| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 05:30 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
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. |
_________________
Snew
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Losing possession of the ball
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 06:35 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Bevan wrote: 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.
Got it Bevan.... I'm amending the COFAB rules to show that.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 06:37 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 06, 2003 - 10:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 06, 2003 - 10:51 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 06, 2003 - 04:19 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 07, 2003 - 10:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
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. 
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 07, 2003 - 02:23 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 08, 2003 - 04:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Sorry for throwing you with that one. I will try to be a little clearer in future. 
#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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 08, 2003 - 08:36 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: Sorry for throwing you with that one. I will try to be a little clearer in future.
#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.
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 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 08, 2003 - 03:21 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
| That was what I was thinking too, Galak. |
_________________
Snew
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Dave |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 10, 2003 - 04:55 AM
|
|
da Veiz-Prez
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Netherlands
Posts: 895
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
First ever poster on the NAF site, Former Prez' proverbial pain in the bum and NTO-Netherlands
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 10, 2003 - 05:37 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 10, 2003 - 07:15 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: 182
Status: Offline
|
|
| Thanks for the clarifications! |
_________________
The end-zone ???line of death??? does not discriminate when one tempts fate by using a ???go for it??? to pass over it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 18, 2003 - 12:52 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
And I'm losing my lord  |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
