Speeding up the game.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:25 am

Lucien Swift wrote:forced order of actions would ruin the game... as much time would be spent checking a chart to remember what to do next as would be spent playing, and most of the organic flow of the game would be ripped out...

I disagree. You would get used to it. You don't look up what the symbols on the block dice mean, do you?

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 3:38 am

If you really want to speed up the local games, play with 6 turns per half. That should shave plenty of time off your game, allowing you to clean up in under 2 hours. The games would be fast paced and exciting, I'm sure.

Alternately, try playing seven aside. Heck, you could combine these two (I'd suggest an 11-man max roster) and create an exciting, caffeinated version of Blood Bowl that would cater to coaches with little time to play the full-fledged version.

And after playing it for a few seasons, you could write up a nice House Rules article for Blood Bowl Magazine

-Chet

P.S. Don't give me that "this approach favors Team X" lip!

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 4:02 am

Sevens has been around a long time. I've played a few games of it and it's pretty cool. It doesn't seem to favour any one team particularly. Fast teams have an little bit more room, but the brutal teams can clear the pitch easier... each injury is more painful. It equals out.

John.

DaFrenchCoach · Post by **DaFrenchCoach** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 9:30 am

Chet: a seven men (or something else) team won't avour a particular team, even if the tackle zones should be harder to keep... Another solution for it is to make a smaller pitch... Not too small, cause you would loose the advantage !!! I don't know if some of you remind the "beach bowl" a french league called epsilon has made some years ago... You can find it on Galak website, and it has a lot of fun...

I like your idea of 6 turn per half time. Easy, nothing to change in game mechanics... but maybe (I just say: maybe) you will increase possibility to have a tie... and so an extra half time !

To be true, we talk about a gain of 1 hour per game ... Important, if you play 3 games per week... But if you play a game per week... Another poll would be: how many times do you devote to Blood Bowl games ? Not about updating your website, looking for minis, painting, etc... but really for gaming ?

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 12:20 pm

forced order of actions would ruin the game

I dont think so, it doesnt seem to make 40k go any slower. I think speeding up the game is just up to the coaches themselves.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 1:28 pm

Hi again,
we've got some rules that has cut gametime to 2hrs. So far we've used them for tournaments, but next year we'll be using them for a small league as well.

The rules do remove the team progression aspect. But - if you've only got time for 1 game a month, then you probably aren't seeing a lot of that anyway.

This is what we do:
*Resurrection style rules - i.e. teams don't change between matches.
*1.200.000gc starting treasury.
*Each player gets 1 skill, 1 player gets 2. 2 of these are doubles. (no stat increases).

Skill selection allows for coaches to flaunt their team building skills. Pre match sequence is gone (apart from weather), as is post match. Nothing but the pitch action.

*Finally, we recommend that the players chose skill is in some way displayed on the base of the miniature. This eliminates the need to go through your opponents roster.

martin

High & Mighty · Post by **High & Mighty** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 1:57 pm

I actually think there are two kinds of bloodbowl games. You either play it very loose with the time limits in which case it's more of a strategy game, or something like two minute turns where it becomes more of an adrenaline/sporty game. Very fun, but things like sidestep, shadowing, thick skull and passblock (or even "should I use my apothecary now") can be used very unscrupulously to waste the moving coaches turn.

IMO, what slows the game down is all the thinking. It may sound silly, but limiting the number of actions or the orders would only lead to more dead time as I stare at the board and figure out what I want to do. If you really wanted to speed the game up, eliminate turnovers alltogether. I don't think I would like it, but without the fear of a turnover, I can do anything I want in any order and don't have to spend as much time thinking about it (and then remembering what it was I just decided to do when I undoubtedly forget along the way).

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 1:59 pm

I personally like the length of games now. (Of course I've also played 2nd edition, these games are much quicker!)

I am against the vast majority of suggestions above as I feel they would greatly change the flavor of the game.

