C.O.F.A.B.

[Thadrin]

A spin off from the couple of Vampire discussions going around. A simple question.

[sean newboy]

I was number 6 with a yes.

[GalakStarscraper]

For those who didn't read the other thread, COFAB is the proposed new wording of Off for a Bite proposed by Cervidal.

The current version in BB Mag #4 is:

Before each drive roll a D6, on a 1-3, the player misses the drive. On a 4-6, they may play the drive as normal. If you failed this roll on the last drive, you do not roll for this drive.

The proposed new wording is:

A player with this characteristic must occasionally feed on the blood of the living. At the start of any action, 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 and must make a Feeding Action. A player taking a Feeding Action may never hold the ball. If they start a feeding action while holding the ball, they immediately drop it. If they enter a square with the ball, they will automatically fail to pick it up.

Feeding Action: The player may move a number of squares equal to their MA. If the player ends his action standing adjacent to a Thrall from his own team, immediately roll for unmodified injury on that Thrall (the injury to the Thrall will never result in a turnover). If the player does not end his movement next to a Thrall from his own team, then he runs into the Reserves box trying to find pretty maiden groupie to quench his thirst. Place him in the reserves box, this is a turnover.

Galak
[/quote]

[Dangerous Dave]

I voted No since I feel that the proposed COFAB will make the Vampire team unable to develop due to a cash crunch. However, I prefer on-pitch negatives rather than the current OFAB or Take Root rolls.

First, the Feeding Action rule will mean that it is very dangerous for normal Vampire to carry the ball 1 and they drop it.

Second, it will be difficult to develop the thralls since they will almost certainly suffer the effects of a Vampire's attack. For a developed team of Vampires with 4 on the pitch at any one time, this will mean 2 Feeding Actions every 3 turns on average - sure Pro and rerolls will reduce this number but the number of Feeding Actions will still be high - say 2 per half. A thrall will be injured 1 in 6 times. So 1 thrall is likely to suffer a casualty from this alone each match (I am rounding here of course).

OK if you freeboot 1 or 2 thralls to act as "food" this will save your regular team mates. However with AV 7 and no skills, Thralls are very easy to take out. So, unless running an Elf team, I would expect the opponent to cause several casualties in a game. Piling On Mummies or Chaos teams with Claw / RSC will decimate them. All this means that you are likely to need to replace thralls on a regular basis. The trouble is that you have freebooted players already and so don't have much cash to buy replacements. This is a negative spiral which I believe the Vampires will struggle to overcome. At some stage, the Vampires will not be able to Freeboot leaving the regular thralls as food.

Ok so what could we do instead? A couple of suggestions:-

Take Root

Roll a d6 when you activate a treeman. On a 1 the Tree has taken root and should be place prone with no armour roll. In addition, this is not a turnover since in reality, the Tree is still standing and is trying to free himself from the ground. However, his concentration is completely on getting free of the earth and thus loses his TZ. Getting up represents his ability to free himself from the earth. [the only problem with this is whether stuck trees can be fouled or blocked].

OFAB

Roll a d6 when you activate a Vampire with OFAB. On a 1 the Vampire's craving for blood means that he will attack the nearest living being (ie not Undead or other Vampires) - whose side the player is on is unimportant. If 2 or more are the same distance away, then determine which player is attacked randomly. If there is no player next to the Vampire, then he will use up the team's blitz move for the turn - the blitz is used even if he attacks his own team-mate. Attacks are worked out as normal and if a player on the Vampire's team ends up on the floor after the attack then it is a turnover. If the Blitz move has already been used (or he can't reach a living creature), the Vampire will run towards the nearest sideline via as direct route as possible to try and obtain some blood from the crowd (the Vampire coach can select which route to take if 2 or more routes have the same number of squares to the sideline - however he can never move diagonally if he can move in a straight line). He must dodge as normal but doesn't need to make GFIs. If he gets into the crowd - he is attacked as normal! If he doesn't make it into the crowd, he must roll again next turn........


Dave

[Colin]

That OFAB you proposed DD is a little like the old WA, exceept for the running into the crowd part. I think I like the other proposal better (COFAB)

[Mestari]

DDave:

The scenario that you so vividly pictured before our very eyes is a bit exaggerated, but even still, I believe that's exactly what we're aiming at.
Vampires should be a team that's on the same line with halflings and gobboes.
We have plenty of competitive teams already, there's room for a low-end team with a concept that differs from the stuntyconcept. And vampire teams fit that role both fluffwise and (with a suitable negskill like COFAB) ruleswise.

[vorner23]

Although I don't have an answer to what is the best OFAB rule I do have an observation.

The best OFAB rule will be the one that is relatively simple to implement. The negative effects for other Big Guys are simple to resolve, bonehead, very stupid, even take root (although I hate that one) are easy to implement.

If I may make a humble suggestion, I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. If the vamp is burdened with compulsory checks, rolls, moves etc etc, it will take an unreasonable amount of time to work out/do.
It will also remove a huge amount of control that the coach has over his players.

So perhaps a simple roll like take root, the vamp either is available for the drive or not. Would be the most simple and fluid method of having a negative trait?

Either that, or IMO apply a completely different negative trait altogether....

I mean it doesn't have to be OFAB, we could find a different negative?

[Mestari]

The best OFAB rule will be the one that is relatively simple to implement.

So perhaps a simple roll like take root, the vamp either is available for the drive or not. Would be the most simple and fluid method of having a negative trait?

The simple negative traits like what you're referring to are not enough in this case. Simply because we are talking of a team that has 7 players that are extremely potent.
I agree to some extent that the negtrait has to be simple, but to me you fail to provide any evidence whatsoever that COFAB would be a complicated and timeconsuming rule. Yes, it has more than two rows of text, but it is as easy to implement as is the old WA for example.
My suggestion that was a bit more complicated than COFAB - even that wouldn't take time, as once you understand the rule it is extremely easy and straightforward to use. In addition, both of the rules speed up the game due to causing TO's and using TRR's.

[vorner23]

Well I just think the game is going to be wildly unbalanced.... its just not realistic/balanced to have such good stat players on a team.

Still there's not alot to do about that if the GW dudes have decided this is set decision.

I wasn't condemning your rule out of hand btw. Its just the best games do tend to have simple solutions and not become overly complex.

BB is a diverse game , but anyone remember when the ed with all the skill levels came out. You could have block lv 3 against 2 etc etc

Just became too unwieldy.

Best solution should be relatively simple.... hopefully

[Ghost of Pariah]

The general idea sits well with me. I don't like OFAB being similar to Take Root. Or really like any other neg trait.
If the cash flow issue comes up the you can always lower the price of Thralls. If that makes the the Thralls seem too much of a bargain then you can take some MA away from them. 5 3 3 7 30K or something. I would only do that if it turns out that cash is a problem.
Or you could determine that no injury greater than badly hurt can occur.
Or you could say that if the Vamp kills the thrall, and there is a slot left, the thrall becomes a vamp...maybe not.
How about a zombie?

[Ghost of Pariah]

Do the vamps get 2 spp's for injuring a thrall? I think they should! The crowd loves the blood!

[Grumbledook]

its instant inj no armour roll so giving spp isn't fair?

[Ghost of Pariah]

Why is it not fair? You are injuring your own player! lol

[Grumbledook]

Yer you don't deserve points for that ;]

[Zombie]

Answered yes, but i don't like the way Galak describes it. Too wordy.