duttydave
|
Standing a Player UpHello
On p5 of the 5.1 Rulebook regarding a Down player it states that "When a Down player succesfully performs his Get-Up challenge, place him standing in the Hex he is in."
A further paragraph says that a Down player can spend 5 Jog Paces less his Grit to stand up and a Dazed player 8 paces less Grit.
Does that mean that if my player is Down I can opt to do a Get-Up challenge Or pay 5 Jog paces less Grit to stand up instead?
I'm guessing the Get-Up challenge is now obsolete and that the reference to it was overlooked when the rules were updated. Is that right?
|
GalakStarscraper
|
Posting the new rulebook right now.
Tom
|
GalakStarscraper
|
Okay 5.1 rulebook with all the typos fixed and the new reference card should now be up on the website ... sorry for the delay.
This gets rids of the reference to the Get-Up challenge that was still on that page.
Galak
|
duttydave
|
Thanks Galak
|
brownrob
|
Brill Tom, thanks again for the good work, which would take other FF companies a few years to do!!! 
Hopefully Ill get time to skim through and read it
|
mattwakeman
|
Just noticed that the Get-Up challenge has gone. Is it an intention of this rule that a Gnomish Contraption which is dazed cannot stand up without being assisted? If so then this will also have some issues when players start to pick up some injuries and can no longer get up of their own accord.
|
GalakStarscraper
|
| mattwakeman wrote: | | Just noticed that the Get-Up challenge has gone. Is it an intention of this rule that a Gnomish Contraption which is dazed cannot stand up without being assisted? |
Yes this is intentional.
| Quote: | | If so then this will also have some issues when players start to pick up some injuries and can no longer get up of their own accord. |
Yup ... that's why you should retire them and get new rookies.
Galak
|
mattwakeman
|
Interesting.
|
mattwakeman
|
| GalakStarscraper wrote: | Yup ... that's why you should retire them and get new rookies.
Galak |
You know, I've been thinking about this comment and I have to ask why is this a part of the design mentality of the game? To me it feels like a carry over from 'the other game' (hereafter TOG) in which high levels of violence were needed to try and impose some level of balance and controls. Of course it never quite worked out for various reasons. But Elfball is inherently balanced. Having the cap surely means that there doesn't need to be the same level of violence level control.
If anything, to me the cap and easy manner of replacing players is too far in the opposite direction since it means that coaches are much more likely to simply ditch a player at the first sign of injury and there is very little reason (at least initially) to not do so. The cap eliminates the downward spiral which is so prevalent in TOG and in doing so I really feel that injuries should in fact be not quite as severe. Eball feels much more like rugby which is a very physical game in which injuries occur, and often, but they are not the intent of tackles. TOG felt more like American Football on steroids in which players really were going for the throat.
I know that I am not actually offering any alternatives but replacing players at the drop of a hat feels to me like they are just interchangeable bits in a machine rather than being given a chance to develop some personality. At times in TOG you really had to struggle on with players that weren't at their optimum and to me (and of course this is all just 'to me') that was half the fun.
|
Dark Lord
|
| mattwakeman wrote: | | You know, I've been thinking about this comment and I have to ask why is this a part of the design mentality of the game? |
I have to let Tom answer that but I do know that it works.
| mattwakeman wrote: | | But Elfball is inherently balanced. Having the cap surely means that there doesn't need to be the same level of violence level control. |
So we should remove casualties from the game to make it more fun?
Sorry, not in my opinion.
| mattwakeman wrote: | | If anything, to me the cap and easy manner of replacing players is too far in the opposite direction since it means that coaches are much more likely to simply ditch a player at the first sign of injury and there is very little reason (at least initially) to not do so. |
How many games have you played with skills, and how many games have you played where you had to earn those skills?
I can tell you from experience that it takes (if you're playing multiple test games) about 3 games for a player to earn a skill. If you're playing game to just one score then it takes 7 or 8.
You're not gonna be so quick to let a guy go who has 2 or 3 skills.
You're also extrapolating from Bl00d B0wl and not Elfball. In Elfball the teams grow as a unit more than they do in that other game. You don't end a game and get 1 or 2 guys with a skill roll. You end the game with 5 or 6 guys earning a skill.
Teams develop in a different way, once your team starts earning skills you have to cut players. That means you are probably not only going to cut players with injuries but players without injuries as well...unless you don't but their skills until later.
Also in my league we had a house rule that players of common positions could be traded between teams and cut players were up for grabs (as long as your team had the appropriate position available). This allowed rookie teams to grab the skilled player scraps from the elder teams. You're not gonna let that guy go right away either.
| mattwakeman wrote: | The cap eliminates the downward spiral which is so prevalent in TOG and in doing so I really feel that injuries should in fact be not quite as severe. Eball feels much more like rugby which is a very physical game in which injuries occur, and often, but they are not the intent of tackles. TOG felt more like American Football on steroids in which players really were going for the throat.