Changing turns to last 3 minutes will probably work fine with the experienced coaches (and further frustrate newbies). Two minutes is too short, IMO, and would make for frenetic games.

I would be interested in trying a few game with less players on the pitch, but I don't see how it can not favor the agility teams.

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:28 pm

Very fun, but things like sidestep, shadowing, thick skull and passblock (or even "should I use my apothecary now") can be used very unscrupulously to waste the moving coaches turn.

Fortunately, most stopwatches are equipped with Pause buttons

-Chet

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:15 pm

Sad isn't it, when a relationship gets old and stale and you look for new ways to spice it up

Seriously tho what's with the desire to get a game finished quicker? Where's the advantage in playing 2 games in one night rather than 1? If I play for 4 hours in a night and enjoy the gameplay itself I don't care whether I play 1 game or 3.

Sounds suspiciously to me like you derive more enjoyment from advancing your team than you do from actually playing the game. I think we've all been guilty of that at one time or another.

Take a step back, take a deep breath, and remember how to enjoy the game itself.

And, if you find that your opponent takes too long to play, get stuck into them about it, the game should be lively and enjoyable. If it's not, tell your opponent they're a boring Bat and pick up the pace, if it's a tournament, mark them down for sportsmanship.

Marcus

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Wed Jun 12, 2002 1:15 pm

On the subject of sevens, there's always Guff's Blitz Bowl.
http://www.geocities.com/borak_the_despoiler/

DaFrenchCoach · Post by **DaFrenchCoach** » Wed Jun 12, 2002 2:15 pm

Marcus wrote: Seriously tho what's with the desire to get a game finished quicker? Where's the advantage in playing 2 games in one night rather than 1? If I play for 4 hours in a night and enjoy the gameplay itself I don't care whether I play 1 game or 3.

Sounds suspiciously to me like you derive more enjoyment from advancing your team than you do from actually playing the game. I think we've all been guilty of that at one time or another.

Marcus

Marcus: I understand your point of view, and share it to a certain point. All the Resurrection Rules, that are graet to my mind for a day tournament sounds strange in a year league, if they are taken in order to gain soem times...

Advancing my team isn't my best pleasure, even if I must admit I'm really happy when rolling a double dice, or something like this... No, the real problem is the "real life". I think every one there who tried to find some tips in order to save some minutes think about their wife/children/job, ... and the necessary balance between these and Blood Bowl. But I'm OK with you: I'd rather have a 3 hours game very interesting than a 2 hours game, very standardized, and quicklier.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Wed Jun 12, 2002 2:42 pm

Marcus wrote:Sad isn't it, when a relationship gets old and stale and you look for new ways to spice it up

Seriously tho what's with the desire to get a game finished quicker?

Marcus

Well, the simple answer is that I get to play more games with different people.

Another plus is that some coaches have to play less games (or stop playing altogether) because of other concerns. If the game were faster, then more people would get a chance to play. (It's babies!!)

John -

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Wed Jun 12, 2002 2:56 pm

Well, the simple answer is that I get to play more games with different people.

Another plus is that some coaches have to play less games (or stop playing altogether) because of other concerns. If the game were faster, then more people would get a chance to play. (It's babies!!)

This sounds like a localized concern. Each league can handle this differently. You're interested in speeding the game up to fit in more games. I'm interested in giving coaches more time to play games. They're different paths to the same solution, which is not "speeding up the game" or "spreading out the time" but "finding opportunities to fit the game into your schedule."

Figure, though, that some people do not have such severe limitations. Any changes to the game to speed it up would impact the way they play for no reason whatsoever. (Unless you could make it a better game, of course. But good luck, given the suggestions I've seen.)

-Chet

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Wed Jun 12, 2002 5:28 pm

Acerak wrote:This sounds like a localized concern.

Not judging by the poll. It's pretty clear that shorter games has a reasonable support base. If it were possible to shorten games and keep them as fun as they are now, I doubt many would complain... if you wanted more play time, you'd simply play more games.