Tweaking the Vamps (yet again)

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 11:41 am

Pariah wrote:How does the COFAB vamp pick between thralls who are the same distance away?

It doesn't say nearest Thrall. So which Thrall is picked is entirely up to the coach. In my current match, the Vamp coach bypassed a closer Thrall to GFI to one that put the Vamp in a decent spot. That's a fine tactic.

Does a failed COFAB vamp who dodges to get to a thrall and fails go to the reserves box or does he stay on the pitch?

Goes to reserves unless he KO'd or worse himself ... he failed to get to the Thrall. The rules might need a slight reword to make this clear.

And I still say that a "dead" result on a bitten thrall should make him a zombie.

That's not a bad house rule, but if we made it part of COFAB, then it would never get past the BBRC.

Galak

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:57 pm

Hi all,
not least Galak and Mestari,

Galak said:
>I realize that Martin thinks that 2+ nega rolls on the Vampires is bad BB,
>but no one in my league (40 coaches) agrees with that.

Actually, 2+ nega rolls aren't that bad.
I can even live with the Ogre team of boneheads.
IMO, what makes it bad BB is that you got a 2+ roll on every key player, and that he doesn't just lose his action, he also potentially drops the ball, and knocks down a team mate.
Very erratic. Very dramatic.

So, playtest is going good.
IMO, the fact that this fix works doesn't mean that it is the best fix.
IMO, other versions, more resembling normal teams, should be tested.

I think that the vampire team could be a fine and balanced team with 4 vamps and a lord (or perhaps 6 and no lord?); none of those special vampire lord rules; and all vampires knocked down to AG3.

The team will have flashy ST4 players with gaze and access to AG skills.
They'll have terrible linemen.
Compared to the chaos team, they wouldn't look that flashy anymore.

Martin

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:13 pm

I understand vamp's need t obe tweaked a little, and I agree with making OFAB more of a penalty for doing this, BUT... I don't like rules taking control of the players, makking them take out of control actions. I just don't like that idea...

One correction would be to let the vamp (try and) bite the closest living player; friend or foe, which would make it more logic, at least...

I think I posted this before somewhere, but wouldn't it be better to do the following, using basic OFAB rules:

basic OFAB passed on 3+ or maybe 4+
After playing one drive on 4+ or maybe 5+
After playing two drives 5+ or maybe 6+
Then still passed on 6+ each drive.
After failing OFAB; you start on 3+ or maybe 4+ again.

This way less vampires will be playing less eventually, you just need to keep track of who played how much and you won't have rules taking over the game for the coaches.

BullBear · Post by **BullBear** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:02 pm

My $.02

As a VC fan, I don't even like the line-up of this team. I think, according to fluff, a vamp would field a team more along these lines:

1 Vamp lord
Zombies
Ghouls - or dregs
wights
Banshees

This would give the vampire team a very gothic feel (the Necro team does NOt, it's the Universal Monsters team).

I also don't like making up new skills, that aren't in the rulebook GW is asking folks to buy

So, I'd give the banshees something like Foul Apperance. Is this playtested? No, and I'm not sure on the position count either. IMO, this LOOKS more like a vampire squad to me.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 8:24 pm

Don't you feel that it's wrong that we have to decide what rules to suggest based on what the BBRC likes? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

If a good many Blood Bowl coaches like an idea and it seems to be balanced then why should the BBRC stand in the way?

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:34 pm

Isn't that the way it's suppossed to be? They are to listen to the gaming community at large and take that to the rules review, we are the ones doing the playtesting and making suggestions, etc. They should go by what the majority wants, not what they like or dislike. My CN$0.2

Demandred · Post by **Demandred** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:26 am

there are some good points made here. But essentially i cant see why the vamp team needs to be made so neutered that halflings can own them. With the old OFAB rules on average in any drive half the vamps are off, leaving the excellence of the thralls (/sarcasm). This now leaves the team with the VL and maybe a few other vamps (b/c they are expensive so takes time to get all vamps). Now correct me if i am wrong, as long as the VL doesnt start with blodge as the old one did he is only one man with a bunch of thralls to take down. Thus a slight amendment to the old team would be fine. Also as you cant get rid of antiskills (is this still true?) anymore then these vamps are always 50% likely to not show in any drive. What isnt harsh enough about that. Half the time on the pitch means half the time to gain SPPs leaving them slower to advance (cept the VL). But yet again one good player SHOULDNT be enough to singly win a game. So why does this team need to be raped into uselessness? so they are not challenging, isnt that what BB is about.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:35 am

Demandred wrote:there are some good points made here. But essentially i cant see why the vamp team needs to be made so neutered that halflings can own them.

Because we only have two low-end teams, and the BB fluff on vampires tells us that they aren't good teams.