I know that I am not actually offering any alternatives but replacing players at the drop of a hat feels to me like they are just interchangeable bits in a machine rather than being given a chance to develop some personality. At times in TOG you really had to struggle on with players that weren't at their optimum and to me (and of course this is all just 'to me') that was half the fun. |
I don't think you have developed an Elfball team yet. Play a team for 20 games (using multiple tests) and then come back and tell me you never had to field a character with a limp.
|
mattwakeman
|
All good points and I will freely admit to not having played nearly enough games to be able to have definitive opinions (even if that is an oxymoron). And I am not suggesting at all that casualties should be removed but rather than the game seems to be balanced not only from the outset but also in how teams will develop and progress that the severity of injuries seem somehow out of keeping.
Strikers, Widowmakers, Deadwoods, Hobimps, Gnomes, Gnomish Contraptions, Gorillaurs, Tantors and Ice Trolls will not be able to stand up from being dazed without being assisted if they have suffered only one injury. Now I don't have any problem with that per se but it just seems that injuries will be happening often enough to make that seem, admittedly from merely looking at this point, somehow just a little too much.
Perhaps with more experience I will revisit this and see if I feel the same way. I can see, for example, that the time it takes to gain skills does indeed mean that you are less likely to simply remove a player but it just feels like one injury shouldn't have the quite dramatic effect that it could do for that many players.
|
GalakStarscraper
|
Note Matt ... several of the players you listed in your list have high Grit which means the odds of them suffering an injury that reduces a stat is significantly low.
In addition ... several of those players are high Might which means that they are not going to often be the subject of tackles. Big Guys in Elfball get tackled a LOT less then in B.lood B.owl.
In order for your complaint to carry through ... you'd have to see a high rate of -1 Stat injuries to these players during play. You don't see that normally which means the problem is to me more one of a paper discussion than what actually happens in the game.
I'm not discounting your opinion ... NOT AT ALL. I think you raise a valid concern that if -1 Stats happen often enough it could be an issue. I just don't think they happen that often and especially not on many of the players that would suffer while being Dazed.
The other side of this is you not only need a decent amount of -1 Stat injuries for this to be an issue ... but you also need to see a decent amount of Dazed players during a game for it to be an issue.
Heck in most the games I play ... both me and my opponent maybe see 3 Dazed players max the whole game.
So since the two need to intersect to be a problem ... I agree that if you get a player that needs an helper to get up from being Dazed that that will not be a lot of fun ... but it won't be a commonly occuring item in practice.
Galak
|
mattwakeman
|
You know, I was just thinking about what I had said after I had posted it and I realised that using high grit players to support my point doesn't actually make that much sense does it really!
The more I think about it the more I think that you are right and I am taking too much from too small a sample of games that I have played. I really like how injury works in EBall as it diminishes players gradually rather than the killer strike which happens in TOG.
I shall play another 20 games or so before returning to this I feel but thanks to both of you for the points raised.
|
Dark Lord
|
| mattwakeman wrote: | | I shall play another 20 games or so before returning to this I feel but thanks to both of you for the points raised. |
Just to be clear, I wasn't discounting your opinions either. Just saying that we haven't seen this happen.
Rookies are easily replaced and yes...when a rookie gets his thin candy shell cracked he is fed to the wolves and new one takes his place, but if you think about it, that's more like real life than TOG.
BTW, there is also one other thing I didn't mention and it's an often over looked part of Elfball leagues. My league was just getting to the point where we were realizing that buying skills as soon as you have the points for them isn't always the best idea. It results in a lot of skilled players but then most of them have to get cut or other major manager type decisions happen.
I haven't seen it happen but I can extrapolate that there will be plenty of times when players with NO skills but several goal points will be injured. The player could be sitting on 10 goal points but no skills and take an injury that reduces his highest stat.
That's a real decision right there! Do you let him go or save him? Tough call, and no right answer for it.
And one last thing:
| mattwakeman wrote: | | Strikers, Widowmakers, Deadwoods, Hobimps, Gnomes, Gnomish Contraptions, Gorillaurs, Tantors and Ice Trolls will not be able to stand up from being dazed without being assisted if they have suffered only one injury. |
Deadwood's, Ice troll's and Tantor's highest attribute is Might. One injury would reduce their Might to 5 (or 4 for the Troll) and not affect their stand up chances.
