Improving the passing game

[dode74]

Is that a Chaos League reference?

It was - and I think Chaos League made for a great electronic version of Blood Bowl.

I don't think definitions are that hard so long as you keep it simple. Even the rule I proposed is actually a relatively minor issue for an offence, but would give people the incentive to not end-zone stall allowing time for the defence to put a barrier in place potentially killing the drive.

[Skitters]

expanding on the above how about a rock will be thrown at a player on a roll of 8 on a d6 - adding the number of consecutive turns a player has held the ball (effectively giving a 2 turn grace period before crowd agitation gets the better of them)?

Implies having a 'handling tracker' which would be moved on at the end of each turn after rolling

Could potentially add that the tracker does not move if a hand off is made and resets if the ball is dropped or thrown and caught.

[Christy42]

A ballin' and dodging stat might improve the passing game. Not least as some teams would investment in that area going to waste otherwise.

However an issue is still on the time management side of things. It is such a big deal so something would probably need to affect that (like the rock throw suggested).

Once running teams are forced to stretch a bit. Even just making holding into the ball riskier via more defensive skills built in. Maybe some form of weak hypnotic gaze in there as well (with different fluff) to make cages harder to pull off without dedicated players (like dwarves etc.).

Would be a tough balancing act. Don't want WE's winning everything!

[dode74]

Maybe some form of weak hypnotic gaze in there as well (with different fluff)

A distraction mechanism built into babes, perhaps? Can attempt it (whatever it is - Hypno one player on the opposing side for one turn on a 4+, perhaps?) once per drive but if they do then they cannot be used for the KO roll after that drive?

[Christy42]

Maybe some form of weak hypnotic gaze in there as well (with different fluff)

A distraction mechanism built into babes, perhaps? Can attempt it (whatever it is - Hypno one player on the opposing side for one turn on a 4+, perhaps?) once per drive but if they do then they cannot be used for the KO roll after that drive?

Or still counts their tackle zone but players do not need to dodge out of it for the turn (or their tackle zone does not give a modifier for dodging into it). Call it hold back or some such (you are grabbing the player and just yanking them to stop the tackle).

Thus you could make it a skill.

[harvestmouse]

I really think that the old pass and catch stats added an extra element to the game and actually I found 2nd ed passing and catching easier and easier to learn than 3rd ed and onward. I.e. removing the stats didn't simplify anything. So improving the passing game I'd be pro being back the stats.

Failing that combing a few skills or..........adding more elements to pass/catch would be beneficial. It is such a hard hard scale to balance though and overall the game balance is very good as it is. My fear would be tampering with passing may do more damage than good.

[JPB]

What really killed off passing was probably the simplification of 2nd edition to 3rd edition, when everything suddenly came under one Agility stat. 2nd edition had Throwing skill (TS) for throwing, and Cool (CL) for catching. If you wanted to "fix" the passing game, adding this back would allow players to be better at passing/catching as necessary, without giving them an unwanted boost for dodging. And also vice-versa, you could up the agility of a halfling or goblin without suddenly giving them an AG4 passing game. IIRC picking up the ball was an auto-success in 2nd edition so I don't know that would be work now, or if you'd use the CL skill.

I think the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition was rather well done. And the simplifying of the stats line quite good, and considering how well it works, possibly even brilliant (I mean that's not easily done).
Having more stats (like CL & TS) may allow more fine tuning, but it actually may be superfluous. As “AG3+Pass+Accurate+Strong Arm” already does that, i.e. that's TS:5 with re-roll (and without improving the players AG overall). So this specialising of players/AG already exists, it's just done via skills instead of stats.
Improving a Halfing's AG without improving its passing skill is a bit awkward, but technically done via Stunty.

