention that I played my first, and only, tournaments with Amazons. Not exactly a team for a newbie. But still a fun team.
Quote:
Bottom line, if you want to play a competative team, don't take Vampires. If you want to take a Vampire team, don't complain because it's not competative.
With that, my new mission is to find a way to make them competitive. Nuffle knows how, especially for me, but I won't fail due to lack of effort! 
Clan_Skaven - Jun 01, 2006 - 02:12 PM
Post subject:
Rune_Master wrote:
With that, my new mission is to find a way to make them competitive. Nuffle knows how, especially for me, but I won't fail due to lack of effort!
Your sounding like a buddy of mine from a league a few seasons back, ....
"I don't care what the fluff is, I'm going to prove the system wrong & play Orcs as a passing team. I'm gonna show you that Orcs can pass just as well as any other team!" ---that was a quote (or close to it of a newbie BBowler) He did try it & he failed miseribly.
But take your Vamps & may the drink from the BloodBowl itself, instead of just sucking from the wooden spoon!
Rod.
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 01, 2006 - 03:24 PM
Post subject:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
"I don't care what the fluff is, I'm going to prove the system wrong & play Orcs as a passing team. I'm gonna show you that Orcs can pass just as well as any other team!" ---that was a quote (or close to it of a newbie BBowler) He did try it & he failed miseribly.
Rod.
Orcs have AG3 Throwers and AG3 Blitzers...that makes for an average passing game. Elves they are not...and the Gutter Runner makes The Skaven better because of AG4...other than that Orcs are just as good as anyone else at passing and dodging. To say that they can't is fluff...not math.
Clan_Skaven - Jun 01, 2006 - 03:28 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
"I don't care what the fluff is, I'm going to prove the system wrong & play Orcs as a passing team. I'm gonna show you that Orcs can pass just as well as any other team!" ---that was a quote (or close to it of a newbie BBowler) He did try it & he failed miseribly.
Rod.
Orcs have AG3 Throwers and AG3 Blitzers...that makes for an average passing game. Elves they are not...and the Gutter Runner makes The Skaven better because of AG4...other than that Orcs are just as good as anyone else at passing and dodging. To say that they can't is fluff...not math.
Ya but when your fastest guys are 6 MA & theres only 4 of them (unless u have gobbo's) & none of them have accesss to AGI skills (other than again Gobbos) so I disagree Orcs are not as good at passing as Humans.
Rod.
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 01, 2006 - 03:30 PM
Post subject:
Its give and take dude...sure the human catchers are fast...but they are str 2.
It's a different type of passing team, but they can pass effectively if they need to.
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 01, 2006 - 04:00 PM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Darkson wrote:
But the original Lord wasn't capped, he could happily earn SPP like any other player.
You're right...but didn't they grow at the slower "big guy" rate?
There was no "slower big guy rate" when the Vampire Lord was on the Vampire team (2003 or there abouts).
The first Citadel Journel Blood Bowl Compendium detailed the Vampire Team. This was the also the spot where they discussed the Big Guy's earning points at half the normal rate. This vampire team did include the Vampire Lord, and included the following special rule. (On page 40)
Other Special Rules: Although Vampires and Vampire Lords are not Big Guys as such, they still earn star player points at half the nromal rate (the Undead are such slow learners!), and they can use their doubles to get rid of their negative "Off For a Bite" skill. Vampires and Vampire Lords may take skills from the General, Agility, and Strength categories. Human thralls are treated as human Lineman for the purposes of gaining skills, etc.
Doubleskulls - Jun 01, 2006 - 05:30 PM
Post subject:
I think Darkson is referring to the LRB team laid out in one of the early(?) BB Mags
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 01, 2006 - 06:09 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
I think Darkson is referring to the LRB team laid out in one of the early(?) BB Mags
Darkson was "correcting" my statement...so I am simply showing him that I remembered correctly.
EDIT:
See???
Darkson wrote:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Darkson wrote:
But the original Lord wasn't capped, he could happily earn SPP like any other player.
You're right...but didn't they grow at the slower "big guy" rate?
