Tweaking the Vamps (yet again)

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:36 pm

Yeah, they suck. 3/4 of the way though my 2nd game and I think (excluding EXP) my team has a grand total of 5SPP's.

Still, if they're that bad at least I've got an excuse for having a really bad W/L record

Milo · Post by **Milo** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:38 pm

Here's a suggestion for an updated OFAB:

---

Roll a D6 for every player with Off For A Bite at the start of the game. If they roll a 3 or less, they are stricken with anemia and must feed to be at full strength. They may bite the neck of any one of their thralls and bleed him to keep up their strength, or play through the pain. Bleeding a Thrall causes a Badly Hurt result and will take the Thrall out of the game. If they opt to play without Bleeding a Thrall, they must reduce their ST and AG by 1 for the remainder of the game.

---

So, you have a choice of either playing shorthanded with a couple of thralls out of the game, or your Vampires become much less exceptional. (Note that they still retain all skills, Hypnotic Gaze, and Regenerate, so you wind up with a reasonably good player, still.)

Any thoughts on this? I know it's dramatically different from the current version of the skill, but a lot of people have been complaining that it just doesn't work as is. This would also mean each player takes one roll at the start of the game, and there's very little bookkeeping throughout the game.

Milo

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:00 pm

As a concept, I like it much better because there is less verbage in the rules and it gives the coach more control over his team. - but perhaps it should be -1 ST and -2 AG? Finding a good game balance would require some testing, but I think that if a Vampire's feeling ill, he'd be weak and worse at ball handling than a regular human.

Oh, one problem would be that this could be a team that does not mind having niggled players, as they become an appetizer before the game starts.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:02 pm

The ST4/AG4 combo that is a vampire needs an on-pitch effect Milo to be a penalty.

Take a roster with a Lord, 4 Vamps, and 11 Thralls.

2 will fail their rolls and lets say they bleed Thralls.

That means I have the Lord, 4 Vamps, and 9 Thralls for the game ... this didn't solve the balance problem of the team at all. I'd play with this team anyday and rule the league .... (2 years of Vampire team playing this to back this ... #1 ranked during my tabletop season).

The COFAB rules have no bookkeeping, are very easy to understand and use, are in spirit of the team, and most importantly THEY WORK!

Several playtest games have already been recorded using COFAB by multiple leagues and they are all saying the same thing so far. Finally a fix that works for this team.

Don't knock the COFAB rules. They are the only change that I've seen that is in the spirit of the team and actually balances the team out. I have 3 COFAB Vampire teams in the MBBL right now.

Your solution wouldn't solve the problem with the team. On this one, I'm really asking you to consider the COFAB rules. JKL already reviewed and approved them as a good change.

So far the COFAB teams have played evenly with the other teams in my league and pounded on the Halflings ... just what you'd expect from a balanced team. The COFAB rules work ... really they do.

The few compliants about ease of use I've heard have come from coaches you are not playing the rules. The coaches playing the Vamp teams in my league haven't complained about COFAB at all. Torg, Darkson, and Evil Git can confirm this I'm sure.

Galak

MickeX · Post by **MickeX** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:11 pm

I just can't understand we need these super-special-negatraits for the vamps. A combo of overpriced, AG2 hunchback thralls / no apo / no re-rolls for vamps / fewer vampire players should do the trick within vanilla BB. And on top of that, it's a lot easier to explain fluffwise.

Micke

Milo · Post by **Milo** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:12 pm

Galak -- I'm just throwing another idea out there, not saying that COFAB has no merit. I'm not really enthused by COFAB because it creates an additional "action". I don't think there's anything else that does, so that's definitely a departure from the norm. I tend to try to avoid those, if possible.

Perhaps my "anemia" idea needs tweaking. Would it work if it was triggered on 2/3 of the rolls? What if it caused a serious injury instead of a badly hurt? With some of those players missing for the next game due to SI, there would be less Thralls to bleed.

It's just a thought. I'm trying to contribute to the debate, not detract from any one already-proposed possibility. Isn't it better to have several options to choose from, rather than just shooting every new one down because you think you already have something better?

Milo

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:27 pm

perhaps it was mentioned already somewhere elese, but first of all to balance vampires, you need to have to throw out the Vampire Lords.

Make them an Star Player equivalent (what they are considering their stats and skills).

Second I totally agree with Galak that when you give them STR AND AG of 4 at start they should really have an bad effect on pitch.

Just to offer an constructive critique, my proposal would be an die roll before moving the vamp (like 4+ for example) you have to make every time your vampire player is in your wide zones. If you fail the roll your vampire has to move directly off the pitch ... the fans avoid him, so there is no need for an injury roll (the fans might be maniacs, but hey, not insane ... ).

