Piling On

Vesticle · Post by **Vesticle** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 12:52 am

Chet already calculated the numbers and posted them for you.

Sure, re-rolling increases the chance to break armor, but compare 2 chances to beat armor 8 (9+ first roll, 7+ second) to having a single roll to try to beat armor 8 if you have strenght 4 (5+ roll).

David

Thetian · Post by **Thetian** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 1:16 am

Vesticle wrote:Chet already calculated the numbers and posted them for you.

Sure, re-rolling increases the chance to break armor, but compare 2 chances to beat armor 8 (9+ first roll, 7+ second) to having a single roll to try to beat armor 8 if you have strenght 4 (5+ roll).

David

Looks like we're comparing apples to oranges. Chet's suggestion is simply an AV re-roll with a bonus based on size. Neoliminal suggested an Inj re-roll. Two very different things.

Vesticle · Post by **Vesticle** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 1:31 am

Oh, I thought you were still commenting on Chet's original suggestion.

Yeah, I don't know about the injury re-roll... in a way it seems weak, since it's most likely it won't do anything, but when it does do something, it definitely seems too powerful...

And I don't know about others, but personally I like to see casualties, but I feel kind of bad when serious damage is done. BH gives me my +2 SPP, and takes that player out of the game, death doesn't really help me out anymore, and it's really awful when it happens against me... anyway... =)

David

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 4:03 am

Sorry, that should have read Armour RR.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 4:05 am

Acerak wrote:John - Not bad, although I think a simple AV re-roll doesn't keep any worth to the skill. The AV breaks drop dramatically. And if you started allowing AV re-rolls in general, the skill you've described wouldn't be any good compared to a TRR or Pro.

Chet - Agreed, but I still don't think you should TRR Armour if you wont TRR Injury (which I don't want to ever see again.)

Thetian · Post by **Thetian** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 4:27 am

neoliminal wrote:Sorry, that should have read Armour RR.

Wel, that clears that up. AV re-roll it is!
I can't wait 'til October. How exactly does the rules review work? Is it a flurry of emails back and forth across the pond throughout the year and then a final bit of arguement and voting, or what? How soon after the review can we expect to see the new rules?

IronAge_Man · Post by **IronAge_Man** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:06 am

Piling On: The player may use this skill after he has knocked over an opponent as a result of a block, but only if he failed to beat the victim's AV. The player falls on top of the opponent he has just knocked down and may make another armor roll against him with the following modifiers:

* Stunty: +1
* Man-sized (i.e., non-Stunty, non-Big Guy): +2
* Big Guy: +3

These definitions aren't necessarily all that good; what about St 3 stunties, or Big Guys with -1 Str, or Mummies with +1 Str? A better system was suggested by my brother (so he gets credit/blame):

* Add: Piling On player strength/2 (rounded up)

McDeth · Post by **McDeth** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:24 am

[quote="IronAge_Man
These definitions aren't necessarily all that good; what about St 3 stunties, or Big Guys with -1 Str, or Mummies with +1 Str? A better system was suggested by my brother (so he gets credit/blame):

* Add: Piling On player strength/2 (rounded up)[/quote]

Know what your saying but i think it may be the bulk of the player that effects the die roll rather than the strength.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 11:16 am

IronAge_Man wrote: * Add: Piling On player strength/2 (rounded up)

So

S2 = +1
S3 = +2
S4 = +2
S5 = +3

Which isn't that different to Chet's proposals (unless you're a mummy).

Ian

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 11:46 am

I said:-

Finally, IMO this proposal works with the current rule set... but if armour rolls can be rerolled by Pro or Team Rerolls (see New Idea thread) then I think it needs another look.

and Chet responded

I'd like to know why you think it would need another look. You commented earlier in the New Idea thread that you didn't want to see the numbers drop. If the numbers are just about the same as the current ones...what's the problem?

The main reason for this is that if you can reroll armour using Pro or a TRR, then taking Piling On is less appealing. OK the effects of Piling On are going to be better (+2 or +3 in the proposal) to the av roll. However for this you are automatically prone (which I agree with). So the choice is:-

Do I take Piling On or Pro? Sure Pro only allows a reroll 50% of the time and it doesn't give me any bonuses. However, I don't go prone and in addition I can reroll block dice with a 50% chance (looking for that POW), and reroll anything else (gfis.... dodges, catches etc at 50% chance).

