Talk Fantasy Football

Was thinking the other day that Ogres and Kroxigors are the only Big Guys I wouldn't think twice about taking in a team basically because bonehead is not that big a problem.

All other big guys I would have to give serious consideration as to whether I wanted to use them at all and they probably would not play every drive automatically as my Ogre does.

My question then is rather than are the other negatraits too negative, is bonehead not negative enough. Especially in light of the fact that ogres are easily the preferred big guy of choice.

Bonehead has proven quite a nuscience to me so, yes, I think it's negative enough. I haven't found that I can, consistantly, count on them. When they do go "Bonehead" and the opposition just waltz right past him without dodging, and he's not lending assists, it can be quite a sticky situation.

I'm in the process of testing an ogre team right now and I would have to say that Bonehead is pretty negative as is.

Its a major pain in the ass at times... gives the runts a chance.

Yes, but compare it to Wild Animal - Bonehead is never going to make you lose your entire turn....

Bonehead is definitely the least damaging of negatraits.

I've been meaning to ask this for a while:
Why do the negatraits have to be so very bad?
I think that bonehead is fair, and that WA should definately be toned down.

I mean, sure, big guys are powerful, but remember that the old teams either a big guy or 2 extra position players.

2 extra position players - that's pretty darn good!
We should the big guys be made bad?

Martin

Do the two extra position players really make up for the Big Guy? Perhaps on the DE team, i'm not so sure about the High Elves.

The problem I have with Big Guys is that they create an arms race where everyone gets one (if they can) to negate the opponents and they become pivotal to the whole team.

The negatraits are included to balance this a little and as i see it are intended to make coaches weigh up whether it is really worth having a big guy in the team (or just on the pitch every drive).

IMO at the moment some of the negatraits, such as WA are too strong and are putting players off completely. Bonehead on the other hand, whilst being a pain in the arse at times is not a deterrent to fielding an ogre in almost any situation.

The way Bonehead is worded, along with assists... even if a player is Boneheaded and fails his roll, he still lends assists. Nothing in the rulebook on assists mentions tackle zones, just adjacent players.

I think.

Cervidal wrote:The way Bonehead is worded, along with assists... even if a player is Boneheaded and fails his roll, he still lends assists. Nothing in the rulebook on assists mentions tackle zones, just adjacent players.

I think.

This was one of the things that was on the list for the BBRC to change as most coaches either already play or think that a player with a lost TZ should not be able to assist.

When I get time to start up the 2003 Hotlist for the BBRC, its going to be one of the first things readded to get rules changed for October 2003.

Galak

Hi Galak,
just because people play it wrong doesn't mean that changing it is a good thing.
IMO, it would make the vamps even stronger, and we definately don't need that.

Martin

snotsngrots wrote:Bonehead has proven quite a nuscience to me so, yes, I think it's negative enough. I haven't found that I can, consistantly, count on them. When they do go "Bonehead" and the opposition just waltz right past him without dodging, and he's not lending assists, it can be quite a sticky situation.

Players with no tackle zones do give assists, they just can't keep opposing players from giving one as well. It's always been that way.

Yeah, I meant to say preventing any assists. Oh well, that's not what came out.