One Turn Scorers redux...(PGFI)

[Thadrin]

Just so people understand my reasoning....I don't see the Sprint action I proposed replacing GFI. It would cause too many casualties to perform it every turn...making the consequences even nastier might be a good idea in fact.

I see my way as being that last gasp dash for the endzone, or the desperation attempt to catch the guy who'll score next turn...another way of removing those dead turns and injecting a little more adrenalin if nothing else.

There's talk around my league of running a short league to test the Kicking rules out and to decide wether to include them in our next season. I might suggest throwing in JKL's sprint rules as well.

[Lucien Swift]

I see my way as being that last gasp dash for the endzone, or the desperation attempt to catch the guy who'll score next turn...another way of removing those dead turns and injecting a little more adrenalin if nothing else.

i think this is also the best timae and place ofr it... which is why the idea of making it a type of action has a lot of appeal, just one player a turn could do it... the real question to answer is how to handle the sprint skill in a league where this option is present, and how to balance the sprint move with existing gfi...

existing gfi and sprint move interaction,
case 1: make the second square of gfi a 3+, preserving pgi, and allowing one player a turn unlimited attempts using pgi...
case 2: keep existing gfi, make the sprinter's first 2 squares a 2+, and start pgi on the third...
case 3, everyone gfi's as normal, sprinter uses basic pgi...

i think i like #1 the best myself...

now, what about the sprint skill?
case 1: sprint acts as always, and only allows the non-sprinter a third gfi...
case 2: as normal on regular gfi, an extra square of 2+ on sprinter?
case2.1: caps pgi at 4+/5+?
what else? help me out here...

this could wind up beoing ether really cool, or really screwing things up... teh jury's still out... i think the sprint action might be worth the brain-crunch though...

[Acerak]

A Sprint action sounds interesting, though you can't reconcile it with a Blitz. It has to be a type of Move, because you're allowed to declare only one action with each player.

Other possible PGFI combinations:

* Normal GFI is one square at 2+, Sprint skill is two additional squares at 3+ and 4+.

* Normal GFI is one square at 2+, Sprint skill is two additional squares at 4+ and 6+.

* Normal GFI is 2+, 4+, 6+. Sprint skill is +1 to any one roll.

Rightfully, though, I think the "+1 to any one roll" angle is the province of Physical Abilities.

-Chet

[neoliminal]

I could see it being a mutation, but I'm not married to that idea.

The concept of a sprint action is very interesting and might be an interesting test concept.

I already know the outcome of PGFI, so I'll stick with supporting that for now.

John -

[Thadrin]

Chet -
If you don't allow the sprint to include Blitz actions the you won't get guys trying to chase down a ball carrier on his way to the EZ...the desperation attempt to prevent the TD and all that. That was one of the points behind the whole idea.

I don't think the introduction of the sprint according to my idea would affect GFI or the Sprint skill...they would remain as they are. The pGFI sprint would come after a player had GFI's two or three times, but was still short of the goalline/ball carrier.

[Acerak]

Chet -
If you don't allow the sprint to include Blitz actions the you won't get guys trying to chase down a ball carrier on his way to the EZ...the desperation attempt to prevent the TD and all that. That was one of the points behind the whole idea.

Oh, I understand that. Perhaps it would be better to write that into the descriptions of the Move and Blitz actions? In that way, you wouldn't have to touch the "one action per player" standard. In the proposed example, a player would have to take a Sprint action and a Blitz action. That's currently at odds with the way the rules work, so perhaps this work-around would handle the situation more cleanly?

Alternately, you could introduce a Sprint action and define it as "taking the place of one Blitz or Move action this turn," but that idea seems slightly more complex.

-Chet

[Thadrin]

Sounds about right. Some sort of addendum reading "Once per team turn, a player taking a move or blitz action may declare he is <i>sprinting</i>."

And then throw in the pGFI rules. Stick it in after "Going for it" in the rules.

Sorts out the two action problem.

[neoliminal]

Another solution:

You can PGFI if you haven't dodged, otherwise you are stuck with normal dodging. Bit too much rules fluff, IMO. Or you could simply say you can PGFI if you haven't dodged, otherwise no GFI's.

[Acerak]

You can PGFI if you haven't dodged, otherwise you are stuck with normal dodging. Bit too much rules fluff, IMO. Or you could simply say you can PGFI if you haven't dodged, otherwise no GFI's.

I remember developing a dislike for OSPA precisely because I had to track skill use and think back on whether a player had used a team re-roll, skill re-roll, etc., during the course of his action. I think this idea would make me feel the same way.

What if this rule worked like the old Second Edition standard - you can't sprint through tackle zones - but allowed a Third Edition exception for making a blitz? So you could make all the GFI rolls you wanted, but you couldn't enter (or leave) a TZ with this additional movement allowance unless you were entering a square to blitz a player.

Granted, this would change the game a bit on the offensive side. Currently, you can GFI anywhere, any time, any square. But this would certainly heighten the planning.

-Chet

[voyagers_uk]

I have to agree with Chet here, it smacks of OSPA (hated thing)

If you are making actions too difficult to track then the newbies will not get into the game as quickly. I know that a basic game can be played without a lot of the rules to entice them in, but this plus the kicking rules may be too much to handle for beginners come October.

just my tuppenny bit anyway

[Dangerous Dave]

I said:-

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.


