Piling On

[Zombie]

In reply to Acerak:

Although Chaos Warriors and Mummies would suffer the biggest changes, I don't consider them central to the argument.

I very much disagree. In 3rd ed, 4th ed, BB2k1, you name it, more than 50% of the players who take pilling on have ST4 or more. I definitely wouldn't call them "not central to the argument".

[Balrog]

I have to agree with Zombie here. I preferred the old Piling On, just because I don't like the fact that the player "waits" before Piling On as opposed to just jumping on the guy in the first place. But now that's it has been changed, don't change it again, please.

-Balrog

[Acerak]

John - While both rolls are 2D6, they are clearly different. The AV roll is much like a flag. Armor is either PASSED or FAILED. There are no varying degrees. Adding a plus to this die roll is not much different than adding a plus to any standard D6 roll.

The INJ table is a bell, however. Adding plusses takes you through multiple layers. Adding plusses to it (or allowing re-rolls on it) causes it far too much stress.

I hope you see the difference.

-Chet

[Acerak]

Dave, try this instead and forget about a re-roll entirely:

Piling On: The player may choose to pile on his victim after making the block, but before rolling AV. If you choose to pile on, place your player prone. Because the opposing player is prone and vulnerable, he is stunned even if you fail to break the armor roll.

* Pre-roll decision? Check.
* Chance it won't do anything? Check. (You might beat AV anyway.)
* Still an advantage? Check. (You get up and can move a full turn before your opponent does.)
* Simple? Check.

(Based on those four items, "Chance that someone will agree with it before posting another idea that gets lost in the shuffle" is approximately zero.)

-Chet

[Deathwing]

Actually, I like it!

[Acerak]

Wow. And you got here before anyone else. Kudos!

Would it give you a better way to hurt the opponent? No. Would it give you a great tactical option? Oh, doubtless it would.

-Chet

[Zombie]

Again i must ask, what's the problem with the original 3rd ed rule?

[Dangerous Dave]

Sorry I don't like the Pile On - always stunned option.

Sure you may get a tactical advantage. But the point of Piling On is to get players off the pitch - the downside is you are open to fouls and lose a TZ and can't block (unless you are Norse) next go.

If I had to choose between Piling On options my choice is:-

1 3E version
2 Recent proposal (reroll armour at +2 for normal size)
3 BB2k1
4 Anything else (well not anything!)
5 Always stunned


Dave

[GalakStarscraper]

No offense guys ... but I don't see the problem currently with the decide after skill. Yah it was a serious upgrade to the skill ... but I'm still only see a few players take the skill in my league.

Galak

I know Zombie already wrote that he hates the after roll ... but after playing with the rules for 6 months .... don't see it as a problem.

[Dangerous Dave]

Galak,

My Mummies in MBBL will try and dissuade you from that!


We'll see!


Dave

[Darkson]

Having finished our league I'd say keep it as it is. Only 2 players took this skill, 1 a Norse Blitzer (mine!), the other a Dwarf Longbeard who'd had a ST increase.

My bitzer had terrible dice rolls and at best would KO players. As a group we discussed this rule and decided:-

1) The "wait & see" part, although lacking in logic, was part & parcel of the new rules as most skills use this rule, and if you changed for one you'd have to change for all.

2) If you know about it, you deal with it. My blitzer (along with my Dirty Player lineman) were often picked on in the first drive, whih was fine by me, as I could use the gaps formed by this.

[Trambi]

(...)
Piling On: The player may choose to pile on his victim after making the block, but before rolling AV. If you choose to pile on, place your player prone. Because the opposing player is prone and vulnerable, he is stunned even if you fail to break the armor roll.
-Chet

I prefer this solution but i like the 3rd edition Piling On skill too.

[Acerak]

My big problem with the 3E implementation of this skill is that it frequently wasn't fair to the piler. Then again, he got to add an obscene amount to the die roll, and that wasn't very fair to the opponent, either. Think about it: of all the skills, Piling On is most dependent upon the player's stats. Don't you think that might make it a little unfair in the hands of certain players? Just a little?

The 3E approach to this skill reminds me of the 3E approach to fouling. "We'll just give big plusses and minuses to both sides. They'll even out." In the case of fouling, the "minus" for your team was that your opponent could foul you right back. But it tipped the game sideways. In regard to Piling On, the minus is that you go prone and get stomped, but you go prone all the time. The plus? You get a really high plus to the AV roll.

So now we have 2K1. You get to choose after the die roll, which is nice. It never fails, which is poor. If you got kicked every time you hit the ground, this wouldn't be much problem. Unfortunately, the fouling game is a little whacked because of IGMEOY and DP's +2-to-INJ option. So it's not a real deterrent.

Did anyone try the 4E solution? It was essentially the same as 2K1, only the piler had to make an AV roll for piling on the victim. In a nutshell, this was a high-percentage maneuver that involved some physical risk...which, if you think about it, makes a lot of sense.

Of course, that suggestion would cue the Status Quo Chorus, who would rightly point out that the skill would be worth less to AV7 players like Norse Blitzers. (The skill is inherently biased in favor of high ST, high AV players.)

So what about this? Let the player pile on after the fact, like he does now. If he sees an opportunity, he goes for it. If he does, it's going to work.

Let him add his full ST score. All fine and dandy. (I think it's a poor modifier, because Mummies simply aren't as massive as Ogres, but hey, it's just a game.)

So he piles on and automatically breaks AV. After this, make a D6 roll. On a roll of 2 or more, the player executes the maneuver without mishap. On a roll of 1, however, he's been hurt by the opposing player's kit, and the opposing coach is allowed to roll injury straight away.

Thoughts?

-Chet

[Zombie]

So now we have 2K1. You get to choose after the die roll, which is nice. It never fails, which is poor.

Actually, from what i've seen here and at the BBC, most people think that choosing after the die roll is not fine at all, more like completely absurd.

I like the 3rd ed pilling on because it has big rewards and big costs. It gives it personality. What's wrong with that?

As an aside, my league still uses the old pilling on, and you also have to decide whether you use diving tackle before you see the die roll. Both make more sense and keep the skills from being overpowered. On the other hand, we use the sliding scale instead of IGMEOY, so the incentive against fouling isn't as big (but pretty close). Any chance of seing the sliding scale officially replacing IGMEOY sometime in the future? It's more fun and more gradual.

[Acerak]

Actually, from what i've seen here and at the BBC, most people think that choosing after the die roll is not fine at all, more like completely absurd.

I believe there's a poll running on this forum regarding this skill. I believe many posters favored the current version. (Granted, the sample size is incredibly small. There were more Blood Bowlers at Games Canada Day than there are regular posters to this forum.)

I like the 3rd ed pilling on because it has big rewards and big costs. It gives it personality. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, really. My own feeling is that the skill is a lost cause for your typical piler, because he goes prone for no effect a good deal of the time.

On the other hand, we use the sliding scale instead of IGMEOY, so the incentive against fouling isn't as big (but pretty close). Any chance of seing the sliding scale officially replacing IGMEOY sometime in the future? It's more fun and more gradual.

A sliding scale might come in play at some point. Someone suggested it in a recent letter to CJ, I believe. I think IGMEOY needs some work, if only to make it a +1 modifier. +2 is simply too harsh. It could even be split between assists, skills, and the Eye itself:

+1 for assists
+1 for using DP
+1 for the Eye

Something like that. I think the current "I foul, and my opponent now dictates my chances of getting caught" rule is not good for the game for a number of reasons.

Cheers.

-Chet