Suggestion for non-Pact Allies rules

[Krinosy]

As simple and straightforward as they may have been, the BBM1 rules were far from balanced - basically there was no downside to using allies, allowing power-gamers to pick the best out of each of the available allied races to cover their current team's failings.

If the only reason that you don't like ally rules is because of the balance / beardiness issues, then by rights they shouldn't be a problem if they come to the table balanced and non-beardy, right? o_0

Oh yeah, I didn't put up lists for who allies with which what as lists for this were published in 4th ed/gold and BBM1. I'm sure I saw that BBM1 lying around here somewhere...

[Grumbledook]

Indeed but i can't see why you would take an ally other than to fill a gap in your team, that couldn't be filled by a player from your own roster. So i can't see this happening. Fine as house rules but like i said until i see something that i can't see happening done for ally rules, I don't want them official.

[DoubleSkulls]

but i can't see why you would take an ally other than to fill a gap in your team, that couldn't be filled by a player from your own roster.

Rosters, although balanced, aren't equal. Teams have different strengths and weaknesses. Allies let you compensate for the weaknesses of a roster. e.g. Chaos doesn't have a passing game, yet adding a DE thrower and a Gutter Runner gives them a good one.

So any ally rules have to ensure that balance is maintained between the teams. This is extremely hard to do as adding one or two players to a team can really make a difference to your whole strategy.

[Grumbledook]

Thats exactly what i meant ;]

I don't want choas to have a passing game by getting a dark elf ally and other such nonsence. I can't see how allys can be added to rosters without this happening, or duplicating player types you have already. If thats the case i would personally just take the proper roster player above a similar ally anyway.

[DoubleSkulls]

I just misread your post.

[Krinosy]

Well obviously if you're a coach buying players purely on the basis of their effectiveness per gp / spp, then allies with negative traits will not appeal to you. But then again, not everyone is a min-maxing power-gamer (there wouldn't be any Goblin or Halfling teams in existance if they were) - some coaches may want to pick an ally or two for variation, or maybe to try and recreate the Creepers or an Empire team.

As an aside to this, these particular ally rules are constructed in such a way that they allow a coach to somewhat reduce the weakness of their particular team roster but, due to the negatives placed on the more valuable and hence more effective players, not allow the coach to completely eliminate said weakness.

Bottom line is they're primarily there to offer a little variety for coaches in terms of what players they can pick for a given team, yet not overpowered enough (in theory at least) to either unbalance or generalise the teams. As an alternative to the pact rules they offer the chance for (hopefully) balanced variation to existing rosters, whilst still allowing teams similar to the pact rosters, and in the neat package of one additional rule and one additional trait, as opposed to the proposed three additional rosters.

In the given example of Chaos with DE / GR, sure that Chaos team can have some sort of a passing game, but this is assuming that both players turn up for the drive (50% chance each) and don't do any re-roll requiring mistakes, not to mention the way in which they weaken the roster ('soft' players that are there only half of the time are quite bad value for bruiser teams)

[Grumbledook]

No i don't buy allys because they aren't in the race that i picked for that team, no outsiders thanks!

I played in the OLBBL for a bit and choas teams could take dark elves for allys, taking one seems berady to me, I would never pick one just because i don't like mixing the rosters up.

[Ithilkir]

Yup.. One of the reasons I left the OLBBL... Sick of the vast majority of teams having either a Gutter Runner or Welf Catcher on the roster

[Krinosy]

Heh, the good ol' OLBBL. I was in that too, from right near the very beginning (2nd season, when it was commished by Jay and co-commished by Stetto) for a good 2 or 3 years or so. I'll agree with you there, the OLBBL eventually became a good example of what not to do with allies (not to mention Big Guy teams, Free Agents, Diving Tackle and hell the lack of transition from 3rd edition to LRB in general).

However the choice of whether or not to keep racial purity should be up to the coach. In the same way that you like to keep your teams pure, there are coaches out there that like to add an ally or two for a little variation - they should be given that choice provided that it doesn't give them a significant advantage over someone choosing a more 'pure' roster. Thus the proposed negatives on allied players. I reiterate that if the Wood Elf or Gutter Runners on those teams couldn't re-roll and only showed for half or less of the drives their teams played they would have had much less of an impact.

[Krinosy]

In a spurt of inspiration in a 'recycling rules' fashion (yay, nick rules from the Secret Weapons) I came up with a new idea for 'Outcast' trait. Rest remains the same.

Outcast

Outcast players are naturally not cohesive with their adopted team, and thus may not use team re-rolls. Additionally, as mixed race teams are generally frowned upon by the NAF Outcast players have a penalty roll in the same way as secret weapons. The penalty roll depends on the cost of the allied player:

100,000gp or more - 7+
80,000gp-90,000gp - 8+
60,000gp-70,000gp - 9+
50,000gp or less - 10+

That way they'll always get off at least one drive, and it can be argued within the normal limits of the rules (i.e. argue the call with the Head Coach).