New OFAB from 2003 Annual .. proposed re-wording

[GalakStarscraper]

JKL (BBRC member) and neominal on TBB asked me to post this here to get feedback.

The 2003 Annual version of OFAB seems to have 4 problems from the playtesting in my league and some others that have reported in:

1) The rule has Stunned players rolling for OFAB which means they automatically leave the pitch if they fail.

2) Is it a turnover over if the Thrall bitten has the ball?

3) Where does the ball scatter from if the Vampire has the ball and runs off the pitch?

4) As the rules are currently stated a Vampire who fails an OFAB roll can run and score a Touchdown to avoid having to bit a Thrall or suffer a turnover.

Here is a proposed re-wording of OFAB:

A player with this characteristic must occasionally feed on the blood of the living. At the start of any action where the player is not stunned, roll a D6. On a 2+ the player may carry out the action as normal. On a '1', however, the player is overcome with a desire for blood. The player's team loses the declared action for that turn and the player must instead make a Move Action. If the player finishes moving standing adjacent to a Thrall from his own team, immediately roll for unmodified injury on that Thrall (an injury to the Thrall is not a turnover unless he was holding the ball). If the player does not finish moving next to a Thrall from his own team, then he runs into Reserves to find a pretty maiden groupie to quench his thirst. Place him in the reserves box, this is a turnover (if he was holding the ball it scatters once from the final square of his movement.) The Vampire's Move action is not consided ended until he injures a Thrall or runs into Reserves.

Does this handle all the problems and does it make sense?

I'm not looking for a debate from new OFAB haters ... do that on another thread. I'm looking for discussion on if this handles the holes in the OFAB wording in the 2003 Annual. The MBBL has playtested 16 games with the new OFAB using 3 Vampire teams so far and the revisions appear to date to be working, but we found the above 4 holes and are looking for the best way to re-word OFAB to fix them for the final version that could be made official in October.

By the way Neo ... very, very good move removing the Lord from the roster and making his a freeboot star.

Galak

[Darkson]

Good for me, I hated the fact that had I read the old rules closer I could have scored 2 TD's with my vamps, even though they'd failed the COFAB roll.

[Grumbledook]

Yer think thats clear, though the fact he can drop the ball after the last turn of his movement means the coach gets to choose where the ball scatters from (within the move range of the vampire)

[Cervidal]

I can tell you what my intent was on each of those points when I came up with the rule:

1) The rule has Stunned players rolling for OFAB which means they automatically leave the pitch if they fail.

[Me] - That should not be the case.


2) Is it a turnover over if the Thrall bitten has the ball?

[Me] - Yes.


3) Where does the ball scatter from if the Vampire has the ball and runs off the pitch?

[Me] - The square the vampire was in at the end of his OFAB movement.

4) As the rules are currently stated a Vampire who fails an OFAB roll can run and score a Touchdown to avoid having to bit a Thrall or suffer a turnover.

[Me] - If you think back to the current Strip Ball/Push debate, it applies here. If the Vampire is unable to get to a Thrall before the end of his action, he is put in reserves. If he runs into the end zone without being in a Thrall's TZ, he is taken off the pitch immediately. He will not end his action in the end zone so no touchdown is to be rewarded.

[GalakStarscraper]

Bud which means you agree with the new wording ... right ...

As it matches all 4 of your answers.

Galak

[Dark Lord (retired)]

I'd make the TD thing clearer. I know what it meant but some people won't.

Actually, if you had him drop the ball at the start of the OFAB movement that would clear up the TD confusion...though it shouldn't be a turnover. IDK.

[GalakStarscraper]

Actually, if you had him drop the ball at the start of the OFAB movement that would clear up the TD confusion...though it shouldn't be a turnover. IDK.

Original wording that TBB came up with had this and it didn't fly with the other BBRC members. (ie too complicated an explanation of the trait).

I agree it will make them pull out there rulebooks to see if its a touchdown, but I'm afraid of the wordiness that specifically saying stuff about TD would add to the trait.

Galak

[Cervidal]

Yeah, you're right, I agree with you. Unless the LRB is changed, though, the last sentence in OFAB is superfluous. That's what got the rules writers in trouble to begin with in the Strip Ball/Push debate, superfluous statements!

I hope I spelled superfluous correctly...

[GalakStarscraper]

Yeah, you're right, I agree with you. Unless the LRB is changed, though, the last sentence in OFAB is superfluous. That's what got the rules writers in trouble to begin with in the Strip Ball/Push debate, superfluous statements!

I hope I spelled superfluous correctly...

Actually Cervidal ... the last sentence is in there because the wording in the 2003 Annual says you check for the run into Reserves after the Move action ends which JKL said means it would be a touchdown.

So your fellow league mate disagrees that its superfluous. Its in there because JKL said it had to be as with the current rules the TD is scored BEFORE the check for running into stands or biting a Thrall.

JKL's comments were on the bbowl yahoogroup this week. That why the wording is there.

Galak

[Darkson]

Just to check something here.

Under the proposed wording, the vamp only drops the ball if he runs to reserves. So if a thralls in/next to the EZ the vamp can run into the EZ, injure (feed from) the thrall and score a TD. Correct?

[Cervidal]

That would be 100% correct.

[Snew]

So your fellow league mate disagrees that its superfluous. Its in there because JKL said it had to be as with the current rules the TD is scored BEFORE the check for running into stands or biting a Thrall.

Wouldn't that mean his action isn't over so it can't be a TD? Kind of like getting pushed by a player with Strip Ball, huh?

[Zombie]

1) The rule has Stunned players rolling for OFAB which means they automatically leave the pitch if they fail.

1. IMO, OFAB shouldn't need a roll when stunned, but neither should bonehead and really stupid. They should change the rule somewhere else by saying that unstunning is not an action, and keep the OFAB description short.

I agree with Zombie here. I want to remove unstunning as an "action". However this doesn't jive with current wording.

[Zombie]

Now that i thought about it, is it really that bad if the vamp scores after failing the roll? It seems to fit the fluff. He's standing near the endzone and is a bit thirsty, so he scores asap and goes to the bench to see if there's something to drink!

I think it would be ok to allow him to score and not unbalancing.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Yes but stopping the score is one of the points of COFAB. The vamps are too powerful and it's too easy to get through 2 turns with out a failure. If you then take those turns and make only one of them have a COFAB that means anything, you have just seriously boosted the team.