GFI's for the lumbering ones

[valedictor]

I was wondering if there is any mileage in proposing that players with AG of 2 or less fail their GFI's on a 1 or 2, instead of just 1?

Or is this likely to go down the 'yet another rules complication to remember mid-turn' route?

I kinda like the idea of a mummy or zombie for example struggling that little bit more to get their rotting legs shifting at a higher gear. It seems to be entirely appropriate to their character/physique, and wouldn't impact on the amount of time spent resolving the move, as a dice roll is required anyway, hence no real slow down in gameplay.

I don't think it presents too much of a complication myself. Any thoughts?

Sorry if this has been suggested before; am relatively new to the boards. I did try searching 'GFI' in the database, and found some interesting proposals relating to progressive GFI's, but nothing exactly as i have proposed above... apologies if i didnt look hard enough

Cheers, John

[Deathwing]

This could cover the thread on dodging away from low AG players as well:
I'm a great believer in keeping the core rules as simple as possible. It's an interesting idea, and definately worth experimenting with as a house rule, but adding levels of complexity can't be good for newbies or tournaments.

[valedictor]

Pleased u agree that its worth a experimenting with DWing; i'll give it a try.

As for not meddling with the core rules, i'd say you are mostly right. Finding a quality, well liked and well proven rule set and then sticking with it can only be good for creating greater respect for the official rules, strenghtening the whole game ethos and winning faith from newbies and veterans alike that the rules they have learnt and enjoyed won't be interfered with somewhere down the line.

However, i don't think its always neccessarily a bad thing when a minor detail gets 'tweaked' a little with no major impact on the rules as a whole, especially when said rule might bring a hint more character to the game. Be this a core rule or just some entertaining vagary in the background literature.

I think personally this proposal regarding GFI's, as well as the thread concerning dodging past low AG players fit into the category of 'tweaks' which probably wouldn't worry newbies who were trying to learn the rules too much. (As for my other thread regarding pass or hand-off rather than both, yes, that one does have more impact on playbooks admittedly, but not in a really dramatic way, considering how far upfield you are still able to progress with just pass OR hand-off). (my humble opinion again)

As for newbies getting confused by added levels of complexity, i reckon you probably underestimate the average newcomer's ability to pick up the rules somewhat. My idiot housemate for one learnt most of the LRB contents within a week or so, and managed to recall some of the more obscure stuff with alarming regularity (particularly when said obscure stuff meant my players getting punished!) And just going down to my local Games Workshop, you can see how young kids pick the rules up in no time with an introductory game or two. I guess it's more to do with how interested a newbie is in a game, rather than the complexities therein (if a newbie is interested enough in getting into the hobby, they will learn it regardless of how complex it is... to a certain degree of course!)

To summarise, i certainly would not be in favour of major rules upheavals in any shape or form, but i think the odd small change here or there can sometimes be rewarding and enrich the game with no real adverse affect.

Good grief; my posts just don't get any shorter do they... anything to get me away from the mountain of college work on my desk

All the best, John