With the old OFAB rules on average in any drive half the vamps are off, leaving the excellence of the thralls (/sarcasm). This now leaves the team with the VL and maybe a few other vamps (b/c they are expensive so takes time to get all vamps). Now correct me if i am wrong, as long as the VL doesnt start with blodge as the old one did he is only one man with a bunch of thralls to take down. Thus a slight amendment to the old team would be fine. Also as you cant get rid of antiskills (is this still true?) anymore then these vamps are always 50% likely to not show in any drive. What isnt harsh enough about that. Half the time on the pitch means half the time to gain SPPs leaving them slower to advance (cept the VL). But yet again one good player SHOULDNT be enough to singly win a game. So why does this team need to be raped into uselessness? so they are not challenging, isnt that what BB is about.

What isn't harsh enough? The fact that for the most of the time they have 4+ players with ST and AG of at least 4 on the pitch with no negatives. Add a skill or two and you have a mob of Griff wannabes prancing around the pitch. Hypnotic Gaze is extremely potent when so many players have it.
All playtesting confirms that the old vampire teams were horrendously overpowered. They need to be toned down. And we could use more low-end teams. Even with COFAB, I think that vamps are definitely better than goblins and halflings, and a good coach can use even them to win games...

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:33 pm

Mestari wrote:Even with COFAB, I think that vamps are definitely better than goblins and halflings, and a good coach can use even them to win games...

Two TR 100 COFAB Vampire teams just beat my Halfling team in the MBBL senseless in back to back matches ...nope definitely not as bad as Flings.

However, I noticed several things. The Vampires went a LOT of turns never being activated for fear of the COFAB failure ... ie they were taken out of the game as the coach considered moving and using his Thralls more important. This is almost exactly what I thought would happen with COFAB. So now that the 3 Vampire teams in my leagues have finished their first games stomping on Flings .... now we see how they do in the real league.

Oh and Demandred ... if you haven't seen the COFAB rules for the team ... trust me they weren't gutted.

Galak

MickeX · Post by **MickeX** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:17 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:However, I noticed several things. The Vampires went a LOT of turns never being activated for fear of the COFAB failure ... ie they were taken out of the game

But Galak, doesn't this give a really unfluffy and un-BB feel of the game!? All those players hanging around doing nothing because of some rule suggesting that the mighty Vampire Lord has to stand still to not get carried away and start chewing on someone? It ain't Dracula, that's for sure

Falc · Post by **Falc** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:44 pm

You know, I think the biggest problem here is that GW started making a Vampire team while the Undead team still existed. This is IMO the reason why they did not got for the most elegant solution: take the existing Undead team and replace the Mummies with Vampires. The Mummies belong on a Khemri team anyway.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:32 pm

MickeX wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote:However, I noticed several things. The Vampires went a LOT of turns never being activated for fear of the COFAB failure ... ie they were taken out of the game
But Galak, doesn't this give a really unfluffy and un-BB feel of the game!? All those players hanging around doing nothing because of some rule suggesting that the mighty Vampire Lord has to stand still to not get carried away and start chewing on someone? It ain't Dracula, that's for sure

Nope ... no more so than not activating my Ogre because his TZ is more important to me than the possible Block. Sometimes there are game mechanics that you must go with. And I'm sorry MickeX ... but your Vampire team that you've posted just doesn't seem very Vampire at all to me. Playing vamps for 2 years, I got very used to the 3E roster.

Galak

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:54 pm

Falc wrote:The Mummies belong on a Khemri team anyway.

First time I heard of the "Khemri" was when the Khemri BB miniatures where released.

I'd really like to freeze the BB world fluff into a certain point in the timeline... As mummies definitely belonged to the undead team when I was up-to-date with the Warhammer world fluff.

The same with the Tau's that people have been talking about in the Off-Topic section. What friggin' Tau? Like Tao-Tao - small pandas taking over the WH40K universe? I like sensible development in fantasy- and scifiworlds, but I've simply lost interest in the GW worlds thanks to their constantly changing nature.

Oh, and by the way, these lecture notes on principles of communication software really suck.

Quilwood · Post by **Quilwood** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 8:33 pm

The only problem I see with the vampire team is that the vampires are underpriced or have to many abilities. Either they should make the vamps 150k each and the lord 180k (I don't like this Idea), or they make the vamps an agility team or a strength team. It's as simple as that.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sun Dec 15, 2002 11:11 pm

Isn't the problem with the vampire team the fact that the stats are trying to match the original star player? (Can't remeber his name)

IMO he was one of the best stars, so why can't he be treated as a Griff character who has +1 ST & AG (or at least one as is prevalent on the stars), this would allow the vampire team to filed vamps with lower stats and so deal with some of the problems of them being overpowered.

I liked Falc's idea that Vamps should replace mummies on the original undead team, I think I would prefer this as a replacement undead team to the 'hammer horror' team currently being trialled. Especially as the vampire team doesn't bear much resemblance to the Warhammer army and so is not really mirroring the WH fluff.