There was no "slower big guy rate" when the Vampire Lord was on the Vampire team (2003 or there abouts).
Doubleskulls - Jun 01, 2006 - 08:56 PM
Post subject:
Yeah, but you are discussing two different Vampire teams. Yours a 3rd Citadel Journal one, his the "original" LRB version.
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 01, 2006 - 09:38 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Yeah, but you are discussing two different Vampire teams. Yours a 3rd Citadel Journal one, his the "original" LRB version.
Yes, but given that he was controverting my comment...the context of the conversation was the team that I was talking about.
He stated that when the Vampire Lord was on the team, there was no different SPP scale for Big Guys. I am now merely saying that he was incorrect and providing a reference that reinforces that.
Now that that is cleared up, perhaps you should let him respond.
Darkson - Jun 02, 2006 - 03:53 AM
Post subject:
And the one you're commenting on was a house-rule from the 3rd edition era, whereas the one that I'm using (and the original poster) was the experimental one for the LRB era - 2 different teams.
If we're using teams from different eras, it could be argued that Orcs are as effective a passing team as humans because they had the same stat line under 2nd edition.
Darkson - Jun 02, 2006 - 03:57 AM
Post subject:
Rune_Master wrote:
Darkson wrote:
Now you're treading on dangerous ground.
Why would you say that? I'm just posed a question and tried to back it with my opinion, albeit a newbie's opinion. Did I offend?
No offence - I'm guessing you missed all the big discussions about the PBBL rules, and wheter or not we should have a 2nd set of rules published just for tournaments (which I can't remember if it was here or one of the other BB forums).
Basically, some people argued that BB tournaments would be better if certain rosters, which are underpowered in tourney settings (Vampire, Chaos, Rotters, etc) were either given a boost, or had different roster makeups for league and tournaments. Others argued that if a Tourney Organizer thinks that, say Vampires, should be in the top tier, then it's their right to change the rules for their tournament in any way they seem fit.
Hope that clears it up.
Rune_Master - Jun 02, 2006 - 06:50 AM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
No offence - I'm guessing you missed all the big discussions about the PBBL rules, and wheter or not we should have a 2nd set of rules published just for tournaments (which I can't remember if it was here or one of the other BB forums).
You would be correct in that assumption. Just wanted to clarify with you, weren't sure where you were coming from. No biggie.
Unfortunately, this thread has degraded a little from it's original intention.
My original question was asking why the Vampire Lord was removed from the Vampire team roster. If it was determined to be too unbalanced within the structure of the game at that time, why wasn't it balanced as opposed to being removed? I agree that the character was probably too strong, so there is no need to continue that debate. I just wanted to know why it was removed as opposed to being fixed. 
Darkson - Jun 02, 2006 - 11:17 AM
Post subject:
Because to be fixed it would have needed to be given a negatrait (Bloodlust), lost all it's skills, and reduced to ST4.
Oops! We've got a Vamp!
Rune_Master - Jun 02, 2006 - 11:55 AM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
Because to be fixed it would have needed to be given a negatrait (Bloodlust), lost all it's skills, and reduced to ST4.
Oops! We've got a Vamp!
I'll buy that, how about if the Lord was identical to a vamp, but without OFAB? Basically, because as a Lord, he is able to control that negative aspect of his being?
VAMP - 6/4/4/8 - Regen, OFAB, HG, Undead - 110K
LORD - 6/4/4/8 - Regen, HG, Undead - >110K?
How much would not having OFAB be worth?
Darkson - Jun 02, 2006 - 04:41 PM
Post subject:
A lot. A ST4/AG4 player with access to G/S/A and no negatrait is worth a hell of a lot.
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 02, 2006 - 06:17 PM
Post subject:
The rest of the team is shite.
EDIT: I'm sure that you already know that, but I am just as sure you will keep marching out the same argument over and again so I'm calling it quits.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Darkson - Jun 03, 2006 - 04:31 AM
Post subject:
Well, seeing as one of the rules for BB team design was no ST4 players on the same team as AG4 players, the only way for ST4/AG4 Vamps to exist was to give them:
a) a nasty negatrait, and
b) a team that wasn't upto much.