To me Pro is the only choice - sure Casualties may be a bit lower (but factor in the rerolled block and I bet its close) - but you are going prone - opening yourself up to a foul and losing your TZ. TRRs also become even more valuable.. sure you probably won't reroll an av roll at the start of the half... but if you have 2 turns left and 3 rerolls and you don't have much left to do in the turn - of course you will burn the reroll. Sure this may not happen every game... but any team heavy on rerolls (Amazon, Dwarf) will be delighted at this additional benefit... So in this situation, would you Pile On or use a TRR - again you will probably use the TRR to stay on your feet.

So my point is: Piling On is a good skill (under the proposed change) since it is the only way of making an av reroll. Allow av rerolls elsewhere and the value of the skill deteriorates dramatically.

Finally, I suggested an addition:-

If the opposing player is stunned from the first av and injury roll, the Piling On player may choose to Pile On. If he chooses to do so, the av roll is automatically successful (the stunned player cannot protect himself) [NB if you don't like auto then add +2 / +4 / +6 - a roll of 2 always fails]. Make an injury roll as normal and place the Piling On player prone.

to which I haven't had a comment. On further reflection, I feel that Piling On to a Prone or Stunned player (who you have blocked and knocked down) should be allowed - however, in this case you should get another +1 to the armour roll for the belly flop - ie +2,+3 or +4.

This will make a Chaos Warrior with Claw and Piling On a feared opponent indeed. I don't have a problem with this... especially if RSC goes.

Dave

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 12:44 pm

Disclaimer: The following comments assume that you could re-roll AV rolls. They do not translate to the current version of the game!

Do I take Piling On or Pro?

Take them both. But if you have the chance and you're a big bad bruiser, take Piling On first. It's more consistent. Pro is decent at re-rolling blocks, but if you're a player who routinely gets 2 dice, you should get a lot of knockdowns for starters.

I think the proposed rule is just fine for starters. If it looks bad after playtesting, a change might be in order. You prefer Pro in these scenarios; I wouldn't.

* No skill break rate: 27.8%
* Pro AV break rate: 37.8%
* Piling On break rate: 69.9%

* No skill CAS rate: 4.6%
* Pro CAS rate: 6.3%
* Piling On CAS rate: 11.7%

I don't know what those numbers say to you, but they tell me that Piling On is already the better choice. Going prone, in my opinion, is worthwhile in most cases. Piling On has a much better effect on AV breaks and casualty rates. The numbers aren't even close.

-Chet

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 12:46 pm

Chet - Agreed, but I still don't think you should TRR Armour if you wont TRR Injury (which I don't want to ever see again.)

John - I don't see that these are related. You're not forced into treating them similarly just because the current rules do that. They are clearly capable of being separated. Not only does the game have different skills that affect each separately, but it treats them as separate rolls.

-Chet

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 2:58 pm

Chet,

Your numbers assume a Big Guy (I think).

If you take a normal player (Blitzer etc) they are much closer. In addition, since Pro will allow a reroll of a failed Bonehead or Really Stupid roll, even for a Big Guy the numbers are closer than you have shown.

Dave

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:37 pm

Acerak wrote:Chet - Agreed, but I still don't think you should TRR Armour if you wont TRR Injury (which I don't want to ever see again.)

John - I don't see that these are related. You're not forced into treating them similarly just because the current rules do that. They are clearly capable of being separated. Not only does the game have different skills that affect each separately, but it treats them as separate rolls.

I think we agree that RR's on Injury are a Bad Thing(tm)

The question then becomes, what about RR's on Armour?

Both rolls are 2d6 and they come back to back (assuming a successful Armour roll.) Sure, you could seperate them, but I would only do so for a clear advantage. Currently I don't see an advantage.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:18 pm

The 3rd ed skill was perfect. So perfect that even now that we play BB2k1, we never stopped using the old pilling on. Why change what isn't broken? Just bring the old pilling on back for Christ's sake!