One Turn Scorers redux...(PGFI)

[neoliminal]

So there seems to be a majority of people who think that one turn scorers are fine. This topic was started because we're going over the Progressive GFI (PGFI).

That rule works as follows:

Code: Select all

 There is no limit to the number of GFI's a player may attempt, but each successive extra square becomes harder to achieve.  The first extra square is at 2+, the second at 3+ and so on. 

If this rules change was made then any team could theoretically score in one turn.

The benefits of such a rule are basically three parts.

1) By allowing people to risk the extra squares, you open the game of a little bit. With this rule there's no more cheesy counting squares to make sure no one can get to you.

2) It eliminates the "useless turns" that sometimes come up at the end of the half. You know the ones, where you can't make a TD, so you just beat each other up. Now you can try for the TD.

3) It makes it slightly harder to make a one turn score. Since the roll gets harder every extra square, there is a slight decrease in the number of One Turn Scores by those teams that could make them before.

[GalakStarscraper]

2) It eliminates the "useless turns" that sometimes come up at the end of the half. You know the ones, where you can't make a TD, so you just beat each other up. Now you can try for the TD.

Suggestion: If you want to solve this problem, make Chet's kicking rules an official part of Blood Bowl in October.

Galak

[neoliminal]

Even those rules might not resolve the problem... for example you often need a TD to tie the game. A field goal would not suffice.

[Acerak]

I don't think introducing a number of 6+ rolls gives a coach a reasonable chance to score at all times. Even a 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+ sequence has less than a 10% chance to succeed. If the player needs only that far to go, he can easily kick a Field Goal. If he has further to go, he can forget it. It's not even worth the option; every coach knows that. Odds are almost as good that the player will fall over, break AV, and hurt himself.

As for whether the player needs a TD instead of a FG...that doesn't matter at all. What happens if the player is down by 2 scores? Right, he loses. There's no "rules solution" for that scenario.

-Chet

[GalakStarscraper]

John,

To be honest if you are talking Turn 7 or 8 of only the 2nd half as your point of contention ... I'm going to feel just plain robbed if my opponet makes 5 GFIs to tie the game and take us into overtime .... or turn an overtime into a victory for him.

The field goal rules would give the same player an opportunity for 2 SPPs so that turn isn't lost or wasted ... but won't steal my victory from me.

Sorry, not trying to rock your boat, just the way I currently feel.

Galak

[Dangerous Dave]

I think that this proposed change is rewarding poor play... or at least giving a player who makes bad tactical positioning an extra chance. If you manage to get away from reach using the current rule set - that is good play by you - why should your opponent get a chance to come back using some lucky dice rolls.

As for the end of game TD. If you are losing with one turn left - then you deserve to lose....


Dave

[Lucien Swift]

heck, for what it's worth, i'd just as soon make the second gfi square a 3+ or 4+ roll and still only allow 2 total squares.... players move enough squares as it is, knowing where to put your little metal men in the turns leading up to the last-second TD is a skill, letting mistakes early in a drive be rectified with a little luck takes some of the coaching ability out of the mix...

[sean newboy]

I voted yes but test it, heres why. I can lose well on occasion (as long as i still have a team) and i can actually enjoy it if my opponent makes an awesome/amusing play. If i were to lose to a 4 square gfi or even end up tied , i would feel as if i deserved it , obviously the gods of chance wanted that way. This game is all about chance, if u dont believe that u have never see an elven team double jack a 2+ pick up roll (in one game i saw it 3 times). I have also slapped a stunty (av 6) team like weebles and only caused one badly hurt. The point is If the rules apply to everyone equally live with it and move on.

[DaFrenchCoach]

I voted yes, but have to test...

It should be a great addition, but I'm not sure the benefits wouldn't be only for fastest teams, like before...

For example, a GR with long legs or +1 MA (not sooo hard to have, don't you think ? Of course, Sprint would be thrown away with your rule) would have to roll 1, 2, 3 ... and scores... I don't know the percentage of winnings (is there some mathematicians here ?). On the other hand, a goblin would have to roll 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 (I suppose 6 will always win)... Really, really hard to pass ! (near impossible, in fact). But in the same time, as galak said, I wouldn't find my opponent would be a very good coach if he'd win with this method !

[neoliminal]

I don't think introducing a number of 6+ rolls gives a coach a reasonable chance to score at all times.

Who said anything about reasonable?

As for whether the player needs a TD instead of a FG...that doesn't matter at all. What happens if the player is down by 2 scores? Right, he loses. There's no "rules solution" for that scenario.

Well duh.

But it doesn't invalidate the point that TD's are worth more than FG's. And in most cases you need the former and not the latter.

[neoliminal]

To be honest if you are talking Turn 7 or 8 of only the 2nd half as your point of contention ... I'm going to feel just plain robbed if my opponet makes 5 GFIs to tie the game and take us into overtime .... or turn an overtime into a victory for him.

I feel just as robbed when someone kills a player in what should have been a nothing turn. Each his own. Having been on the recieving end of both, I can tell you that having someone score on you with a string of lucky rolls beats the pants off of taking two turns to whack at each other.

Nuff said.

[neoliminal]

I think that this proposed change is rewarding poor play... or at least giving a player who makes bad tactical positioning an extra chance. If you manage to get away from reach using the current rule set - that is good play by you - why should your opponent get a chance to come back using some lucky dice rolls.

The game is full of chance. It's part of the game. If not for chance then bad coaches would never win. I want chance in the game.

And hey, if some guy can make it 5 extra squares for a TD (on in a million) then I say huray!

[neoliminal]

Well, we've been playing with this rule since my league started. It makes the game more exciting and you never know when someone is going to pull off a great play! The game feels more like a sport now and everyone in the league likes the new rule.

[Lucien Swift]

i dunno... i think it's one of those ideas that i hate on paper but would love to have around when actually playing... just because no matter how much you hate getting scored on by 5 gfi's, you'll never forget how exciting that play was.... one of those 'twist my arm' kinda additions that i'd kvetch surprisingly little about in the end...

[DaImp]

hmmmmm.... a change like that would be a fairly major one in terms of how BB gets played. I would like to test it though, and I may just introduce the rule in my leagues next tournament - after all anything can happen in the Chaos Cup!
I think my initial objection to this rule is based on a reluctance to change the core BB rules I have been using for so many years.
If I can offer a suggestion, it would be to leave the go for it rules as they are and make changes to the sprint skill. Basically the sprint skill becomes a general skill so it can be accessed by all players, and the rules for sprint become: "There is no limit to the number of GFI's a player may attempt, but each successive extra square becomes harder to achieve. The first extra square is at 2+, the second at 3+ and so on."
That would satisfy me more than a drastic (in my eyes ) change to the basic gameplay.