Ignoring those restrictions to add in a player that has no negatrait, and is totally realiable is asking for trouble.
Rune_Master - Jun 03, 2006 - 05:45 AM
Post subject:
well, either way, the people than can make the changes...won't, so this thread is moot anyway.
Darkson - I finally got the answer I was looking for regarding the 4/4 and negatraits. Question...answered. Though I would still like to see a Lord character of some form, if for no other reason than fluff (as I see it).
Darkson - Jun 03, 2006 - 06:34 AM
Post subject:
Well, there is a Lord for fluff, Count Luthor counts as a Lord when 'booted by a Vamp team (only why a Star can play for 2 sides at the same time).
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 03, 2006 - 10:22 AM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
Well, seeing as one of the rules for BB team design was no ST4 players on the same team as AG4 players, the only way for ST4/AG4 Vamps to exist was to give them:
a) a nasty negatrait, and
b) a team that wasn't upto much.
Ignoring those restrictions to add in a player that has no negatrait, and is totally realiable is asking for trouble.
I'm guessing the Snow Troll or Dark Elf Runner might be close to breaking some guidelines set for the BB Design Team...and I'm not referring to their statlines.
Darkson - Jun 03, 2006 - 10:53 AM
Post subject:
Dunno, haven't checked them, that was just the reason given when my MBBL Vamp Lord had to be converted to a regular Vamp (I agreed with it, but didn't mean I liked it).
KarlLagerbottom - Jun 03, 2006 - 11:04 AM
Post subject:
My point is that some directives were followed while others, written or otherwise, were apparently ignored.
I don't accept the reasoning, but the fact is they don't care what I as an individual thinks so...its pointless to argue.
That said...I still don't see that a single 4/4 player on a otherwise crap team is that big a deal. (If you wanted to bump down the STR to correct what was seen as a broken player.)
Back to the Wardancer analogy...there is not that much difference, in my mind, between a 4/4 rookie and a 3/4 Block/Dodge/Leap rookie. Sure the Extra STR is nice, but a game breaker? I don't think so...especially when every other player on the team is a liability.
Fine...fine...fine...The Woodelfs are supposed to excel Fluff-wise and the Vamps are supposed to be a weak team...I get it. Must be nice having that token answer to apply to each question of teams that are broken.
EDIT: The Vamp Lord would also include Regenerate and Hypnotic Gaze...both are nice, but are not nearly the impact of starting as a Blodger.
Grumbledook - Aug 07, 2006 - 02:42 PM
Post subject:
Vamps are competative without a Lord.
I don't think its a case of vamps being really poor and a joke team, its more a case of them testing their coaches ability
Doubleskulls - Aug 07, 2006 - 08:41 PM
Post subject:
I dunno Grum - they look pretty shocking to me for tournament play - http://www.irwilliams.com/naf/total_for_all_competitions.html#Vampires - 2nd worst team overall just a 100th ahead of flings
GalakStarscraper - Aug 08, 2006 - 06:45 AM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
I'm guessing the Snow Troll or Dark Elf Runner might be close to breaking some guidelines set for the BB Design Team...and I'm not referring to their statlines.
You would be guessing wrong. The Runner was changed to better match the running game fluff of the team and the Snow Troll was actually the original Big Guy for the team when the first 3rd edition rules for the Norse team were published.
If a Vampire team has a Lord it creates all sorts of just really bad team design.
1) It creates a player that does almost everything on the team. It make the team uni-dimensional.
2) No team has a 0-1 player that isn't a Big Guy (ie has a negatrait).
3) No team has what is supposed to be the Head Coach as a player.
====
Jervis wanted the Vampire team to be bottom of 2nd tier which most leagues stats that I've seen show the team is there and in fact in league play they can be very competitive. I've seen Vampire teams be serious contenders for top spots in leagues over the last 2 years.
However we agreed that the team could use a small boost and we gave it to the team in the form of a more powerful Hypnotic Gaze.
I was either going to play Vampires or Ogres at the Underworld ... might have to try Vampires just to see if I can come away with a winning record.
Galak