|
|
Post by Travis605 on Mar 21, 2022 16:09:14 GMT -5
I did never understand why for some CH the base value is 7 and for others a 9? I think it makes it have variety. |
|
|
|
Post by Carlzilla on Mar 21, 2022 16:11:02 GMT -5
I did never understand why for some CH the base value is 7 and for others a 9? The 7's replace a level 2 move, and are designed to be easier to fail since you're not giving up much. The 9's replace a level 3 move and are designed to be easier to succeed since they replace a move that could potentially lead to a pin. That's the way I always looked at it. |
|
|
|
Post by TTX on Mar 21, 2022 16:22:06 GMT -5
That would be the reasoning.
|
|
|
|
Post by walkswithwolf on Mar 21, 2022 16:24:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the explanation 🙂
|
|
|
|
Post by Pariah on Mar 21, 2022 17:16:16 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of the full nelson - 3 (ag) because it kind of neuters him a bit against most guys...but I wouldn't want him having an unchecked level 3 offensive move there either. I actually hate that rule, but I also like to strategize Last year at GCon, someone shared their house rule and I’ve incorporated it When a (ag/pw) is rolled, take the base number of 7. If Eric (+2) is fighting, say Tracy Smothers, who has a -1 agility. That would make the difference 3. Subtract the 3 from 7, which gives you 4. If Eric rolls 2-4, the full Nelson is successful I can’t remember whose rule it was, but they explained every move should have a chance to work. Granted, the chance of it working against an agile opponent is less, but it still has a shot to work I love the house rule This has been my house rule for years and I think I've shared it on the boards in the past... It was originally inspired by the 2119 GWF card for Tristan, who has a - 3 (pw) move on L1O... With a +4 power, it basically translated into an automatic Level 2 reversal for his opponent which made no sense whatsoever, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by "Emperor Norton" (Mark T) on Mar 21, 2022 17:22:24 GMT -5
... It was originally inspired by the 2119 GWF card for Tristan, who has a - 3 (pw) move on L1O... With a +4 power, it basically translated into an automatic Level 2 reversal for his opponent which made no sense whatsoever, imo.
......... I absolutely hate it when a wrestler with poor power or agility has a move like this. It will almost never work. I feel as if they're best left to the enhancement level talent. On the topic of Yukon specifically, I suspect his card will have some pretty heavy revisions. There has been a LOT more footage made available online since those earlier black and white cards were released. |
|
|
|
Post by Travis605 on Mar 21, 2022 17:26:40 GMT -5
I actually hate that rule, but I also like to strategize Last year at GCon, someone shared their house rule and I’ve incorporated it When a (ag/pw) is rolled, take the base number of 7. If Eric (+2) is fighting, say Tracy Smothers, who has a -1 agility. That would make the difference 3. Subtract the 3 from 7, which gives you 4. If Eric rolls 2-4, the full Nelson is successful I can’t remember whose rule it was, but they explained every move should have a chance to work. Granted, the chance of it working against an agile opponent is less, but it still has a shot to work I love the house rule This has been my house rule for years and I think I've shared it on the boards in the past... It was originally inspired by the 2119 GWF card for Tristan, who has a - 3 (pw) move on L1O... With a +4 power, it basically translated into an automatic Level 2 reversal for his opponent which made no sense whatsoever, imo. Agreed. I do think I remember that topic years back. I do think every move should be able to work in theory |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Mar 22, 2022 11:08:55 GMT -5
This has been my house rule for years and I think I've shared it on the boards in the past... It was originally inspired by the 2119 GWF card for Tristan, who has a - 3 (pw) move on L1O... With a +4 power, it basically translated into an automatic Level 2 reversal for his opponent which made no sense whatsoever, imo. Agreed. I do think I remember that topic years back. I do think every move should be able to work in theory From a gameplay perspective, I agree with this. Every move on a card should be possible, not just a filler spot... unless, I suppose, you had a situation where a wrestler tries a move in most matches but it never works. From the perspective of a guy who likes cards to be something of a historical perspective on a wrestler's career / matches, I don't like the idea of having moves that are potentially fairly regularly used by a wrestler, be underused because of a (pw) (ag). I can't think of an egregious example. It may be that this bugged me more on some specific black and white cards or that I've softened to it a bit over the years, I don't know. I used to wish that there was some sort of roll that took place in these situations, so for example, Jim Duggan would be less likely to be able to perform his vertical suplex on someone more agile than him, but it wouldn't fail completely every time. BUT, I've also realized that adding another gameplay element like this could complicate things even more and make the game take longer to play. So, it isn't perfect but it is what it is. Any complaints I have with it are pretty minor and are easily overlooked. |
|
|
|
Post by Travis605 on Mar 22, 2022 13:01:41 GMT -5
From a gameplay perspective, I agree with this. Every move on a card should be possible, not just a filler spot... unless, I suppose, you had a situation where a wrestler tries a move in most matches but it never works. From the perspective of a guy who likes cards to be something of a historical perspective on a wrestler's career / matches, I don't like the idea of having moves that are potentially fairly regularly used by a wrestler, be underused because of a (pw) (ag). I can't think of an egregious example. It may be that this bugged me more on some specific black and white cards or that I've softened to it a bit over the years, I don't know. I used to wish that there was some sort of roll that took place in these situations, so for example, Jim Duggan would be less likely to be able to perform his vertical suplex on someone more agile than him, but it wouldn't fail completely every time. BUT, I've also realized that adding another gameplay element like this could complicate things even more and make the game take longer to play. So, it isn't perfect but it is what it is. Any complaints I have with it are pretty minor and are easily overlooked. I get where promoters may think an extra rule may bog down play, but I’ve been playing this way for a year and a half and it really doesn’t (especially since the majority of pw/ag moves are on level 1. Plus, most of us play so much anyways, we know their agility and power ratings immediately anyways, so we know what we have to roll without even looking |
|
|
|
Post by Travis605 on Mar 22, 2022 13:09:20 GMT -5
There are still some instances where you wouldn’t even need to roll, and sometimes, that’s the case
If Milliman was fighting Juvi and Milliman rolled a 4 on L1O, it results in drop kick - 2 (ag)
Since he’s a +3 agility and Juvi is a -3 agility, the move wouldn’t work since the difference in their agility is 6, and if you subtract from 7…it gives you 1, which obviously wouldn’t work since you can’t fill 1 with two dice. But that’s ok. This should be the right call
|
|
