C.O.F.A.B.

[MickeX]

When you're playtesting - be sure to give the vampires blodge (and the other team a similar experience). They'll get it pretty fast anyway, as long as they have access to AG-skills. Since the vampires are more of key players than the positional players of other teams, I guess they'll be at their relative best just after gaining a few skills.

Micke

[Dave]

Galak

I guess you're right 'bout me seeing too many Vamps in COFAB. I like rules just plain simple ans though COFAB ain't difficult OFAB seems simpler to me (just one roll) and therefore more attractive.

I'll see the Vamp team tomorrow. My brother has played the old vamps for a while, including a different Vamp lord (6448, Block, Reg, Hypn Gaze 130K, we needed something) that we U-turned into the new rules (just adjusted the costs and ate a RR)

I liked the irregularity of the Old OFAB. Sometimes 4 vamps, sometimes 6, sometimes just none, the new OFAB will be much 'better' from my bro's perspective.

I'll tell about it (if he doesn't start hanging 'round his girlfriend again )

[Zombie]

Of course Darthnoir, i don't see why not.

[GalakStarscraper]

My apologies if this has already been addressed on another thread.

If a Thrall has not taken an action this turn and is stunned by a Vamp that failed COFAB, can the Thrall take an action (unstun) this turn?

This would work just like a failed Landing roll for Throw TeamMate.

Since you can unstun a failing you fails a Landing roll as his action; there is solid rule precedence for the Thrall being allowed to unstun as his action.

Galak

[Furelli]

Something occurs to me. I know its a wording question again but this is what we are trying to clear up.

If I declare a Blitz ACTION with my Vamp, then roll a 1. By Neo's wording the Vamp then takes a feeding ACTION. Does this mean that my Blitz ACTION is not used up?

Furelli.

[GalakStarscraper]

I'd rule that the Blitz action is still gone .... we might need to reword the Feeding "action" so that this is more clear. Either removing the action part of the description or adding a sentence that any action declared before the feeding action is lost for the turn.

Or this just becomes one of those FAQ items that BB is full of.

Galak

[martynq]

If I declare a Blitz ACTION with my Vamp, then roll a 1. By Neo's wording the Vamp then takes a feeding ACTION. Does this mean that my Blitz ACTION is not used up?

Yes, I would think so. This is exactly the same as if you declare a blitz action with an ogre and fail the bone-head roll.

Cheers,
Martyn

[Furelli]

Yeah i agree that the Blitz should be used up. I just thought I would point out the possibility of misinterpretation. And yes I know that people can misinterpret pretty much anything in any way.
As for this rule I like it, and I want it to be a part of the game so as such I am trying to watch the wording as much as possible.
Possibly we could reword it as a feeding manuever...

Furelli.

[neoliminal]

I'd rule that the Blitz action is still gone .... we might need to reword the Feeding "action" so that this is more clear. Either removing the action part of the description or adding a sentence that any action declared before the feeding action is lost for the turn.

Or this just becomes one of those FAQ items that BB is full of.

Galak

I choose to make it an action to avoid people asking questions like "Can I blitz this guy out of the way when I take my action" and "can I still foul this guy if I end up next to a thrall?"

John -