Garion

Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 09:27 |
|
JimmyFantastic wrote: | Garion wrote: | MattDakka wrote: | A +1 to pick up would have been ok, 2+ is too much. |
Why?
You can't move after picking up. Which could leave you in a dangerous position.. ag3+ sure hands is better...
Also we know big guys can't use it... there may be other restrictions |
There is a trait which means u can't secure the ball that some players have. |
Thanks ❤️ |
_________________
 |
|
garyt1

Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 09:57 |
|
Fluff wise being able to pick up the ball easily if no one is close by makes sense. Still trickier than an ag3+ sure hands pickup. But it does potentially change things a lot for ag4+|3+ teams at low tv before sure hands. |
_________________ “A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
garyt1

Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 10:09 |
|
It is debatable if you would usually want a saurus picking up the ball even on a 2+ as it means another skink has to be put in the blocking fight. But still a very powerful option, including for Saurus to farm spps. |
_________________ “A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
garyt1

Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 10:14 |
|
Carthage wrote: |
Brawler: I suspect players with Brawler will be able to ignore the "placed prone" effect of wrestle as a buff to brawler. Especially given the box set they revealed. |
I don’t think they would want to effectively weaken Brets when they are in the box. |
_________________ “A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
Garion

Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 10:19 |
|
garyt1 wrote: | It is debatable if you would usually want a saurus picking up the ball even on a 2+ as it means another skink has to be put in the blocking fight. But still a very powerful option, including for Saurus to farm spps. |
I think its very likely saurus will have the anti secure ball trait. We don't know its name yet... but I suspect that'll be the case |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 11:32 |
|
garyt1 wrote: |
I don’t think they would want to effectively weaken Brets when they are in the box. |
Imperial Nobility and Black Orcs were in the box and both suck.
garyt1 wrote: | It is debatable if you would usually want a saurus picking up the ball even on a 2+ as it means another skink has to be put in the blocking fight. But still a very powerful option, including for Saurus to farm spps. |
If you are winning the game 1-0 and you are safely stalling, a Skink could hand off the ball to a Saurus, there is no need to carry the ball with a Saurus from the start of a drive.
In case of failed catch, the Saurus could try the 2+ pick up next turn and yes, that would be great to farm SPPs.
If the Saurus have the anti-secure-the-ball trait the SPPs farming will be harder. |
|
|
Grod

Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 12:06 |
|
You can sort of imagine some use cases for fumblerooski with the secure the ball action. Safer way to transport the ball to worse than Ag 2+ players. I imagined be we might see low agility players score more touch downs and gain spp faster. Big Uns on Orc teams would make viable ball carriers, particularly with a +MA increase. |
_________________ I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
stej
Joined: Jan 05, 2009
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 14:17 |
|
I wonder if this will take some fun out of the game at the other end of the pitch.
2 turns left to score, ball is on the floor out in the open. Only player in scoring range is a saurus.
Will he pick it up!!! |
|
|
Carabor

Joined: Jan 25, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2025 - 16:22 |
|
Again... this will not happen.
Pretty sure no Saurus, no Bull Centaur, no Jaguar Warrior Blocker and no Ulfwerener will be able to do this.
I myself would like it a lot when a Black Orc would be able to "secure the ball" - but they will be consequently in the list above too.
A trait to prevent that, according to JimmyFantastic?
Why not "any Player with Strenght 4+ can't use "secure the ball action"?
...i don't want to see a Jaguar Warrior Blocker to secure the ball this way. |
|
|
|