New (Old inspired) on-pitch spellcasters

[plasmoid]

Here's my take on this:
I don't think that teams should have a "spell caster" positional, a spell/skill table etc. - I think that would be needlessly complicated.
I can see "package spells" in existing players working better in that respect.

But geezaloo - beware of the power here.
If spells do something unique, they quickly become quite powerful.
Letting them throw anything like the sideline wizards spells - and perhaps multiple times - would be extremely powerful. No thanks.

Also, I gotta ask: Would these players replace the sideline wizard option - or what is the fluff rationale for allowing only 1 wizard off the pitch, but several on it.
To limit their power, and to justify their on pitch presence, perhaps they should get Secret Weapon?

In fact, I think on pitch wizards would work better simply as a secret weapon star player type for the teams that don't take mechanical stuff like chainsaws. All it would take is a new secret weapon "wizard" skill, perhaps a back-up skill for some of the stars - and a few star players.

For example:
Wizards apprentice: This player has rudimentary spell casting abilities. When this player takes a blitz action, he may instead cast a spell. When casting a spell, the player must be standing and may not move at all. Nominate a target within short pass range and Roll 1 block die:
Skull: The spell backfires and the caster is knocked over: Armor roll + turnover.
SkullPow: The spell has no effect. If the player is in an opposing TZ, then the spell backfires (as above).
Push: The spell has no effect.
PushPow: If the target is within quick range, then he is stunned. If not then the spell has no effect.
Pow: The target is stunned.

(All wizards are Secret Weapons - and if we wanted, they could be modified with passing skills: NOS ignores TZ on SkullPow, Pass allows a reroll, Strong Arm treats PushPow as quick range).

Food for thought?
Martin
Push:

[Joemanji]

That's a really interesting idea Martin. Very promising.

One issue I see is that any spell with a range massively favours fast and/or agile players. And they are the players who benefit most from a ball carrier being knocked down.

What should a wizard be able to do? Should it be high risk/high reward unique abilities? Or small effects? I think risks should be of a turnover, not of the spell backfiring on the caster. Otherwise wizards will keep dying and they will be expensive to replace.

I like spellcaster positionals, although they could just be "your lineman +30K minus 1 AV". Though for certain teams I think different stats might be desirable. For example Dwarfs lose Block and Tackle, gain +1MA too. Amazons keep AV7 but lose Dodge.

Another idea: A Wizard may throw a block at anyone with a certain range (quite a long range to negate the effect of high MA) The target's ST is not used, instead count his ST value as being equal to the number of teammates in his Tackle Zone. (This means spells are not good for taking down cages, but are great at picking off stragglers).

Another idea: A Wizard may cast a spell at the start of any action. Roll a D6, subtracting the number of opposing players in the caster's TZ from the roll. A roll of 2 or more is a success. On a 1 the caster has been spotted by the referee and is sent to the sin bin. Put the caster in the Reserves box. This counts as a turnover. A successful casting allows the player to use any one skill of his choice until the start of his next action. This skill may be chosen from any category, including Extraordinary.

This last one might seem powerful, but in order to use a powerful skill like HypnoGaze or Chainsaw the caster has to put himself in harms way (the reason -1AV is a good idea). This makes casting a spell next turn much harder. An alternative effect for failing the casting roll would be just losing your TZ.

[voyagers_uk]

wizard positionals = No thanks
packaged spells = yes please

weaker and more prone to failure than the Sideline Wizard, also encompassing a temporary negative like Bonehead, does this mean spells will be early use effectively... I am not sure.

cost wise same as a babe making you choose between sideline and on pitch support

I think adding secret weapon to them is not fair, that way he becomes a positional and means we are changing the roster. If we look at them as a bonehead; 3+ spellcast option you have to declare then roll 2+, 3+ to get a spell working (elf coaches, when does that ever happen? especially when you need it to.) if you make it replace the teams blitz for the turn that perhaps makes it more of a strategic choice.

make it a 0-2 but only 1 per player so you potentially start with 2 boneheads on a trim roster... not my idea of Tier 1-2

this could easily fit in optional rules as an additional inducement. I do not see it as overpowered or weak. But a way to bring some more 2ed/3ed flavour back in.

[UncleBob]

I like Plasmoid's idea to use the pass-ruler and block dice. Straight forward spell casting. Like a block from a distance, way blocked, dodging to difficult - zap. And it's not Strength based! But I'm also against positionals, too big, inducements seems the simpler way.

For the other idea the costs should be closer to the Wizard, if a guarenteed spell costs 150k, three risky spells can't cost the same (that Wizard would be out of buisness). I would rather go with 0-2 and 100.000 each.

[plasmoid]

Hi guys,

One issue I see is that any spell with a range massively favours fast and/or agile players. And they are the players who benefit most from a ball carrier being knocked down.

...then again dodgy gits can often get at players that stompy players can't. A wizard would let them reach unreachable targets
Either way, I've tried to counter what you said by making the casting not AG based, and by not allowing the caster to move before casting.

Otherwise wizards will keep dying and they will be expensive to replace.

