Talk Fantasy Football

I just read all 8 pages of the experimental teams on the app.

I've often asked/wondered why a Big Guy that rolls a 12 on their new skill cannot choose to lose a nega-skill. Since the discussion over there was thoughtful and helpful I thought I would ask for community thoughts. Would it be more palatable if it was just lose Loner instead of a general nega-skill?

Thoughts and rational please.

I personally would be ok with it if it was costed at 50k like +ST and only available on a skill roll of 12.

I'd rather not see such a thing.

Part of the trade-offs of having a big guy is dealing with their negatives.

ddancer wrote:I'd rather not see such a thing.

Part of the trade-offs of having a big guy is dealing with their negatives.

said no goblin coach ever!!

Id be very happy with this idea.

Lycanthrope:

In one LRB, there was the option for a big guy to lose their negative skill on a double. This was deemed 'too powerful', biased 'fortunate coaches' and revoked. (I can't remember which LRB this was off the top of my head).

As a result, I feel this was playtested fairly rigorously as a result, and deemed too potent. However, it sounds like a reasonable house rule for a league to make it a '12' roll instead of a mere double, and adds something back to the double 12 roll that extra Strength doesn't really provide (it's pretty meh on a St 5 player.) I guess to lose both Loner and a negaskill would be two separate rolls.

However, you'd need to be really clear how you set it up. How would that work with other players? Could Nurgle players lose Decay? Could Vampires lose 'off for a bite'? Would 'Always Hungry' and 'Really Stupid' count as two different negaskills? Would 'Really Stupid' downgrade to 'Bonehead' or would it disappear altogether?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So where is this discussion, exactly? Is it somewhere on the 'my dugout app'?

Star Players are in similar situation, so being rare (roll a 12, 1/36), expensive (50K) and a bit more reliable (not everyone has Bonehead, Blood lust, Take root, etc) wouldn't be new. Basic difference would be "roster vs hire" (OK, SP tend to be overcosted on purpose, ST being 60K not 50K, etc).

I also remember Tom saying something positive about this 50K idea. Ah, yes, lucky search: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=32262 It seems to be raised every few years.

You know there's a tournament where you can do this kind of thing, and it's called...

Check my signature links for details

I'd be happy for this to happen, removal of neg trait or loner. It only improves chances of it doing what it can already do so not really overpowered.

I like

frogboy wrote:It only improves chances of it doing what it can already do so not really overpowered.

That has to be the silliest rationale I've ever heard. Let's make it that elves only fail anything they do if they roll three 1s on three dice. It only improves their chances of doing what they can already do so not really overpowered.

Obviously your not grasping what I wrote. I'm talking about big guys neg traits not elves. A one is always a fail. So who's silly now lol

I'd have no problem with Big Guys losing negatraits, for a double's worth of TV.

Sure, it makes a Big Guy better. But that's what skills are supposed to do, and it basically feels like the improvement is in line with other popular Big Guy doubles choices, such as Block or Pro.

And "it favors more fortunate coaches, so it needs to be banned" is a pretty silly argument. As if +ST or +AG on certain players weren't an insane advantage.

Babs wrote:Lycanthrope:

So where is this discussion, exactly? Is it somewhere on the 'my dugout app'?

Yes, a discussion of the Savage Orcs and the Human Nobility.

To be clear I was only addressing the big Guys who role a 12 losing a Nega Skill as +Strength is not so attractive especially considering the cost/gain factor.

Babs does make a point that is kind of cracking the door open for a more complicated conversation with Decay, Blood Lust, etc. It is a 1/36 chance and comes with a high cost. How many players would really get it? Is it worth the cost in TV? Does it hang a "kill me" sign on said player?

I brought up the subject in the other thread when giving an account of changes through the years of rosters and what other things changed along the way from a historical point of view, through BB magazines, compendiums and the living rule book process. I remeber the introduction of nega traits as a necessary balance, and then the attempts to remove them so you could grow players into your own players that were as good as the star players who came without them and then the abandonment of that idea because it never quite worked.

So this has already been extensively tested, but under different conditions. I myself am not against it as an idea per se, provided it work well.

You'd have to pick and choose which traits were eligible to lose.

I'd be in favor of this for Loner, or Bonehead, but being able to lose Secret Weapon or No Hands might create some huge messes. (And who decides what's a negatrait? Yes, please, I'll remove Ball and Chain from my Fanatic on a 12...)

Wifflebat wrote:You'd have to pick and choose which traits were eligible to lose.

I'd be in favor of this for Loner, or Bonehead, but being able to lose Secret Weapon or No Hands might create some huge messes. (And who decides what's a negatrait? Yes, please, I'll remove Ball and Chain from my Fanatic on a 12...)

Why would you want to lose Ball and Chain? That's the whole purpose of having a fanatic. If you don't want ball and chain don't take a fanatic.

No hands is not a nega skill. It's a statement of fact. This player doesn't have any hands or doesn't have any hands available.