You could call that "Hey I saw a maiden" ... better than most things I have read so far.

Post by **Dave** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:57 pm

And make that work if they come into the endzone as well

You can wait ages for them to score a TD!!

I like Milo's idea but it needs tweaking just as COFAB has had. It can't be bad to look at another idea and maybe a combo of any of these can lead to a good solution.

For Example less vampires AND Milo's feeding thing.

or: Just less Vamps (2 and a lord ??)

Or Cofab

Or ......

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 2:21 am

Milo wrote:Galak -- I'm just throwing another idea out there, not saying that COFAB has no merit. I'm not really enthused by COFAB because it creates an additional "action". I don't think there's anything else that does, so that's definitely a departure from the norm. I tend to try to avoid those, if possible.

The only reason it creates an additional action is because JKL phrased it that way. I could just as easily phrase the trait in a way that would read a lot like Wild Animal and not talk about another action at all ... technically WA is exactly the same as COFAB if WA read an adjacent opponent causes a Wild Action .... Wild action: during this action a player must block or blitz one player adjacent to them.

Same thing. The original wording of COFAB had no mention at all of a seperate action. JKL added that extra wording because he thought it made it easier to understand. I could easily remove it again.

Perhaps my "anemia" idea needs tweaking. Would it work if it was triggered on 2/3 of the rolls? What if it caused a serious injury instead of a badly hurt? With some of those players missing for the next game due to SI, there would be less Thralls to bleed.

1-4 = failure and SI would about do it. But point you are really penalizing rookie teams. See the problem with the anemia is that in order to balance the long term team, you have to make the rule so rough that rookie teams will only be able to have 1 vampire in order to not start doing their own team in. Also I see a team where you have one or two player with 4 Niggles and 5 Stat reductions who is the designated miss next game guy. The only way around this would be to specifically state that this new OFAB roll is made AFTER Niggle rolls which adds a new element to the game as well since it would imply that a Niggled player doesn't show for the game, but if that were true how does the apothecary cure them? What I'm trying to say here is that your main argument against COFAB was that it added a new element to the game. Any fix that works for the Vampire team will HAVE to do just that. Even MikeX's solution of not allowing the Vamps rerolls does that since only Big Guys are denied rerolls. So does this mean that we are going to add the Big Guy trait to the Vamps ... again that is an exception since currently only one player on any team can have the Big Guy trait. So my point is that rejecting COFAB because it "adds something new" ... an opinion I guess I don't even agree with totally ... the only way to fix the Vamps IS to "add something new".

It's just a thought. I'm trying to contribute to the debate, not detract from any one already-proposed possibility. Isn't it better to have several options to choose from, rather than just shooting every new one down because you think you already have something better?

Okay don't take this as a stance of I'm going to shoot down everything that someone says because I like COFAB. I played Vampires for a long time. I love the team and I want to see justice done to it, since I know from experience where the "brokeness" was in the old team.

So yes I'm open to every option. The fact that I'd agree with a new proposal doesn't mean I'm closeminded. It's just that I don't see the increased merit over a current idea. If you have a counter offer, I'm more than willing to look at it open minded and respond.

Now next batter... MikeX:

A combo of overpriced, AG2 hunchback thralls / no apo / no re-rolls for vamps / fewer vampire players should do the trick within vanilla BB. And on top of that, it's a lot easier to explain fluffwise.

First off ... I still want to go on record that if you've read the 2nd edition fluff ... I have no clue how you can say that COFAB is not fluffy. My argument to one of your claims. I don't find your changes any easier to explain fluffwise than either OFAB or COFAB. Both represent the bloodthrist of the vamps found throughout of the fluff of BB. I don't see who no re-roll vamps do.

Second: AG 2 thralls don't really matter to the team. Yeah its nice to be able to have the thrall ball handlers but really they are just blocking dummies. A good vampire team can easy score with the Lord and 2 Vamps and some warm bodies. So an AG decrease won't hurt the team really.

Third: No Apoth/overprice the thralls ... fine I won't agrue with this one much. I actually like the team when it was 6/3/3/7 Thralls for 50k without an apoth. This would help balance the team but again the Thralls are really just so much throw away filler that again this only really effects a beginning roster not the long term balance of the team.

Fouth: Seen a lot of player suggest removing the lord and/or fewer Vamps. IMO (and I'll stress that this is my opinion) ... its not a really a vampire team with less than 0-6 Vampires allowed. Yes, my league has Vampire teams with 0-4 Vampires but those Vamps kick major and serious ass with several costing 130 to 160k each. That's fine for a league like the MBBL2 and fun in such a league. Don't think that a good basis for the team though.

