Furelli,
I like that idea. It simulates what a true wild animal would do when confused, running and hitting everything it could. How about letting players who may get hit a chance to dodge out of the way?
Streamlining the Negatraits
Moderator: TFF Mods
-
Piepgrass
- Super Star
- Posts: 910
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 6:02 pm
- Location: Denmark. Copenhagen
Why not make the WA a danger to his own team.
On a roll of one the WA is psyked into a killing frenzy by some (possibly imaginaring) rude or offensive comment from the nearest friendly player. The WA must make a block or blits action against the nearest teammate (if 2 or more ar at the same distance decide randomly) following the normal rules but ignoring assists on both sides. This will only cause a turnover if the WA gets knocked down and dont use up the blits action of the team for this turn.
What do people think about that?
Poul
On a roll of one the WA is psyked into a killing frenzy by some (possibly imaginaring) rude or offensive comment from the nearest friendly player. The WA must make a block or blits action against the nearest teammate (if 2 or more ar at the same distance decide randomly) following the normal rules but ignoring assists on both sides. This will only cause a turnover if the WA gets knocked down and dont use up the blits action of the team for this turn.
What do people think about that?
Poul
Reason: ''
[size=150][color=red]VICIOUS[/color][/size]
The Copenhagen Wight.
The Copenhagen Wight.
-
Deathwing
- The Voice of Reason
- Posts: 6449
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
- Contact:
-
Deathwing
- The Voice of Reason
- Posts: 6449
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
- Contact:
-
Princelucianus
- Legend
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Not in front of a BB table
- Contact:
-
plasmoid
- Legend
- Posts: 5334
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
- Location: Copenhagen
- Contact:
Hi Piepgrass - I'm sure that Deathwing meant that perhaps the player was infuriated by some rude comment on Blood Bowl Central (known for it's bad tone).
Anyway - funny you should write that WA suggestion Piepgrass, because I was/am going to make the exact same suggestion!
Giving the WA a potential free blitz like Furelli suggested is probably not a good idea. AFAIK, WA did just that in an earlier incarnation which got canned because of it. You could only avoid the potemntial for a free blitz by making the WA move first (thus being the first to use the blitz action) - but IMO, forcing the order of play is not a good idea.
My suggestion is this:
(On a roll of 1) - the player must declare a block action, (even if there are no opponents to block). If there is 1 or more team mates adjacent to the player, then the player must block one of them (of your choice). The wild animal must knock the opponent down if possible, but no matter what the result of the block it does not cause a turnover.
How's that?
Anyway - funny you should write that WA suggestion Piepgrass, because I was/am going to make the exact same suggestion!
Giving the WA a potential free blitz like Furelli suggested is probably not a good idea. AFAIK, WA did just that in an earlier incarnation which got canned because of it. You could only avoid the potemntial for a free blitz by making the WA move first (thus being the first to use the blitz action) - but IMO, forcing the order of play is not a good idea.
My suggestion is this:
(On a roll of 1) - the player must declare a block action, (even if there are no opponents to block). If there is 1 or more team mates adjacent to the player, then the player must block one of them (of your choice). The wild animal must knock the opponent down if possible, but no matter what the result of the block it does not cause a turnover.
How's that?
Reason: ''
-
Piepgrass
- Super Star
- Posts: 910
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 6:02 pm
- Location: Denmark. Copenhagen
My biggest problem is that this can potential be a good thing if the WA is next to a Player from the opposite team. Combined with something like Tentacles it would be an allmost sure catch against the bad side effect.
I think that a hybrid of our 2 suggestions like this could work:
On a roll of one the WA is psyked into a killing frenzy by some (possibly imaginaring) rude or offensive comment from the nearest friendly player (or Toby if the WA was surfing the TBB). The WA must make a block or blitz action against the nearest teammate (if 2 or more are at the same distance the coach of the WA decides who to attack) the Wa must take a result that knocks the player over if possible. Due to the sudden and unspectated attack neithet the WA or the victim gets any assist from nearby players.
Hows that?