To which neoliminal replied:-

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!


Sure, the game has chance. The issue here is that when you play you weigh up probabilities take the cannot fail options and then the most important moves balanced by their risk. So you are giving yourself the best possible chance for success. Over time this works more often than it fails.

The difference is that good fortune is being given more advantage in the proposal for PGFIs. Sure GFIing 4 squares is likely to fail (10% chance of success with no rerolls or skills). The issue for me is that 1 in 10 times it will succeed. So what! you say. Well to me the rule is like saying that on blocks I have a one in ten chance of converting a skull roll to a POW. We'll call this an "effort" roll. Is this "effort" roll a good thing..... No!

The PGFI proposal will IMO have other significant effects on the game. Using the last 2 rows on the Board just will not generally happen unless a player has Stand Firm or Side Step - I say this since I guess a lot of players will take Frenzy for their defenders. Since they can always reach a player, the tendancy may be to leave a player further infield. Thus tactics are changing because there is more luck involved. This is not a good thing. Tactics should be utlised which give the best chance / probability of success. IMO the proposal may add more tension as a player attempts to go 4 extra squares at the end of a game - however this added tension detracts from the skill of the game - and skill (denoted by good tactics) sets this game apart from the majority of other Board Games.



Dave

[GalakStarscraper]

Just for the record since I'm not sure what Chet said. I'm with Dave, I still don't the concept of this roll.

I don't want to see a change to the GFI rules .... heck I fall down enough on my 2nd GFI as it is when its 2+ ... no thanks at 3+. I do not want Blood Bowl to become a lottery system.

Paraphasing Dave.... there is a place for chance and a place for tactics.

That said I could handle something like a new General Skill called Heroic Tackle which allowed you two extra GFI squares when blitzing at 4+ rolls for each square and the blitzing player is placed prone at the end of the blitz action (this could be after follow-up).

Something like this I wouldn't mind as its linked to a skill. I just really don't like the idea of a usuable by anybody PGFI rule.

Galak

[DaImp]

If the aim is to reduce the number of 1 turn TD's, or make the chances of scoring a 1 turn TD more even, then maybe it is a thought to make sprint a strength skill? That way speedy characters will have less chance of getting a skill that brings them within a 1 turn TD and strenghth characters get access to a skill that increases their potential movement.

[sean newboy]

Two things.
1) The only true "cannot fail" action is to move, never going in tackle zones, and not gfi' ing. Trust me i've (and i bet everyone else reading this)seen too many people fail to do actions that requre a 2+ even with a reroll.

2) I like Galaks idea the best of what has been proposed yet, tho i would make it Heroic Effort which is usable anytime the player with the skill wants the 2 extra squares. This allows for the other reason people said they wanted the pgfi, the extra score that cant get done anyother way. Make it an agility skll/trait. This way the Orc Blitzer off the line has a chance to blitz the Gutter runner who dint quite make it in yet or the Human Catcher can score and thumb his nose at the Elves not expecting a one turn score.

[neoliminal]

Skill versus luck in games.

There's an old game design maxum about the difference between skill and luck. I'll share it here because some people have raised the point that the PGFI would be "too much luck".

All games fall in a spectrum from "pure luck based" to "pure skill based".

The card game War, where you flip cards and compare their values, is entirely luck based. If you have the right cards, in the right order, you will win.

Chess, on the other hand, is entirely skill based. There is no luck involved in chess except for who get's to move first. The better player wins in chess because there's nothing but the players themselves involved.

There are generalities that can be drawn from these descriptions.

* Beginners will win more games against veterans, the higher the luck content.
* Veterans will continue to enjoy the game longer, the less luck plays a factor.

If a game is entirely strategic, then beginners can often be put off when playing experts. They have no chance to win and have a steep learning curve to become competative. Chess is a great example. You aren't going to win a game of chess against a Grand Master if you're just starting to play.

If a game is entirely luck based, then experts are easily bored with it, because their strategy and craft are often overcome by random luck.

Blood Bowl sits in a very nice spot between Strategy and Luck. There is enough strategic content that experts win more games than beginners, but enough luck that beginners can win and are thus encouraged to play more.

One advantage veterans have in Blood Bowl is that they know and play the odds. In otherwords, veterans know if a 2 die block is more likely to succeed than dodging into a single tacklezone. The mark that a player has gotten beyond novice level is that they make their moves from least risky to most risky.

In my opinion, that makes Blood Bowl very interesting. As a veteran, I have to decide if I think that an extra square of two of movement is worth the risk entailed.

When people argue that PGFI will allow rookie players an advantage, I think they are only looking at half of the equation. Veteran players will use that risk/reward to best advantage as well. If anything, it opens the game to more strategic thinking. Should you attempt to create backfield pressure if there's only a 1 in 10 chance you will succeed? Should you risk four squares for a TD with your Star Catcher to increase an early one TD lead?

I think it's simplistic to assume that PGFI will only advance the novice player. We have been playing with this rule for over half a year, I can attest that the game has more strategic options and is more interesting to play.

Sometimes novice players beat the odds and make miracle plays. I love to see these when they happen.

Sometimes experts use the extra spaces to really solidify their advantage against less experience coachs... and I would expect nothing less.

John -