Adding a Vampire to the LRB2.0 Undead Team need feedback

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:20 am

GalakStarscraper wrote:How many games do you need Zombie before I don't have to caveat my opinions with the duration of my experience

I'd say about 20 to 30. That's when i'd expect the vampire team to possibly cause problems.

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 8:11 am

GalakStarscraper wrote:Okay no offense Narkotic but since you don't like the rule, you are really butchering the explanation. Not trying to be rude, but you are flying in at 10,000 feet because you don't like the close to the ground view.

No offense taken, but in fact I do not argue that Vampires are broken with the new OFAB. You're right I do not like the rule but I agree that it balances the Vampire. I have to admit that I haven't played Vampires, so I have to base my opinion on suggestions.
I doubt that I will ever play Vampires bc. the whole team gets unreliable to the worst degree the more Vampires you have. Maybe that was intended (and has to be). I just critized the team/player design, but if you say that everyone is fond playing them, I will bow down.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 10:14 am

I think that they are fine with the new ofab and as soon as ski codes it into javabowl I will be starting up a vampire team in fumbbl.

OFAB does make the vampire team worse the more vamps you have on the pitch, but they are prob the best most versitile players you can get, so they need toning down or you won't stop them.

I also argued that you don't need to have all 6 on the pitch at a time, meaning you will make less ofab rolls, it won't hurt to leave 1 or 2 in the dug out. Another point is you don't have to take an action with them when they are on the pitch, no action, no roll. Then there is nothing stopping you using a reroll on hte ofab roll, they don't have big guy and well you can get them pro to use on the roll as well, which you can also use as a makeshift surehand, catch or whatever.

My last point is that you can work with ofab as well, whats to stop you just going to bite a thrall. Sure its an injury roll, but most of the time you are not going to get much worse than a KO and what with them being the same as a hobgoblin (in stats and cost) who cares what happens to them anyway. You get the choice of which thrall to go and bite as well, so you can avoid your more built up ones, hell whats to stop you freebooting one just to get bitten at the start of the match if you can afford it ;]

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 10:55 am

I'm with Galak on this issue.

I admit that I've only played once against the vampires so I don't have that much playtest data to back this up. The team had the lord and a single vamp.
The vamp failed COFAB once every six turns (the average), but that was already quite bad for him, it definitely helped me to get a tie against him even though I was seriously outmanned thanks to pitch invasion and lucky injury rolls on his part.

The lord was awfully powerful and was definitely playing an important role for the team. I fully support removing him.

I have no concern about the team being too good on the long term. After all, with 6 vamps you've got an expected value of 1 failed COFAB roll per turn. When you field them all. And as Galak said, you either take that or concentrate all your skill choices on succeding in the COFAB roll, which basicly stalls your team development. Naturally I eagerly await more longer term playtest data, but to me it seems clear that the team is balanced.
You have to remember that lucky skill rolls etc. will never remove the fact that 1/6th of the vampire actions end up in an injury roll for a thrall or the vamp running out. There's no way around that and that will keep the team unsuccesfull in the long term.

It's an excellent trait and has finally, after all the 3rd ed, 4th ed and LRB years enabled introducing the vampires as a balanced team to the game.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 11:56 am

Can some of you Balancing Gosus give me an Opinion on

Human Team
0-1 Vampire (see above)

Undead Team
0-1 Vampire (see above)

i mean LRB 2.0 Teams, not the upcoming "Vampire Team"

thanks again people.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:07 pm

It is good to know that the Vampires are balanced after 6 games, but Zombie has got a point here. We don't yet know how the Vampires will preform after 30+ games. It is likely that they will do better as Vampire coaches come to terms with their limitations and develop solid tactics for Vamp teams. I believe that all Zombie is trying to say (in that oh so eloquent way of his) is that the jury is still out on their long term balance. I personally think that the balance is probably good, but don't yet know for sure. Before I see new rosters added to the LRB, I'd like to see it tested up to this level.

Toby, I think adding a Vampire to either a Human or an Undead team would be a bad idea. Both teams do well already, are equipped to deal with the Vamp's liability, and can really use the extra strength and agility.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:35 pm

Skummy wrote:It is good to know that the Vampires are balanced after 6 games, but Zombie has got a point here. We don't yet know how the Vampires will preform after 30+ games

Since the FUMBBL league is adding 2003 Annual Vampires to the league .. I'll look forward to seeing that. I fully understand the limits of the MBBL with its testing. Anymore I see the system like this: MBBL, NFL, and many other leagues (like the TBBF and others) test all or certain of the experimental teams and find the glaring holes. Fixes get made from the BB Mag version and gets printed in the Annual ... at that point the FUMBBL league agrees to test the team and we then get to see the long term effects.

I'm pretty happy with that system.

Galak

Agentrock · Post by **Agentrock** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:38 pm

I agree...the Human and/or Undead teams do not need a Vampire...

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:48 pm

The Undead definitely need one because being a vampire fits perfectly to the general ieaa of havin a bunch of semi-dead people playing the game.

(i dont like the addition of 1000 teams btw, we dont need vampire team, skelleton teams and mummie teams if we already have one undead team)

I was wondering about the humans because Count van Draken would be allowed to join them...

So question is not "do they need a Vampire" but "would it be a good or a bad thing". I like to see teams develop in diffrent ways, one could pick an ogre the other one could chose a vampire instead.

Well, personal preferences i guess. What should not happen is Vampire > Ogre, so nobody picks the Ogre because the Vamp is just plain better.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:13 pm

If you really want to give a Vampire to an Undead team, you could give them the choice between 0-2 Mummies or 0-2 Vampires on the team. It could make for some very interesting alternate devleopment for the team. As a side note, I would only let them feed on the Ghouls when they fail COFAB rolls.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:20 pm

Now that are 2 verry verry cool ideas.

i pick up the ghoul rule immidiately.

now, my position limits suggestion:

Undead Team: 0-2 Blockers
Mummy Blocker 3/5/1/9 ....
Vampire Blocker 6/4/4/8 ....
that means: 0/2 2/0 or 1:1 Vampire Mummy combinations.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:26 pm

Having a Vampire and a Mummy both on the pitch is actually something I wanted to avoid because you get the best of both worlds. You have a 5 strength player to push around your opponent's front lines, and you only have one vampire that has to roll COFAB on every turn.

Of course, neither of them has any backup, so the lack of depth could be exploited by a good coach...

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:46 pm

Grumbledook wrote:You get the choice of which thrall to go and bite as well, so you can avoid your more built up ones, hell whats to stop you freebooting one just to get bitten at the start of the match if you can afford it.

Or keeping the -1ST, -1AG, niggler on the team just for biting purposes!

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:53 pm

Zombie wrote:
Grumbledook wrote:You get the choice of which thrall to go and bite as well, so you can avoid your more built up ones, hell whats to stop you freebooting one just to get bitten at the start of the match if you can afford it.
Or keeping the -1ST, -1AG, niggler on the team just for biting purposes!

Nothing stops this of course .. however, you are throwing a suck player onto the field as a walking TZ only basically, and odds are the Vampire that fails the OFAB roll won't even be able to reach him.

Galak

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:45 pm

not if you keep your players positioned right ;]