Vampires

Willi · Post by **Willi** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:19 pm

Ok, this might after the last rules change be a bit obsolete but I´d like your thoughts anyway:

OFAB change: When a Vampire bits a Thrall the Thrall suffers what ever injury is caused to him. However if the Vampire kills the Thrall he effectively turns him into a new Vampire who joins the team for free after the game provided there are Vampire slots available.

Could this be any good or amI just mad?

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:45 pm

Check out the many other vamnpire discussion threads - this has been discussed many times.

SillySod · Post by **SillySod** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:09 pm

You're not mad.

When I suggested this people said that it would be possible to abuse. However I dont think thats the case, heres why...

Suppose you deliberately play suboptimally and make a concious decision to get maximum chance of a new vampire so dont RR any failed bloodlusts. Each vampire will then do 16*1/6*1/6*1/6 = 4/27 kills every game, notice that this is being generous because they might not move every turn or even be on the pitch. I've also assumed that none die. So the best you can hope for really is a new vampire every 7 games. I think that the optimal amount of vampires for a team to have in LRB5 is 4 although 3 is enough and 5 is possible.

Suppose you take a single vampire, plenty of RR, plenty of thralls and then aim to bite as many thralls as possible to get those kills. This is already pretty sub-optimal play (just one vampire is bad, also you will want to RR his bloodlust because he has too much to do). You might hit 4 vampires after about 10 games with this start, assuming none die (one vampire bought with cash, 2 resurrected).

Now suppose you start with two vampires - my current starting roster for LRB5. You should reach 4 vampires after maybe 6/7 games, obviously the cash for this roster would probably be spent on another RR and thralls.

Starting with 3 vampires you should get the 4th quite swiftly indeed. However the team is likely to be suffering a bit from having its thralls constantly molested and will badly need re-rolls, it might be hard to run properly but will probably be ok.

I'm fairly sure that starting with 2 or 3 vampires is already the optimal roster, however this change is likely just to reinforce that. I also think that LRB5 vampires benefit from hypnogaze in a big way, incentivising thrall biting would just be helping players to play properly. Sure people might have a thrall biting strategy, but they would not get very much extra out of it

With this rule the key negative points of bloodlust would remain:
- it affects the way you plan your turns
- it removes players from the pitch hurting your current game

The main point in favour of this rule though is that its ridiculously fun and fluffy

Storch · Post by **Storch** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:29 am

Now here's the challenge, without using the word "fluff" try to explain why a tier 3 team played poorly is deserving of between 110k-220k worth of free players?

Do the ogres get a free ogre after a half dozen games? Does it matter if they are played well or not?

I would think that to suggest giving almost a quarter million gold in players to any other team would be met with copious laughter.

Now that part aside, there is a reason I would think the vampire player wouldn't want it: TV bloat. If you actually keep the new vampires your team value is umping by leaps and bounds and, frankly, you in all likelihood have not acquired enough skills to have progressed there otherwise.

In essence, I see your attempt to help the vampires in the long run actually hurting them. Sure you get another vampire for free, but you lose on inducements and the ability to grow your team.

Ullis · Post by **Ullis** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:18 pm

I think Sillysod made a pretty good argument on why this would not be really helpful. Previously it has been stated that there would certainly players who would try to take advantage of or abuse the rule. As Sillysod pointed out, there would be no advantage and abuse in the context of games implies bending the rules to gain advantage, which there is none here. If people want to play badly, they're quite free to do so as it is. Witness the discussions on and actual Ogre teams without the ogres. As to the TV bloat, you can always fire the new vamps if you don't need them. The rule could be optional.

Why do the necro and undead teams gain free zombies? I think the main reason is that it's so much fun to put a player you just killed on the los facing his former team mates. Fun and fluff. I find that a very good reason for a rule in Blood Bowl. This rule would make the vampire team only very marginally better, but it would be so much fun when a thrall is accidentally killed.

SillySod · Post by **SillySod** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:04 pm

Storch wrote:Now here's the challenge, without using the word "fluff" try to explain why a tier 3 team played poorly is deserving of between 110k-220k worth of free players?

I dont remember anyone using the word "deserving". In fact on multiple occasions I've stated very clearly that vampires are good how they are, often while insulting various people (in my jolly sort of way). I just think that this is a damn cool idea and one that would feel right for the team without being too much.

Do the ogres get a free ogre after a half dozen games? Does it matter if they are played well or not?

Why do halfling coaches have an excuse to eat a donut for each RR, why doe one of the very top teams get free players? Who knows.... I guess it just happens that each team is different.

I would think that to suggest giving almost a quarter million gold in players to any other team would be met with copious laughter.

I missed the bit where we were suggesting giving vampire teams free cash, note that they have to pay for the thrall in the first placeand lose all his skills and SPP. Its not as if its unprecedented territory either, undead/necro/rotters get 40k for free on a relatively regular basis and nurgles rotters used to get a whole chaos warrior free (mmmm, turn 16 fouls in LRB4). Also you take the trouble to point out that actually getting new vampires wouldnt be as great as all that....

Now that part aside, there is a reason I would think the vampire player wouldn't want it: TV bloat. If you actually keep the new vampires your team value is umping by leaps and bounds and, frankly, you in all likelihood have not acquired enough skills to have progressed there otherwise.

