Revising the Treeman

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:52 pm

Just to put in my pennies worth, i like this skill.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:58 pm

Actually, I kinda like it. Reminds me of the old take root from 2ed. Would like to see it changed (the current take root is kinda lame and the most neg trait in the game).

Shasta McNasty · Post by **Shasta McNasty** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 2:38 am

Ok, so I've never played Flings, and I never will. But I have played Wood elves, and even teh short-lived Big Guy Treeman team in a Big guys league. I think this rule is a good one. On one hand, it makes it easy to avoid teh treeman (no TZ = no dodge to get away). But he can still hit if you do get stuck near him, and unless I'm mistaken, he can even lend assists (old ruling from Vamp team Hypnotic Gaze query - to lend assist, you must be adjacent to teh payer blah blah blah). Also, as glalc pointed out, he can still go teh big toss (TTM). All in all, good work.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 2:43 am

I don't know. This would need some real testing. What's gonna stop flings form just plopping a couple treemen down on the line. So what if they can't move? They don't move anyway! This doesn't seem like a very negative trait to me. With no tackle zone they can still assist, they can still block and they can still intercept, etc etc.

So he can't use his 2 MA? Big whoop. Sorry Tom, you sound a bit biased on this one.

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 2:52 am

he can even lend assists

By the end of this month we should learn if this is still true. The bbrc had that very question up for consideration at this last meeting. Most people dont think they should lend assists if they have no tz's, the bbrc was strongly considering making that official.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 2:57 am

Pariah wrote:I don't know. This would need some real testing. What's gonna stop flings form just plopping a couple treemen down on the line. So what if they can't move? They don't move anyway! This doesn't seem like a very negative trait to me. With no tackle zone they can still assist, they can still block and they can still intercept, etc etc.

So he can't use his 2 MA? Big whoop. Sorry Tom, you sound a bit biased on this one.

I would greatly disagree Pariah ... a Tree that cannot move and has no TZ is quickly worthless. Yeah there is definite bias here since I'm a Stunty coach (Wee Folk, Pixie, Halfling, and Snotling ... only one haven't played yet is Goblin).

But that doesn't change the fact that Take Root is just too negative of a trait for the team that mostly uses the Big Guys. I'm not talking about making the Halflings tournament contendors but this wouldn't hurt ... that's also why Chet and I agree that the price should be increased to 120k to compensate.

Bottom line Morg ... you played against my Flings. You know that my Treeman move ... I very frequently move 2 and GFI once or twice with them. No movement and no TZ means deadweight other than as a TTM option. As for the whole still being able to assist thing ... woohoo ... yeah my Halflings frequently use an assist from a Treeman to block ... yeah right ...

Its a decent change ... and come one do your really think Halflings are going to start to rule the world if it comes to pass ...

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:02 am

sean newboy wrote:
he can even lend assists
By the end of this month we should learn if this is still true. The bbrc had that very question up for consideration at this last meeting. Most people dont think they should lend assists if they have no tz's, the bbrc was strongly considering making that official.

I think that will still come to pass ... it might have to wait until 2003. There are only 2 rule "changes" I think. However the whole no TZ can vs cannot assist was usually more of a Q&A item ... so it might get overturned this rule. At one point I pretty much had both JKL and Chet convinced and agreeing that no TZ = no assist since many many coaches (80% surveyed) played it that way already. Whether we'll see it official or not in a week ... I have no idea.

Galak

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:52 am

Hi all,
this looks great

I'd probably let the treeman keep his TZ. After all, rooting him to the spot for a handful of turns (with no reroll) isn't a very nice thing to happen to a player.
However - even if he doesn't get a TZ, I'm quite happy with this.

Hooray

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:40 pm

sounds a bit harsh to me, being immobilized for the whole drive. Even for a treeman. Maybe that could be mad in a 4+ roll to take root when the treeman does not move a square in that turn ?

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:43 pm

I'm a bit astounded that people don't think losing a tackle zone is so bad. It's precisely this reason that makes people say Hypnotic Gaze is so powerful. Personally I'd be very happy for an opposing player to become immobile and lose his tackle zone. It means my elves don't have to dodge away from him... superb!

Well done, Galak, this looks like a very good alternative version of Take Root.

Cheers,
Martyn

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:59 pm

Hey. I like the basics here.

Losing a tackle zone is bad. very bad.

But, not being able to move, and losing his tackle zone for the rest of the drive, can be pretty nasty.

What if nobody manages to score any touchdowns or only a very few, the player fielding the treeman risks not only losing him for one half. But both.

Not likely, considering the woodelf team, but determinded orcs and dwarves, can box in a ball for several turns.

But In general. I like it. Makes it more fun, as you see the result of the negatrait in play. It's cool.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 2:52 pm

roysorlie wrote:Hey. I like the basics here.
Losing a tackle zone is bad. very bad.
But, not being able to move, and losing his tackle zone for the rest of the drive, can be pretty nasty.
What if nobody manages to score any touchdowns or only a very few, the player fielding the treeman risks not only losing him for one half. But both.
Not likely, considering the woodelf team, but determinded orcs and dwarves, can box in a ball for several turns.
But In general. I like it. Makes it more fun, as you see the result of the negatrait in play. It's cool.

Treeman basically not being great BB players is important to Jervis. The BBRC has pull, but at the end of the day, its still JJ's game. Heck JJ's original version of Take Root had the player missing the whole game on a failed roll. So the bottom line here is that Take Root needs to stay pretty bad. Now we have folks saying its too bad ... and folks like Pariah saying its needs testing as it might be too much of an improvement ... with a majority saying they like it. That's about the most I can hope for with a BB change.

Galak

Rune · Post by **Rune** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:15 pm

While I'm not a big fan of negative traits, I must say that I like this new version a lot better than the current one.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:27 pm

martynq wrote:Well done, Galak, this looks like a very good alternative version of Take Root.

Cheers,
Martyn

Since I almost never agree with Martin/Plasmoid, I have to say again that 95% of this was his idea. Chet and I just tweaked his original suggestion to make it more to the taste that JJ would prefer for the Treeman. IE a little more negative (by adding the lose TZ) and by making it more real (if knocked down the negative roll is negated).

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:44 pm

Quick comparison ... old to new Take Root using stats which some hate and some appreciate:

Old: Treeman on average missed 4 turns of play over several games.

New: If you assumed 2 drives per a half each lasting 4 turns. Then the Treeman will be immobile with no TZ for 5.6 turns each game on average. It gets better with more drives, the worst number you could throw out is that if each half only had one drive the Treeman would be immobile with no TZ for 8.3 turns on average. The other extreme is that if the entire game was 2 turn drives (ie 8 drives total), then the Tree would only be out 3.8 turns on average.

So the new is slightly "more" negative than the old ... BUT it means that a Halfling team will never take the field for the 1st drive without the Trees being there. So it more negative and not more negative at the same time.

Galak