One Turn Scorers redux...(PGFI)

[Toby]

AM as this Place is somehow related with the internet you can get here by running a search in GOOGLE, not so your privacy request is a little bit strange.

In fact this is the ONLY BB Board that alone explains a lot about the popularity of this Game and why "fellows" like me turned away from it in frustration.

On the Go for its. There must be a maximum. On 1 Turn Scoring. That should be high risk all or nothing NOT the normal thing.

[bj0rn]

That should be high risk all or nothing NOT the normal thing.

couldnt agree with you more...

recap: one turn scoring tactics:
1st half: one turn scoring team starts the game and scores in turn 1
the other team keeps the ball away from the one turn scoring bastards for the rest of the half and scores in the last turn.
2nd half: the "other" team hangs on to the ball, scoring in the last turn, leaving the one turn scoring team one turn to score...and what do you know, they have a one turn scorer who can make the tie 2-2
now its just a matter of who kicks off first in the overtime.
general: the one turn scorer doesnt have to be on the field for more than 2 turns...the rest of the match the team simply rests this valuable player, effectively keeping him out of the cluches of the other team who really wants to kill him.

side note: a friend of mine accually didnt go for sprint on a gutter runner that had very long legs because nobody wanted to play his one turn scoring teams...

belive me, this shouldnt be the solution for one turn scorers.

bj0rn - ...

[christer]

the other team keeps the ball away from the one turn scoring bastards for the rest of the half and scores in the last turn

Ok, what on earth was this other team doing during this time?
They should have been pounding woodies/skaven to the left and right making leaving him with 5 players on the pitch for the second half!

-- Christer

[Devil's Advocate]

Getting back on the topic of PGFI:

I was actually against the rule when neo introduced it in our league. But I've seem coaches use it to attempt some truly ludicrous (and fun and exciting) plays. Everyone seemed to use it at one point or another. However, the fact that our league did not have and Skaven or Wood Elves limited its testing.

So I created a Skaven team with the express purpose of proving to JK that the PGFI rules were unbalancing. The Garbage Pickers have played six (or so) games now, and I have to say I am leaning more towards JK's side of the debate. Yes, I have had more One Turn Scores because of this rule*, but more often I've seen it used but slower teams to keep me covered.

So speaking from experience I say: try it, you just might be surprised.

(*As an interesting side effect of neo's rules, it is now harder for my Gutter Runner (with Very Long Legs, Sprint and Sure Feet) to make a OTS than it was using the old rules. (2+,3+,4+) vs. (2+,2+,2+))

[Pink Horror]

I'm not surprised that your skaven, D.A., had trouble exploiting the rule by trying to use it to boost your offense.

I think the PGFI rule favors aggressive defensive play, if anything. I use an aggressive defense, and about the only way it can backfire on me is when someone gets too far behind it to blitz. I suspect "too far" will become 3 go-for-its instead of 2 with PGFI. This forces the good coaches into either attacking my defense head-on (a bad idea if you ask me) or taking a bigger risk in trying to get behind it.

I actually favor the game providing decent chances for those behind-the-defense plays. If your opponent can get a Randy Moss or Deion Sanders behind your team with the ball, he deserves the score. I think the current ability to recover is too much. Giving any old slob the ability, however rare, to somehow catch these guys takes a bit away from the game. I really wish Blood Bowl made the over-the-top pass more attractive, but PGFI would make it less. The current best strategy for passing teams, the hand-off & quick pass, is sort of boring.

I also think PGFI favors veterans too much over rookies. The current go-for-it rule allows a starting player a two-square buffer for positioning mistakes that is relatively easy to cash in. PGFI makes being two squares out of position even worse, and it tempts you to be lax and put yourself in even worse position. 2+, 3+, 4+ might not seem too bad. Also, I've noticed that rookies tend to take a direct route when an indirect route might be easier. For example, someone might take a 3+ dodge instead of a 2+ GFI to get around it. Giving veterans even more route options lets them take an even greater strategic advantage.

Many of you probably think making the game harder for rookies is a good idea. I, though, would rather take some steepness out of the learning curve. Jervis rightly expresses his desire to bring newcomers into the game. Rules like PGFI seem counter-productive to this goal.

My final reason against PGFI is the amount it would add to the natural (without the 4-minute rule) time of the game. I think it would increase both the thinking time (thanks to more alternatives in movement) and the rolling time. Reducing the game's length, thus making it more accessable, is a nobler goal to me than adding something you subjectively think is fun.



Pink Horror

[GalakStarscraper]

My final reason against PGFI is the amount it would add to the natural (without the 4-minute rule) time of the game. I think it would increase both the thinking time (thanks to more alternatives in movement) and the rolling time. Reducing the game's length, thus making it more accessable, is a nobler goal to me than adding something you subjectively think is fun.

On this note, PH and I agree. I do think this adds to decision timing. I understand the rule in theory ... I'm just not sure about it as an official rule. IF/WHEN my schedule slows down, I'll play JKL some one on one PBeM and see if it changes my mind.

Galak

[Pink Horror]

IF/WHEN my schedule slows down, I'll play JKL some one on one PBeM and see if it changes my mind.

Yeah, maybe you should play him first. I don't know if he'll be willing to have a game with me now.




Pink Horror

[neoliminal]

For rookies, the rule gives as much as it takes. While veterans are able to use the extra movement once in a while, rookies tend to exploit it more often. Vet's know that it's a risky thing to try and so they will avoid using it... but rookies can pull off some great plays because they don't do the math before trying something.

Of course, since you haven't played with the rule yet, you have no real way to judge what I'm saying to be true or not. If you like, I'm sure you could ask Devil's Advocate his opinion on the subject for another view point.

John -

[Pink Horror]

Hypothetical analysis is a real way to judge something. You can't expect a good player, or vet, to not take advantage of a rule just because its risky. If it really is risky enough for a good player to avoid it, rookies' exploitation of the rule should backfire more than it would help. So, it takes more than it gives.

What I was trying to say is that since the choice is more complicated and can be riskier than normal go-for-it, veterans would have an even larger advantage in that particular aspect of the game. We're assuming here that veterans have more skill. Yes, if all your veterans just avoid something because its labeled risky instead of choosing the best play, then I can see how they'd be no worse off than newcomers.



Pink Horror

[neoliminal]

What I was trying to say is that since the choice is more complicated and can be riskier than normal go-for-it, veterans would have an even larger advantage in that particular aspect of the game. We're assuming here that veterans have more skill. Yes, if all your veterans just avoid something because its labeled risky instead of choosing the best play, then I can see how they'd be no worse off than newcomers.

90% of the Veteran players I know live by the following maxum:

"Do the risky things last."

However, most veteran players I know will take a chance to knock over the ball carrier, even it it's a risky play. This is more true when it's a make or break situation (like the opponent is threatening to score.)

PGFI does make Go For It's beyond two squares possible, but just because something is possible doesn't make it reasonable to attempt.

Veterans are better able to weigh the risk/reward of any new rule better, and more complex risk/reward scenario's will eventually favour them (that's why you can be good at backgammon.)... but in this particular case the amount of risk and reward are fairly well balanced. In otherwords you're just as likely to get something and lose something... and so I don't think veterans gain significantly by it's inclusion.

BTW, if you want to playtest the rule, I'm still up for it.

John -