Poul
I think that a hybrid of our 2 suggestions like this could work:
On a roll of one the WA is psyked into a killing frenzy by some (possibly imaginaring) rude or offensive comment from the nearest friendly player (or Toby if the WA was surfing the TBB). The WA must make a block or blitz action against the nearest teammate (if 2 or more are at the same distance the coach of the WA decides who to attack) the Wa must take a result that knocks the player over if possible. Due to the sudden and unspectated attack neithet the WA or the victim gets any assist from nearby players.
Hows that?
Poul
Reason: ''
[size=150][color=red]VICIOUS[/color][/size]
The Copenhagen Wight.
The Copenhagen Wight.
-
Grumbledook
- Boy Band Member
- Posts: 10713
- Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 6:53 pm
- Location: London Town
-
Evil Git
- Hoomin's Deliverer
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 2:01 pm
- Location: boarding the last train to chumpsville
- Contact:
-
Evil Git
- Hoomin's Deliverer
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 2:01 pm
- Location: boarding the last train to chumpsville
- Contact:
-
plasmoid
- Legend
- Posts: 5334
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
- Location: Copenhagen
- Contact:
Hi Piepgrass,
I think I worded it rather poorly. What I meant was:
on a roll of 1.
a) the player must take a block action.
b) if there is a team mate next to him, then the attack must be against a team mate (of his choice).
Personally I'd like to keep blitz actions out of this - primarily because it removes the question of what happens if you've already had a blitz action.
Better?
I think I worded it rather poorly. What I meant was:
on a roll of 1.
a) the player must take a block action.
b) if there is a team mate next to him, then the attack must be against a team mate (of his choice).
Personally I'd like to keep blitz actions out of this - primarily because it removes the question of what happens if you've already had a blitz action.
Better?
Reason: ''
-
Piepgrass
- Super Star
- Posts: 910
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 6:02 pm
- Location: Denmark. Copenhagen
Better worded yes, i get it now But i am not agreeing totally with you because of 2 things.
1. It feels wrong to me that the Wa just stands still and curses loudly if it fails the WA-test but is not standing next to a teammate.
2. Pilling on would protect against the Blockaction the Wa has to make since its on the ground. By including the blitzaction in the wording this is not an option for WA.
I dont see it as a problem that there is the possibility of an extra blitz-action, since it will only affect the team of the WA, so its not an bonus blitz at all.
Poul
But i am not agreeing totally with you because of 2 things. 1. It feels wrong to me that the Wa just stands still and curses loudly if it fails the WA-test but is not standing next to a teammate.
2. Pilling on would protect against the Blockaction the Wa has to make since its on the ground. By including the blitzaction in the wording this is not an option for WA.
I dont see it as a problem that there is the possibility of an extra blitz-action, since it will only affect the team of the WA, so its not an bonus blitz at all.
Poul
Reason: ''
[size=150][color=red]VICIOUS[/color][/size]
The Copenhagen Wight.
The Copenhagen Wight.
-
plasmoid
- Legend
- Posts: 5334
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
- Location: Copenhagen
- Contact:
ctually Piepgrass,
I've thought it over, and I've decided that I don't like using the blocking rules for the wild animals attack. It leaves room for too many questions like 'who picks the block die' or 'what happens if the victim is stronger than the WA'. Stuff like that.
Stuff like this just adds to the negatrait description, and I really wanted to make them as short and easy to remember as possible.
But I do like random attacks as the WA negatrait!
So how about this:
.....on a roll of 1 the player will attack a team mate of his choice, if there is one adjacent to him. The blindsided team mate is automatically knocked down, and the wild animal must use mighty blow skill to injure him. If there are no adjacent team mates, then the player does nothing.
Simpler, IMO, and still quite unpleasant.
Martin
I've thought it over, and I've decided that I don't like using the blocking rules for the wild animals attack. It leaves room for too many questions like 'who picks the block die' or 'what happens if the victim is stronger than the WA'. Stuff like that.
Stuff like this just adds to the negatrait description, and I really wanted to make them as short and easy to remember as possible.
But I do like random attacks as the WA negatrait!
So how about this:
.....on a roll of 1 the player will attack a team mate of his choice, if there is one adjacent to him. The blindsided team mate is automatically knocked down, and the wild animal must use mighty blow skill to injure him. If there are no adjacent team mates, then the player does nothing.
Simpler, IMO, and still quite unpleasant.
Martin
Reason: ''