Bonus for Kicking Team in Overtime

[Slothman]

we have played (and it worked out great)
Offensive sets up first
Defense sets up and then kicks

Thats what we use and it is fantastic. Really makes for some hard hard fought overtimes. I think our record is 3 OT's to decide the final one year and it became a game of attrition with 19 casualties. Truly epic encounter.

[mattgslater]

What do you do on Perfect D?

We haven't tried that yet, but we've tried a few things. What we went to was sort of a fix-around: an OT loss is considered a tie. This solves the "nobody ever plays OT" problem, too, but it doesn't make OT any fairer so much as it reduces the penalty for losing the coin-toss.

Note that the NFL struggles with this problem....

[Darkson]

I find the solution to OT is not to play it - a tie's a tie.

[mattgslater]

I love OT. My favorite BB memories are mostly OT memories.

[bbdave522]

What do you do on Perfect D?

I would say they get to move 1 square- exactly like the Quick Snap result, but for the kicking team.

[Slothman]

Dont get me wrong...a tie in normal season is always a tie.

But we use the above for playoff games where you absolutely, positively need a result.

As for the kick off table...played like the setup was normal...so really a non event if the Perfect Defence gets rolled.

[someone2040]

I love OT. My favorite BB memories are mostly OT memories.

Over Time is good fun, but I'd still only play it when it matters (in the finals).
My Khemri team went into Over Time against an Orc team in the semi-finals. Came down to turn 24 where I scored the touchdown to win (and went ahead to beat the Dark Elf player in the Grand Final).
I'm sure the Orc player isn't fond of it though. He lost to me, and then against Dwarves it went into Over Time again and it came to a coin toss which he lost.

Always the good and bad when it comes down to Over Time, I'm sure a lot of people would much rather a draw!

[mattgslater]

I remember one time I went up against the worst coach in my league. My Orcs were 7-2 and his Chaos Dwarfs were 1-8. I smacked him around all game, but just had horrid luck with the ball, so the regulation time was scoreless. He received in OT with six men, and just when it seemed like I was going to win it, he made an impossible series of dodges, 2 GFIs, a 5+ pick-up, a 5 on a 6+ pass, an inaccurate scatter back to his receiver Hob in a BOB TZ, a 5+ catch, another dodge, and another GFI to score, all with no RRs.

Then, a couple years later, I played the best game-as-game I'd ever played, a 2-3 OT loss to the local game store owner's Humans. I've had some great wins in OT, but you don't have to win a hair-splitter to appreciate it.

[Netsmurf]

We play 2 times 4 turns in OT.

[Kort]

I allow myself to revive this thread because I am unsatisfied with the way overtime is handled in the rulebook. The receiving team gets a small but noticeable advantage because of a simple coin toss, and I would like to get rid of this bit of randomness by proposing a simple and straightforward change. The idea is to combine the overtime coin toss with the initial coin toss at the beginning of the game.

The coach who wins the coin toss at the beginning of the game is now given two options:
1) Choose if he receives or if he kicks first.
2) Force his opponent to choose instead.

If the game goes into overtime, then the coach who did not get to choose the kicking and receiving sides at the beginning of the game may choose if he wants to kick or receive at the beginning of the overtime period.

To summarize, the winner of the initial coin toss can decide between getting a small advantage for sure (choosing which sides receives first during regulation time) or a potentially bigger one (choosing which sides receives during overtime), and leave the other to his opponent.

Comments ?

[voyagers_uk]

Simple, elegant...

[Asperon Thorn]

I disagree with Kort's suggestion. It doesn't solve anything but give more weight to the beginning random coin toss.

Bloodbowl is a parody of American football. Professional American football has sudden death overtime with another coin toss. The winner of the coin toss historically wins 60% of the matches. . .

We've accepted it.

BB being BB, I would rather go to college rules. OT is two 4 turn "halves." You kick off, play for 4 turns, if there is a score then there's a score. Then after the 4 turns the side that received kicks off. Again 4 more turns. Basically it's a full game cut in half. I have always thought that the most "fair" But I have never liked it.

Asperon Thorn

[Kort]

If I understand correctly your point of view, you think that the overtime mechanism currently proposed in the rules is quite luck dependent but it is at least as good as any other option because it corresponds well to your idea of Blood Bowl. I am fine with that, but I do not share your opinion.

In the current state of the game, a side may get a huge advantage if both coin tosses go its way, and his opponent cannot really do something about it. BB obviously relies on randomness, but I think you should be able to make choices where risk and reward are carefully balanced. I propose the smallest modification that may allow the players to make a decision they think is in their best interest.

Since you think that would give too much weight to the initial coin toss, I guess you would always choose one option over the other. Would you tell which choice you think is superior ? I do not have a clear answer myself. I guess that knowing that you will be able to receive during the overtime would allow you to adapt your strategy during the game to aim for a tie. However, is it worth giving up the benefit of winning the coin toss for regulation time ?

Also, I do not really care about the fact that Blood Bowl is supposed to mirror American Football. I would say the fluff of Blood Bowl is clearly inspired by the fluff of American football (cheerleaders, vocabulary, etc.), but the flow of the game itself is much closer to rugby than gridiron football. I disagree that the current practice in the NFL or any US College league should be taken as a reference, and I would argue that the actual diversity of rules governing overtime makes this concept a legitimate target for house rules.

Finally, the NFL rules are not set in stone either and they are ready to change them if the show may improved. The overtime rules of the NFL have been deemed unfair and have been altered accordingly for the next season: The team that loses the coin toss is now allowed one possession if the opposition only scores a field goal.

[Asperon Thorn]

Lighten up and have a beer, Kort.

If I understand correctly your point of view, you think that the overtime mechanism currently proposed in the rules is quite luck dependent but it is at least as good as any other option because it corresponds well to your idea of Blood Bowl. I am fine with that, but I do not share your opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion. And. . believe it or not. . . it is a very popular opinion as well. Even if I am one of the rare few to still be vocal about it.

There is no lack of games out there that I can play in which every decision I make, at any given time, has tactical/strategic advanatages and disadvantages. Bloodbowl is the game that doesn't. . .or was. It was about players coming onto a gridiron pitch with a bulldozer. . or sneaking out a chainsaw and frantically trying to get it started before a giant orc barrelled down on him. .

. . .A game set in a fantasy setting in which a Dwarf misinterpreted an NFL (NUFFLE) handbook and created the game. (And I think you are pretty far off with the Rugby comparison. . the whole idea of the "block" is gridiron.)

So yes, I will always and vehemently disagree with anyone that takes randomness out of the game to add more mundane strategy. I like the random goofiness and so do the people that play with me. . mostly because they HAVE played more mundane strategy games against me and like a game that the randomness can help them win.

Asperon Thorn

[plasmoid]

I'm with "simple, elegant" as well