Likewise Gnomish Contraptions have three abilities that are 5's so the coach could choose to lower Tackle or Might instead.
|
GalakStarscraper
|
Okay I just want to take credit for that one (yes sometimes I'm a kid who has to show off his sand castle).
If another game does that ... I haven't played it to date.
I wanted to add to Elfball leagues the idea of potential. IE the kids been around .... he's picked up some concepts but hasn't applied himself to really one direction as to the type of player he is.
This way ... you can have a player that acts as a potential backup for several other players instead of just one type.
I liked this idea a lot as it mimics real life to me a bit to represent the experience a player absorbs while play for his team but doesn't really show until you press him into service.
Galak
|
juergen
|
damn, should have read this earlier, in my test game yesterday we had the current rules, but the old reference sheet and flopped a ton of get ups 
although it's not a challenge anymore, I would suggest adding this to the reference sheet with the modifiers. If you have played a lot of games you know if it is 5/8-grit but when you a new to the game (and thats the time where the reference sheet helps the most) it's just a parapgraph in 22 pages which is very easy to miss
|
GalakStarscraper
|
Good point .... not sure if I have room on the Reference Sheet for it ... but I'll try to fit it on.
Galak
|
Dark Lord
|
The "5 less his Grit" to stand up is a great rule and has been a big hit around here but during my game with Mad Jackal we had a situation come up where the rule showed a flaw...however, it's the only one I have seen!
We had a situation where my skeleton (Grit 6) wanted to stand up and disengage from two players. He was going to need to disengage twice even!
Well since he can stand up for a cost of zero jog in that situation (5 - Grit 6 +1 for the Assist) and the disengage doesn't cost anything until you actually move he had nearly unlimited attempts to disengage. The only thing that would stop him would be a flop since a failed disengage only results in him going down in his starting hex and standing up is free in that situation.
The solution is fairly easy in my mind, make the minimum needed one.
The only drawback I see is that it does remove a bit of flavor from teams like the Deadlings who have the skeletons and zombies who just won't stay down. I love that! So an alternative solution that retains that flavor but is a tad more complex would be to keep the rule as is but make the minimum needed 1 Jog when the player is standing up in another players front 3.
So basically a skeleton or zombie would have an effective Grit 5 for standing up, and a 6 only for injuries.
|
GalakStarscraper
|
I think I have an easier solution that to me makes a lot of sense.
You may only Stand Up once per a turn.
This would remove the problem you saw in your game Dark Lord with Mad Jackal.
Galak
|
Dark Lord
|
True but I kinda like the ability of my zombies to continually get back up.
"STAY DOWN!"
"Muuuhhhhhhhh..." 
But actually I think yours may be the easiest solution. AND it keeps the zombies standing up for free even when guarded so that's cool.
I may suck with Deadlings but there is some satisfying in your opponents face when he says, "so you can STILL get up for free?!"
hee hee! 
|
SillySod
|
Two players should still hold the zombie most of the time shouldnt they? With a decent tackler plus the extra success you need from the assist that zombie aint going anywhere fast. After all a flop isnt too unlikely on such an ungainly player.
|
Dark Lord
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Two players should still hold the zombie most of the time shouldnt they? With a decent tackler plus the extra success you need from the assist that zombie aint going anywhere fast. After all a flop isnt too unlikely on such an ungainly player. |
No.
The zombie has a Grit of 6. So even with another player there he stands up for free.
Zero jog spent so far.
A disengage costs zero jog...it's the movement that is inherent in a disengage challenge that actually costs. A failed jog (non-flop) results in the player being down in their starting hex.
Zero jog spent so far.
The zombie stands up again for free and tries it again...and again...and again until he either flops or succeeds.
Very undead like...but also very broken. It's a perfect example of the difference between balanced by the numbers and balanced in real life. It never occurred to anyone until the situation came up.
|
GalakStarscraper
|
And I'm willing to allow them to do that trick once to make the undead in Elfball be very different. But once I think is enough for that trick to work.
Galak
|
Dark Lord
|
Right. I agree.
And standing up for free is a pretty big deal in Elfball.
I'm sold.
But as far as the tournament rules go. Hmmn. That's a different story.
|
Mad Jackal
|
Getting up only once is the BEST solution Galak. I think you may recall I was against multiple get ups in one turn anyway....
Now we just need a ruling on preforming an action/challenge when you are out of jog and used your free action.
I still argue that deadwoods, skeletons, deervishes or any player who gets up for zero move cost, should still not be allowed to take an action to stand if they have no actions left....
IE movement all spent and free action taken to block some-one and go down.
|
Dark Lord
|
I disagree. That's what makes those players fun and I really don't see it as any sort of problem, and definitely not a game breaker. Watching those dead guys pop back up (just like zombies tend to do) is great fun. It also makes them a bashier player...which is what they are.
