| Author |
Message |
Indigo |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 08:09 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Apologies if it's been discussed before, but:
1) What happens if there is nothing in range of the Vampire - where does the ball scatter from? Since the coach MUST make a move action, can they move the Vampire nearer his own players so when the ball scatters from his final square it might bounce near/onto one of his own team? Must the vamp NOT move if he can't reach a thrall?
2) Can a vamp GFI to reach a Thrall?
3) Can a vamp GFI to reach an opposing player? The ball then scatters into the opposing player, is not caught and bounces to a friendly player and it IS caught - is this a turnover? |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 08:55 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Indigo wrote: Apologies if it's been discussed before, but:
1) What happens if there is nothing in range of the Vampire - where does the ball scatter from? Since the coach MUST make a move action, can they move the Vampire nearer his own players so when the ball scatters from his final square it might bounce near/onto one of his own team? Must the vamp NOT move if he can't reach a thrall?
2) Can a vamp GFI to reach a Thrall?
3) Can a vamp GFI to reach an opposing player? The ball then scatters into the opposing player, is not caught and bounces to a friendly player and it IS caught - is this a turnover?
Quote: The player's team loses the declared action for that turn and the player must instead make a Move Action. ... If the player does not finish moving next to a Thrall from his own team, then he runs into Reserves to find a pretty maiden groupie to quench his thirst. Place him in the reserves box, this is a turnover (if he was holding the ball it scatters once from the final square of his movement.)
From above ... its a normal move so yes you can GFI and it scatters from the final square of that normal movement where you are standing and this drop is automatically a turnover as stated above regardless of what happens with the scatter.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 09:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
GalakStarscraper wrote: Forgive the attitude, but I've grown to the opinion that playtesting and thoughts by the online masses doesn't matter for jack recently so it affects my thoughts on topics like this one.
How coincidental! I was just thinking that certain good minds in the on-line community have become a bit locked into a particular way of seeing a certain problem (e.g., OFAB), and that opinions expressed contrary to that particular way of seeing that problem (both backed and unbacked by playtesting efforts) don't matter for jack recently.
Consequently, this has certainly affected my thoughts on topics like this one, although I'm trying harder of late to let it slide. It's that self-awareness that helps me take a step back and consider the issue a bit clearer than I might if I let myself get a bit hard-headed instead.
Food for thought! Today's leading item: mint candies 
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 11:35 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
With the new rules review ... expect to see OFAB change. With Pro as a trait, the skill as its stands will probably need to be simplified.
Chet eariler in this thread suggested something like:
On 1, Vampire loses his action for the turn. In addition, if not standing adjacent to a Thrall (prone, stunned, or standing) Vampire runs off pitch causing turnover.
No more INJ roll to the Thrall. This would make the team play similar to my Snotling team in the MBBL2 or the Ogre #2 roster in the MBBL where the Snotlings have to get next to the Trolls or the Goblins to the Ogre Blockers to make sure that everyone works right for the turn when the Big Guys start to move.
I'd be willing to test Chet's recommended change in light of the change to Pro. And I'm not that hard-headed ... really.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AnthonyTBBF |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 12:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Toronto, ON
Posts: 1313
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 01:03 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
OFAB got a lot of attention during the Rules Review. We played around with many options, ultimately deciding to table it until the Playtesters Vault goes live (which will be a few weeks from now). Most of the permutations suggested here and elsewhere have been used to suggest a few alternatives to the current version. (I myself am allergic to causing turnovers on failed negative trait rolls and to injuring your own players on those rolls; I'm not at all allergic to an on-pitch variant that keeps Vampires near Thralls for feeding, however.)
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 01:48 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: (I myself am allergic to causing turnovers on failed negative trait rolls and to injuring your own players on those rolls; I'm not at all allergic to an on-pitch variant that keeps Vampires near Thralls for feeding, however.)
-Chet
With that in mind ... you could go with this instead:
On 1, Vampire loses his action for the turn. In addition, if not standing adjacent to a Thrall (prone, stunned, or standing) Vampire becomes Stunned from the lack of blood (this does not cause a turnover even if the Vampire was holding the ball).
I could live with testing that.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 03:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. I'd probably add that the Thrall goes stunned if he's standing next to the Vampire, too. So on a roll of 1, you lose the action AND someone goes stunned.
Make that a standing Thrall and I think you've got a really good basis for a test rule. (Standing because, again, you should get penalized for failing the roll, so stunning an already-stunned thrall should be out.)
Slightly easier version: If the Thrall is standing, he immediately falls prone. If no standing Thrall is adjacent, the Vampire is prone.
So that's a pretty good on-pitch version, IMO. A good starting point, at any rate. Continually passing out from lack of blood might seem a bit silly, but no more so than continually running of the field to be absolutely useless, IMO.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 04:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Sigh, now I have to find 3 teams for the new MBBL. I enjoyed injuring my thralls! (And Pro a trait??)  |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 25, 2003 - 04:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| I would like this new version a lot. It's simple and effective. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
OrtharRrith |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 10, 2003 - 02:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 27, 2003
Posts: 2
Status: Offline
|
|
| As a Vamp player I too like this idea. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Apedog |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 15, 2003 - 05:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
My gut feeling is that I prefer the old version. I quite liked the injuring the Thralls idea and it made the Vamps the proper stars of the team.
The new version seems like the Thralls will be doing most of the work and supporting the vampires who will be doing the bashing on the line, because the Vamps will move last.
I realise they are still experimental though and could live with playtesting the new rules. I might even like them once i change tectics a bit |
_________________
Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 15, 2003 - 07:09 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| Good point. I don't think we want a team where the thralls are more important than the vampires. I retract my earlier comment. This might not be such a good idea after all. In terms of balance, it seems fine. In terms of fluff though, it's not as good as the old one. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 15, 2003 - 07:33 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: . In terms of balance, it seems fine. In terms of fluff though, it's not as good as the old one.
I long since gave up trying to win fluff battles on the Undead Zombie. As long as the rule works at this point I'll be happy.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 15, 2003 - 09:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Fluff isn't always the best guide. Crippling the team by making constant injury rolls against the Thralls is just poor mechanics, no matter how fluff-worthy it is. I don't see that much changes here: either the Vamp is alone and goes prone, or a Thrall is adjacent and goes prone (or stunned). Seems "fluffy" enough for me.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