Vampire teams need skills, especially the vampires. So actually unless the resurected player was going to take me over the planned number of vampires I probably wouldnt fire it, far better to keep them around to pick up mvps and stuff. This does present a new kind of challenge though, not a bad one either.

In essence, I see your attempt to help the vampires in the long run actually hurting them. Sure you get another vampire for free, but you lose on inducements and the ability to grow your team.

Stupidest comment about changes to vampires so far, have a prize

By the way you repeatedly suggest that this rule will reward players for playing poorly with vampires. Thats a misconception that my first post tried to address. Take it from me that this isnt going to be a change that favours poor players, nor will it make vampires an easy team to coach. Sure I'll probably tweak my strategy a little because biting will be more fun (still not desirable but more fun) but I'm definately not in a hurry to suggest any changes which would remove the distinction between myself and a poor coach

Andromidius · Post by **Andromidius** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:23 pm

I think I'd rather have a Thrall that rolls double 6's be 'turned'. His Vampire masters have seen him as worthy of attaining undeath, and inducted him into their ranks. I'd also like for there to be no choice in the matter - tough luck if that Thrall had 100spp's and a multitude of skills that your team depended on - he's now a rookie Vampire.

Sort of fits the theme of Vampires being a bit uncontrollable and unpredictable as well. Plus I can't imagine them wanting to turn a Thrall that hasn't proved themselves.

Also makes it rather uncommon, rather then a Vampire team gaining new positionals constantly.

~Andromidius

SillySod · Post by **SillySod** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:12 am

You mean on the skill roll? I gotta say I love my +St thralls (they're hilarious) but that would be pretty cool too. Out of interest.... where would you describe the rule?

Personally though I think that they might have agendas other than double 6's, though thats just my vision of them

Andromidius · Post by **Andromidius** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:43 am

Would probably stick it in the same section detailing Necromancers.

But if I'm honest, it's not a well polished rule. Merely an interesting concept that 'should' be involved somewhere in the team.

~Andromidius

Ullis · Post by **Ullis** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:32 am

Andromidius wrote:Also makes it rather uncommon, rather then a Vampire team gaining new positionals constantly.

Getting vampires from OFAB-kills would not qualify as constant or even uncommon. I'd use phrases like rarely or hardly ever.

Hmm. Perhaps a vampire coach could use rerolls to OFAB rolls of something other than 1...

The inherent dilemma with the proposed rule is that when a vampire team has few vampires, they could use new ones, but then the chances of getting a new vampire from an OFAB-kill happens less frequently. When there are lots of vampires on the pitch, the chances of a new vampire go up, but the new vamp isn't really needed.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:46 am

I really like the idea and think its a good house rule.

SillySod wrote:Each vampire will then do 16*1/6*1/6*1/6 = 4/27 kills every game

I think you've missed the av roll too (so 1/6 * 15/36 * 1/6 * 1/6) - I make it about 1 kill per 500 vampire actions (assuming you don't reroll any ever).

As an official rule I don't think its got much chance as the direction is to simplify the rules - and reduce the number exceptions.

Aliboon · Post by **Aliboon** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:25 pm

I think you've missed the av roll too (so 1/6 * 15/36 * 1/6 * 1/6) - I make it about 1 kill per 500 vampire actions (assuming you don't reroll any ever).

I think he had it right-Bloodlust bite ignore AV

If the Vampire finishes the move standing
adjacent to one or more standing, Prone or Stunned Thralls from his own
team, he attacks one of them. Immediately roll for injury on the Thrall
who has been attacked without making an Armour roll.

SillySod · Post by **SillySod** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:21 pm

Getting vampires from OFAB-kills would not qualify as constant or even uncommon. I'd use phrases like rarely or hardly ever.

Hmm. Perhaps a vampire coach could use rerolls to OFAB rolls of something other than 1...

I would use the word uncommon, with several vampires it wont be that rare. However it still dosent make managing the team easy because you'll still have to think about keeping the thralls alive at a steady number while looking for extra cash for RR. What it does do is make scenarios where you lose all your vampires more rare or at least much quicker to recover from. Currently vampire decimation on a skilled team can get very tricky and isnt fun, its also not really something you can coach against.

The inherent dilemma with the proposed rule is that when a vampire team has few vampires, they could use new ones, but then the chances of getting a new vampire from an OFAB-kill happens less frequently. When there are lots of vampires on the pitch, the chances of a new vampire go up, but the new vamp isn't really needed.

Very good summary of why I like the rule tacticaly. Its not like giving the team yet another black orc/wardancer/ogre.

Willi · Post by **Willi** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:25 pm

To be honest I never thought about any tactical implications or if Vampires would be much better/worse with it.

I would like that idea fluffwise and would therefore introduce it as a house rule.

Jural · Post by **Jural** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:40 pm

Any argument from the perspective of Team Value actually hurting the vampires is ludicrous and must stop. Why? Keeping the vampire is optional. You can just cut him after the game if you'd like.

Much like assassins on the Dark Elf team, one can never argue that adding a new option to a team makes it weaker. If it's not a good investment, avoid it! But having it available doesn't weaken the team.