With wizards being star players that wouldn't be a problem.

Voyagers said:

I think adding secret weapon to them is not fair, that way he becomes a positional and means we are changing the roster.

Again - to a positional wizard perhaps. But not to a star wizard.

One thing I have against packaged spells is the potential for maxing. Just like we allowed mercs to start with a skill, but gave up on any inducement mechanic granting a skill to existing players due to maxing issues. Whatever spell mechanic is decided on, it is possible to build a player that would make it an extremely cost effective thing.

Also, on pitch wizards really goes against some old fluff. Was it called the quagmire incident(?) - the thing where a stadium sank under a magic dual, which resulted in the rule that teams may only employ one wizard.
To avoid all this, we could just make the "wizard" a true secret weapon: Magic wand.

Cheers
Martin

[tchatter]

My .02 copper, I like the 0-2 inducement idea more then the positionals. Now the one thing I don't really like is that 2 of the spells are Fireball and Lightning Bolt. If you use those who would take the Wizard inducement for 3x the cost?

I'd also rather see the mechanic work just like Hypnotic Gaze. You can only cast at the end of a Move action. However the spells should all have some sort of range to them.

I'd like to see different spell ideas rather then the Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

[Joemanji]

The ideas in this thread so far are horrible and boring.

[voyagers_uk]

Joe, I think I hear what you are saying. but I am working on some simple assumptions

1) Roster changes are a no-go
2) New Skills are a no-go
3) On-Pitch Spell casting is desirable

we want 3) but are stuck with 1) & 2) hence we have to look at this as an optional rule i.e. an inducement

a) you actually want to see this, so price has to be less than a full-on Wizard
b) If you price it cheaper than the wizard it has to be less reliable than him or people would never take him.
c) Racially specific spells are hard to balance and thus we are left with a limited selection
d) People are so far a little concerned that when adding this to movement you enable a more powerful Blitz action with little chance of a skull
e) adding a temporary negative skill such as Bonbehead has not received much comment, it is slightly fluffy as the spell takes up a lot of room in the cranium....

are you looking to disregard the assumptions and go for something whacky with little chance of success at making the rules (Chets Kicking rules as an similar example were good fun, but too much additional stuff to work imho)

Give me a cogent solution Joe.... I'll look to run with it and build upon it.

[plasmoid]

Hey Joe,
no fair
Half a page up you called mine promising
Did you mean promisingly dull

[DoubleSkulls]

Wizards & spell casters ought to be new rostered positions IMO. So the more I think about this the more I think that a better way of handling it would be to get rid of the magic item cards and then have purchasable inducements that had similar effects.

Magic items then either have a constant ingame effect (e.g. magic helmet gives thick skull) or allow for casting spells. These might be every turn or one per game.

[voyagers_uk]

but how realistic is a rostered position, some races are just unmagical....

[DoubleSkulls]

but how realistic is a rostered position, some races are just unmagical....

Why does everyone have to get one? Halflings or dwarves could be given magic resistance or cheaper magic items instead.

[mrinprophet]

I like the idea that they could be inducements because it doesn't add new players or skills. Perhaps plasmoid's idea of a magic wand? However, you don't know what spell it has in it and you have to roll a d6 after purchasing it to find out what it does. This builds in randomness. You could use Voyagers 6 spells listed above. Bonehead would be that the carrier is so focused on not accidentally firing the wand that he loses his turn. You could even use the block dice for the roll. Skull is you are down, make AV roll, lose turn. Both down is knock your self down like wrestle skill. Everything else is success. If you want to move and then use the spell you have to make it your blitz. That seems flavorful, easy and not overpowered.

[zakspeed]

If the idea is to have no extra skills etc, then I would have thought the easy solution would be for the spells to mimic current skills, but at a distance, and only as one shot wonders - although their potential is then huge...

ie, a single block up to 3 squares away, and an intercept attempt up to 3 squares away.
All rules remain the same as if you were making the skill in your square, just the effect happens elsewhere (ie if there is a tackle zone on you, you get the -1 modifier / assist against you etc).

So the 'Magic fist' block at up to 3 squares distance, would allow you to throw a block (dont know whether this should be fixed at ST3 if its going to be purchased across all players) at any player up to 3 squares away (even in the centre of a cage) and the assists for you would be down to your players with TZ on the target, but assists against would be down to TZ on your current square. So a target in the centre of a cage is likely to be a straight 1 dice block if the caster has no opposition around them.

I still think there should be a casting roll in most cases, so the spell has the potential to be game altering, but its a double jeopardy roll.... (potential to not cast and potential to not then have an effect). Maybe remote block, with its chance of both down / attacker down doesnt need the casting as it has a built in negative?

[Joemanji]

Joe, I think I hear what you are saying. but I am working on some simple assumptions

1) Roster changes are a no-go
2) New Skills are a no-go
3) On-Pitch Spell casting is desirable

we want 3) but are stuck with 1) & 2)

I don't agree with that premise. We are "creating" house rules, albeit an attempt at a coherent and widely recognised set of them. There are no limits other than what works and complements the existing set of rules.