deathgerbil
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 15:52 |
 
|
well, i don't really see it as a bad change, - just think about how casterated minotaurs were before the change... if you had a goblin 5 feet away from the minotaur, the minotaur would just stand there instead of simply moving 5 feet up and killing the little git. I like the fouling option though, - before they were angry, too angry in fact to beat the living crap out of someone on the ground... although i think it is a little strange that a minotaur could ever be to angry to beat the crap out of someone. |
|
|
Jarnageddon
Joined: Nov 04, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 15:53 |
|
| AeoN2 wrote: | Am I the only one who thought WA was best as they were in the old LRB? maybe a tad overpowered, but not compared to other balance issues in BB...
--
AeoN2 |
Yes, you are |
_________________
Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with something bigger and heavier. |
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 15:56 |
|
i don't think i've ever seen a big guy foul...they are too valueable to risk that they should probably just remove that part from the rule. |
|
|
quota
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 15:57 |
|
The +2 on foul should be removed. Who in their right mind would ever foul with a BG? You can still use your blitz to move the WA of course, but if you want to waste your blitz on a move, that's fine by me. |
_________________
the only good undead is a dead, uhm, undead... |
|
Severian
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:02 |
|
| Irit wrote: | | The +2 on foul should be removed. Who in their right mind would ever foul with a BG? You can still use your blitz to move the WA of course, but if you want to waste your blitz on a move, that's fine by me. |
Funny that these two are based on the same issue (wasting blitz vs wasting foul) but you view the foul as expendable and therefore able to be changed. Strictly speaking it's not hitting the root of the matter; that either way these two actions can be abused to get the +2. |
|
|
Khaan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:02 |
|
Using my foul action to move my ratogre instead?
Sure, the day i get to foul twice per turn... no infact I'd just foul twice instead. |
_________________
Even small goblins make large dents if provided sufficient thrust.
A well aimed goblin is the second most dangerous thing on a Bloodbowl pitch.
The Boyz |
|
deathgerbil
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:03 |
|
hey, sometimes big guys can foul, usually the little guys with dirty player are the first ones targeted for death, - little bit harder to knock over and kill a big minotaur or rat ogre. Back when i had pikachu the immortal, I gave him dirty player to help him maul people when he stood up (enjoyment was getting the blitz back then), and he broke more than a few heads with dirty player. |
|
|
deathgerbil
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:06 |
|
Hey, for my team, wasting a foul in order to stand up a player is a HUGE loss  When you have 5 dirty players (hopefully more soon), one turn not fouling is one more person who wasn't been added to my casualty difference |
|
|
Mordachai
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:06 |
|
I say that this change has happened because all the whining about the new WA has made Jervis a tad bit desperate.
Not that I have said that I will continue by telling my opinion about the proposed change:
Why? Why give the WA a neg. trait that lies somewhere between bone head and really stupid? And one with such a loop hole as well?
My solution to the problem?
Give it some more thought! Test the different versions first before making any such changes.
just my 15 öre (or roughly 2 cent) |
_________________
"I love this show!!!" - Gir |
|
quota
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:08 |
|
| Severian wrote: | | Irit wrote: | | The +2 on foul should be removed. Who in their right mind would ever foul with a BG? You can still use your blitz to move the WA of course, but if you want to waste your blitz on a move, that's fine by me. |
Funny that these two are based on the same issue (wasting blitz vs wasting foul) but you view the foul as expendable and therefore able to be changed. Strictly speaking it's not hitting the root of the matter; that either way these two actions can be abused to get the +2. |
You're right, both can be abused to move. But realistically, you'd never foul with the WA. And if you used the blitz action on it, you'd most likely blitz anyway. If the rule with +2 for a foul action holds, you're gonna see insane amounts of foul moves (with no fouling) whereas my guess is you'd see very few blitz moves wasted just to move the WA.
Personally I don't see any other solution. Now it can fail even when blocking, while blitzing becomes easier (and actually worth considering unlike now). |
_________________
the only good undead is a dead, uhm, undead... |
|
deathgerbil
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:11 |
|
Actually, i'd take really stupid over wild animal any day of the week. you have to roll 2+ to do ANYTHING, including turning someone into a pasty smear on the ground, and a 4+ in order to move! really stupid can be assisted, which allows you to essentially turn it into a slightly nerfed version of bonehead. before wild animals were unplayable, - they still suck now, but now you can play them if your desperate. using a blitz action in order to make him hit someone is kinda a waste imho. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:12 |
|
just add it to the fumbbl rules that if you declare foul and don't you'll be placed on probation or something. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:23 |
|
| Quote: |
just add it to the fumbbl rules that if you declare foul and don't you'll be placed on probation or something.
|
No - Don't agree - declaring a foul in order to get the +2 is a perfectly legal coaching move. What's the downside ? You lose your foul action for the turn. For those that don't foul, no big deal. But for those that do foul or have "get the ref" it might be a big deal. I say it's a valid tactic and no where in the rule book does it say you have to go through with the action. Same with declaring pass, but then deciding against it. You lose the action for the turn, but that's it. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:24 |
|
I don't see the option of not committing the foul anywhere in the rules. I know it's possible in the client, but in RL games, you have to foul, right? |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:29 |
|
| Mully wrote: | | Quote: |
just add it to the fumbbl rules that if you declare foul and don't you'll be placed on probation or something.
|
No - Don't agree - declaring a foul in order to get the +2 is a perfectly legal coaching move. What's the downside ? You lose your foul action for the turn. For those that don't foul, no big deal. But for those that do foul or have "get the ref" it might be a big deal. I say it's a valid tactic and no where in the rule book does it say you have to go through with the action. Same with declaring pass, but then deciding against it. You lose the action for the turn, but that's it. |
actually the rulebook says if you declare a pass action you MUST pass the ball at the end of his move. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Problem to organize ...
Search
