Discuss Fantasy football-style board games - GW's Blood Bowl, Impact!'s Elfball, Privateer Press' Grind, Heresy's Deathball, etc. THIS IS NOT AN NFL FANTASY FOOTBALL SITE!
Hi leblanc,
I think that the transformation from a 2+ to a 3+ is fair when you consider:
*Under the current rules you could use your 1 blitz action to make a move and then gaze. But then your blitz would have no block in it - making it essentially a move action with a gaze.
*Under Galaks new rule you can move and gaze with all your vampires (even if this then ends their action). So, the rule frees up your blitz and allows 6 rather than 1 vampire to move and gaze.
The Florist wrote:just out of curiosity, the changes to pro etc are part of a package with the Strength-access only big guys?
An integrated fix to big guys and two experimental teams. Very elegant.
I "think" this is the plan ... remember ... I'm one voice of 7 ... and I could end up being just 1 voice at the end of the day.
Galak
Well if it counts for anything you seem to be one voice with a fair bit of community support.
I'll definately be putting this version forward for our leagues house rules.
Reason:''
[size=75]The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".[/size]
I can see the benefit of being able to move all 6 of your vampires and then gazing up to 6 of your opponents as beneficial without wasting your blitz action for the turn. I guess it does make more sense now.
I also didn't realize that you could use a team reroll to reroll a failed OFAB, but I really should have as the only rolls you can't reroll with a Team reroll are armor and injury rolls.
After reading OFAB many times I have come to the determination that it is actually not bad. I have been reading into it too much and did not realize that a vampire did not have to move towards the nearest thrall. In fact, if you don't want to move towards a thrall you don't have to with the rules listed in the 2003 annual. You could instead move the vampire anywhere else and take the turnover if you wanted to.
One thing that was discussed in the original rule that cervidal came up with needs further clarification. If a vampire picks up the ball or has the ball and moves into the endzone with it does he score a TD before he is removed from the pitch because he is not in base to base contact with a thrall?I see this resulting in the vampire being removed and the ball scattering before the action is complete and the touchdown does not occur. Is this the correct interpretation?
I must say that if these rules apply to the vampire team in it's final form I will be very happy with this team when it goes official. In fact, I am getting a 16 man vamp team for my birthday next week.
Reason:''
7 times consecutive winner of every major tournament....IN MY HEAD!!!
leblanc13 wrote:One thing that was discussed in the original rule that cervidal came up with needs further clarification. If a vampire picks up the ball or has the ball and moves into the endzone with it does he score a TD before he is removed from the pitch because he is not in base to base contact with a thrall?I see this resulting in the vampire being removed and the ball scattering before the action is complete and the touchdown does not occur. Is this the correct interpretation?
Yes the revised version has the vampire removed, the ball scatter, and no touchdown occur.
Sorry Ianwilliams ... this is why I didn't use your wording of how a touchdown is scored as it would have screwed up my/our plans for making OFAB work right.
These ideas look ok to me, I think there was a bit of an over reaction to tone down the vamps in the last RR, but if these changes are adopted, it would make the vamps a viable (yet challenging) team to play (and make me not feel like I wasted my money buying those new vamp figs).
Hi Galak,
how about wording your new gaze to simply be a 3+?
Or is it intentional that vamps with AG increases/decreases should have a changed gazing ability.
3+ would be a lot better for a homemade team with AG2 gazers that we use - so I just thought I'd ask
Martin
plasmoid wrote:Hi Galak,
how about wording your new gaze to simply be a 3+?
Or is it intentional that vamps with AG increases/decreases should have a changed gazing ability.
3+ would be a lot better for a homemade team with AG2 gazers that we use - so I just thought I'd ask
Martin
Simple enough ... JJ said GW avoids static 3+ and 5+ target rolls in their games if they can.
So link it to AG as a work around with JJ's statement problem with the 3+ roll ... thanks to Grumble for this suggestion to give credit where due. If you get an AG 5 Vampire ... well ... I think you'll have more to worry about with him than 2+ Hypnotic Gaze rolls ...
>Simple enough ... JJ said GW avoids static 3+ and 5+ target rolls in their games if they can.
Yeah. I always found that to be a strange design philosophy, but I guess that they can do whatever they want...
Besides, and fortunately, the new No Hands skill has pretty much solved the problem for us.
But, how big a pricing discount do you think that No Hands is worth - for design purposes I mean? 10K? 20K?
Martin
>Simple enough ... JJ said GW avoids static 3+ and 5+ target rolls in their games if they can.
Yeah. I always found that to be a strange design philosophy, but I guess that they can do whatever they want...
Besides, and fortunately, the new No Hands skill has pretty much solved the problem for us.
But, how big a pricing discount do you think that No Hands is worth - for design purposes I mean? 10K? 20K?
Martin
How has the no hands skill solved the Vampire problem?
I'm not sure I want to hear the answer but I have to ask.
Reason:''
[size=75]The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".[/size]
Hi Munkey,
referring to a previous post, if gaze was suddenly based on the AG of the gazer rather than the gazee, then my league would have a problem with a homemade daemon team. (More specifically, daemonettes with low ag and gaze).
The No Hands allows us to go with higher AG and gaze, while still having the ball handling problems that comes from having 2 huge spikes instead of hands.
Excellent
Martin
Ahhh, it all makes sense now. I hadn't remembered that post.
I was worried that you were suggesting No handed players in the main rules, not something I would be in favour of.
Reason:''
[size=75]The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".[/size]
plasmoid wrote:Hi Galak,
how about wording your new gaze to simply be a 3+?
Or is it intentional that vamps with AG increases/decreases should have a changed gazing ability.
3+ would be a lot better for a homemade team with AG2 gazers that we use - so I just thought I'd ask
Martin
Simple enough ... JJ said GW avoids static 3+ and 5+ target rolls in their games if they can.
So link it to AG as a work around with JJ's statement problem with the 3+ roll ... thanks to Grumble for this suggestion to give credit where due. If you get an AG 5 Vampire ... well ... I think you'll have more to worry about with him than 2+ Hypnotic Gaze rolls ...
Galak
i love it when a plan comes together
for the record being an avid vampire coach 2+ gaze is way too good ;]
think I may well right a nice tactics article on vampires for the new fanatic mag, but guess i should wait until the rules in the vault come out, fingers crossed galak can work his magic
1 voice of 7 ... just remember that guys. I've played 3 teams more than 20 games in my time playing BB ... Halflings, Vampires, and Snotlings (in that order of use). So like Grumble ... these rules really matter to me that they work and are fun. If they are 2nd tier all the better.
My Vampire that scored 51 Touchdowns in 15 games the year I won the regular season for my tabletop league of 25 teams is not something I want someone to be able to do. It was fun ... but it was fun in a Beardy way that wasn't fun for my opponents. I want GOOD vampire rules and I'll fight for them. The good point is that Neo agrees with this version of OFAB so I do have one ally on Vampires ... don't know he thoughts on HGaze though.
