| Author |
Message |
GalakStarscraper |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Dec 15, 2003 - 11:05 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Chet ... I've been thinking about this ... and the Vampires are starting to do well in the MBBL. Makes me think you'll need to go with the more serious version to have the impact you want:
IE
Before taking an action, roll a D6. On a 1, Vampire loses his action for the turn. In addition, if not standing adjacent to a standing Thrall, the Vampire becomes Stunned from the lack of blood. If the Vampire is standing adjacent to a standing Thrall, the Thrall is place Stunned from becoming a quick snack. No turnover is caused by either Vampire or Thrall going stunned even if holding the ball.
Comments:
1) I like the onpitch mechanic and the fact that no running off the pitch is involved ... that is a plus.
2) Going stunned ... "should" be a big enough negative. This team is so good that a greater negative is needed to have it work ... I'm almost positive that going Vampires going prone will not be a big enough negative to offset the ST 4/AG 4 players (especially since they can use rerolls to reroll failures). More importantly AH said that he and JJ wanted this to be a challenging team to play ... I don't think prone results give you that effect.
3) As long as the roll to go from stunned to prone requires negatrait rolling, this rule would mean that it takes a Vampire about 3 turns to stand from being stunned. Because rolling a 1 when stunned or prone would mean becoming stunned again. Again because of the power of the Vamps ... I don't have any issues with this negative extra.
The math ... stand up in 2 turns: 69%, 3 turns: 81%, 4 turns: 93%, 5 turns: 96%
Just my thoughts from looking over Joe's Crimson Jyhad team and Darkson's Darkstars in the MBBL.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 15, 2003 - 04:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Just a quick thought though.
With the nerfing of the Hypno gaze skill, the vamps will already be weaker than they were with the old team list.
Oh well, when we get round to TT BB again, I'll just have to houserule in the old COFAB  |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 16, 2003 - 11:23 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm with Darkson on this one. The change to HG will definitely have an impact. How much impact? I don't know. I'm pretty sure the modified OFAB will show up shortly after the Vault opens; assuming the feedback mechanism is good, we should know relatively quickly whether the new rule needs tweaking (and in which direction).
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Apedog |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 18, 2003 - 05:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: 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
The difference is that before the Vamps could go first and just had to end up near a Thrall, now the Thralls have to move first to end up near a Vamp, 'just in case'
I'm not sure if this is supposed to Strengthen or Weaken the team but if strengthening is the intention now HG is less poweful then could we use the old must take a move action mechanic but make the end result either a Stun on the Vampire or the Thralls.
This would keep the same team dynamic as before but prevent the horrific damage to thralls that was possible under the old rule. |
_________________
Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Boblo_Jellyroll |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 18, 2003 - 07:50 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 02, 2003
Posts: 26
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm not sure if a vampire coach should worry about injury to the thralls. It seems that vampire team strategy would include disposable thralls.
Taking away the vamps' "free move" in the current OFAB is a good idea IMO. And letting the thralls possibly move before the OFAB roll is a good trade off. Is it a big deal if the dinner thralls have to roll for injury? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 18, 2003 - 10:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
It's a big deal for keeping the team playable, I think. And enjoyable. Sure, watching a Vampire kill a Thrall is funny, but I wouldn't find much humor in it if I were the Vampire coach shelling out 40K each time it happened. The team's not so good that it needs that kind of balancing mechanic, in my opinion.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 18, 2003 - 11:01 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Okay when is the Playtest Vault supposed to be up???
I want to get this programmed into the tool and out there to start testing ... same is true for FUMBBL.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 18, 2003 - 12:49 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
It's supposed to go up soon. That's all I have at the moment.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 18, 2003 - 04:49 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: It's a big deal for keeping the team playable, I think. And enjoyable. Sure, watching a Vampire kill a Thrall is funny, but I wouldn't find much humor in it if I were the Vampire coach shelling out 40K each time it happened. The team's not so good that it needs that kind of balancing mechanic, in my opinion.
-Chet
I dunno, what other reason do I have for fielding a ) SPP thrall?  |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