It's a slippery slope to start nerfing the bash. Especially when Deadlings suffered a myriad of casualties against Timberline Elves. IMO taking away that ability drops the bashing power slightly to the high Jog players...and they already have enough advantages.
Now, I agree that unlimited attempts to dodge away is broken for a bash team and I have seen it be unreasonable. Allowing a Zombie or Skeleton to stand back up after a slide tackle hasn't broken any games that I have seen and I would hate to see it go.
In fact I would argue that as a challenge it was more favorable to the bashy players. I loved getting my skeletons dropped because it meant I could gain momentum just for standing up! That was broken, this is not.
IMO it's just Elfball's version of Regeneration.
|
GalakStarscraper
|
If a Grit 5/6 player ends his action with zero Jog, is Down, and has not yet had to Stand Up this turn .... I'm okay with them getting the free stand up.
Galak
|
Mad Jackal
|
Elves or no.
You give me a 4 dice shot looking for a one and I'm going to take it. Every turn. Be it tackling, shoving or passing. The odds don't get much better than 4 dice looking for a one especialy for the normal players. And you bet I'm going to hit everything within reach. My elves gave most cas for a reason.
Why? Because I saw the most backsides of players and took the shots.
Ok Galak. So if they have momemtum, they get to roll thier dash after they stand for free then ? And they can shove or move or do what ever then ?
|
Dark Lord
|
| Mad Jackal wrote: | | Why? Because I saw the most backsides of players and took the shots. |
Which is due their low Jog. The free get up doesn't negate it. Average Jog, and above average Dodge against low Jog and low Dodge means you're gonna hit my back sides.
|
GalakStarscraper
|
| Mad Jackal wrote: | | Ok Galak. So if they have momemtum, they get to roll thier dash after they stand for free then ? And they can shove or move or do what ever then ? |
Works for me.
|
The Warden
|
Am I understanding right that the standing up is a turn ending on an action so then no free action is allowed? You do still have dash abilities tho.
|
Dark Lord
|
IMO they wouldn't get the free action if they had to perform a challenge to put them down in the first place. I wouldn't consider standing up to be a movement.
|
Mad Jackal
|
| GalakStarscraper wrote: | | Mad Jackal wrote: | | Ok Galak. So if they have momemtum, they get to roll thier dash after they stand for free then ? And they can shove or move or do what ever then ? |
Works for me. |
Ok. one last question then I can't believe I forgot to ask before.
If there is a flop that places said player down, do they get to stand for free before thier turn ends ?
|
Dark Lord
|
No. Standing up is still an action and a flop ends your turn immediately.
Same situation, I would assume, as when a both down results in the ball bouncing to the guy who can stand for free. He's down so he can't catch the ball.
Actually that came up for the first time twixt me and Cal.
But as always Tom makes the official call...cuz hey, what do I know. Apparently we had the disengage all wrong! Honestly we'll probably keep on playing it how we were.
|
GalakStarscraper
|
I'll work on making standing up more clear:
So...
1) Player can only stand up once per a turn.
2) You may not stand up after a flop as that ends the turn.
3) If you finish your turn with zero jog but could stand up for no Jog than you may do so (this is not considered movement and you don't have to Dash to do so (you may also NOT take a free challenge after standing if your Jog was zero when you stood up)).
That should pretty much cover it.
And DL ... how were you doing the Disengage wrong?
Tom
|
Dark Lord
|
Well we took the title literally.
If a player was in a hex of an opponent's front three and moving to another hex of the same opponent's front three there was no disengage.
Basically you didn't disengage until you actually left a player's front three hexes. Thinking back I think it happened because during one of the early play sessions (4 or so games at once) somebody asked what way it worked and I made a ruling with the intention to look it up later and never did. Also it's a bunch of wargamers and heroscapers. You can move around their zone freely and don't roll to disengage until you actually disengaged.
Now if you were in a hex that was in the front three of two players and the hex you were moving to was in the front 3 of just one of those players you had to disengage to move there.
|
bouncergriim
|
| GalakStarscraper wrote: | I'll work on making standing up more clear:
So...
1) Player can only stand up once per a turn.
2) You may not stand up after a flop as that ends the turn.
3) If you finish your turn with zero jog but could stand up for no Jog than you may do so (this is not considered movement and you don't have to Dash to do so (you may also NOT take a free challenge after standing if your Jog was zero when you stood up)).
That should pretty much cover it.
And DL ... how were you doing the Disengage wrong?
Tom |
So is this the final ruling on standing up then?
|
GalakStarscraper
|
The current rules on the website have the most up to date ruling on standing.
Yes that was the final decision.
Galak
|
|
|