Fifth: No rerolls for the Vampires. Again personal preference. I don't like the idea of making the team have Big Guy Vampires.
\==========================================

That all said ... let's spin this another way ... what do I think a Vampire team should have:

1) A Lord and up to 6 Vampires. I don't think its a Vampire team otherwise.
2) Vampires able to use re-rolls. I don't like the idea of them as Big Guys.
3) A stat line for the Vamps that is ST 4/AG 4 HGaze with Gen/St/Ag access. Again without this statline, I don't consider it a Vampire. The MA/AV and price don't mean much to me.

So that's what I think of when I think Vampires. Sorry if this doesn't match up with others, but its what a Vampire team is to me.

Also ... I'm not a big fan at all of off-pitch effects. I'm campaigning for using a modification of Plasmoid's Take Root also which is an on-pitch effect for the trait. I just don't think off-pitch effect ever work like people hope they will. I reviewed and/or played almost 400 BB matches in the last year from my two leagues. My opinion of off-pitch effects is formed from this. The only exception to this I've found was the Werewolf change that the MBBL2 uses. We tried multiple different on-pitch effects without any of them working.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 2:29 am

On and Milo just to keep my promise:

Code: Select all

COFAB:
     A player with this characteristic must occasionally feed on the blood of the living. At the start of any action (other than going from stunned to prone), 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 may only make a Move action for this turn and if they are holding the ball, they immediately drop it (this is not a turnover). If they enter a square with the ball, they will automatically fail to pick it up as well (this is a turnover).  
     If the player ends his Move 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.

There is version of COFAB that doesn't introduce a new action which you disliked. This is similar to what it looked like when first suggested and in many way makes the skill more like Wild Animal (where failure forces a Blitz/Block action ... this one forces a Move action). Some text has been added to make it more clear. Like I said JKL added the Feeding Action to HELP with the wording, but since both you and Chet have objected to the "new" action. It would probably be better to return to the pre-JKL wording of the skill to make it look not so new. As for number of words. We've counted and its less than Throw Team-Mate (which requires an entire page in the rule book) and about the same as Really Stupid and Wild Animal so its not really that much worse rule wise than most of the characteristics.

Galak

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 8:40 am

There's hardly anything left to say after Galak above... but to emphasise my support for the views expressed in his posts, I repeat that only on-pitch effects can make a believable and balanced vampire team (id est: has vampires, not 1 vamp). From amongst such suggestions, COFAB is the one that has gained the largest support, and is extremely simple to implement.

Post by **Dave** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 9:05 am

Galak: I agree with you on most points, still think that all options should be kept open but still agree.

One point though. Why would a major Vampire (Lord) allow so many rivals close by. Even in WFB (maybe not a very good comparison but hey, basis for a lot of the fluff) a Vampire Counts Army hasn't got that many Vamps (maybe just 4 in a rather large 3000pt Army)

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 9:45 am

Dave wrote: One point though. Why would a major Vampire (Lord) allow so many rivals close by. Even in WFB (maybe not a very good comparison but hey, basis for a lot of the fluff) a Vampire Counts Army hasn't got that many Vamps (maybe just 4 in a rather large 3000pt Army)

Then where do you think that the rest of the vamps are?

That's right - they've grouped and are forming notoriously bad blood bowl teams!

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 12:45 pm

Hi all,

MickeX said:
>.....within vanilla BB.
I'm all for that. IMO, cOFAB would have been fine for a star player or a secret weapon, but not for a basic roster.

Galak said:
>AG2 thralls don't really matter to the team.

Disagreed.
We have experience with using skellies rather than "thralls".
Knowing that only a handful of the players can be expected to make a dodge or catch the ball, seriously helps the opponent in containing the few players that can move with the ball.

Galak said:
>...ST4/AG4... Without this statline, I don't consider it a vampire.

IMO, keep everything else and drop AG to 3.
A ST4 player with access to AG+ST skills is sufficiently agile, lethal and unique to make an interesing vampire.

Also, from a balance perspective, it would do the team a world of good. Suddenly, even with gaze, they won't be better dodgers than elves. They can also be expected to make more mistakes, and thats good news for whoever is playing against them.

Martin

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:54 pm

I totally disagree with the point of having to include a Vampire Lord to an Vamp Team (that should be the coach at best and not an player).

Otherwise I would vote for an Ogre Lord (one that has ST 6 AG 3 and has lost his bone head) ... okay I agree that this is as pathetic as having and Vampire Lord, but the example might open your eyes a bit ... well maybe not...

If you generally include Starplayers (not freebooters) to your rules I might think over my point, but personally I prefer not to have any permanent Star Players (pre-generated ones of course) in my leagues ...