And as the 2nd edition rules from 1988 had been mentioned a couple of times. These are most of its Throwing rules:
As the last action of a turn a player may throw the ball to a team-mate. (standard, veteran rules, star-player, dungeonbowl) (I believe the thrower was allowed to move (and possibly block?) during the turn, but I'm not sure?)
Or: A team may throw the ball at any point during its turn. But an intercepted or missed pass ends the turn immediately. And there is only one pass per turn allowed. (companion)
The ball may only be thrown at standing team-mates not at empty squares or prone players.
Roll 2D6 and subtract 1 for short, 2 for long and 3 for long bomb range: (standard rules)
2 or less: Intercepted (otherwise missed)
3-5: Missed (the ball scatters 1 square from the Receiver's square)
6-12+: Caught
OR:
The Thrower rolls 2D6, adds/subtracts the Throwers TS and the Receivers CL, subtracts 1 per enemy Tackle-Zone on the Thrower and Receiver and -1 for short, -2 for long and -3 for long bomb range. (veteran rules)
2 or less: Intercepted (otherwise missed)
3-5: Missed (quick/short the ball scatters 1 square in a D8 from the Receiver's square) (long the ball scatters 2 squares in a D8 from the Receiver's square) (bomb the ball scatters 3 squares in a D8 from the Receiver's square)
6-12+: Caught

This is the gist of it (there's more like weather and kicking, but it's mostly just special rules that don't change anything in the above).
Humans had TS:0 and CL:0. Their Throwers had TS:+1 and their Catchers CL:+1. (which was the standard)
Elves were TS:+1 and CL:+1. Their Throwers had TS:+2/CL:0 and their Catcher TS:0/CL:+2.
Other races: Dwarves TS: -1 CL: 0. Skaven TS: 0 CL: -1. Slann TS: -1 CL: 0. Halfling TS: -1 CL: -1. Goblin TS: 0 CL: -1. Snotling TS: NA CL: -1. Skeleton TS: -1 CL: -1. Minotaur TS: -1 CL: -1. Ogre TS: 0 CL: -1. Treeman TS: -1 CL: 0. Troll TS: -2 CL: -2. Positionals would adjust those stats (but not above +1).
Attributes could not be improved more than twice so +3 and +4 was the races respective maximum.
So Elves had a passing chance of 83% or better, and Human Teams (Thrower/Catcher combo) started at 58% (bomb), 72% (long), 83% (short), 92% (quick). And good Throwers would cancel interceptions.

Note that the end zones were: 2x15 squares. And I believe it was impossible to push players off pitch. And if, they probably ended up in the reserves (2nd edition had flying substitutes).

Interceptions (companion)
When a pass has been intercepted roll a D6:
1: Fumble, the ball scatters 1 square in a D8 direction from the Throwers square.
2: Missed, the ball scatters 3 (quick/short), 4 (long) or 5 (bomb) squares in a D8 direction from the Receivers square.
3-6: Intercepted, a quick and short as usual, a long pass can only be intercepted by players adjacent to the Thrower or within 2 squares of the Receiver, and a bomb pass can only be intercepted by players adjacent to the Thrower or within 3 squares of the Receiver.

Hand-off
Handing the ball to an adjacent player succeeds automatically. Like all pick up and catch attempts.

And then I listed how passing in BB (3rd edition+) scales, which may be interesting:
Human Thrower to Human Catcher. Quick Pass:
AG3+Quick+Pass (89%) to AG3+Accurate Pass+Catch (89%): 79% (that's c. a 2+ on a D6)
Human Thrower to Human Catcher. Short Pass:
AG3+Pass (75%) to AG3+Accurate Pass+Catch (89%): 67% (that's c. a 3+ on a D6)
Human Thrower to Human Catcher. Long Pass:
AG3-Long+Pass (56%) to AG3+Accurate Pass+Catch (89%): 49% (that's c. a 4+ on a D6)
Human Thrower to Human Catcher. Long Bomb:
AG3-Bomb+Pass (31%) to AG3+Accurate Pass+Catch (89%): 27% (that's c. a 5+ on a D6)

Elf Thrower to Elf Catcher. Quick Pass:
AG4+Quick+Pass (97%) to AG4+Accurate Pass+Catch (97%): 95% (that's c. a 2+ w. re-roll on a D6)
Elf Thrower to Elf Catcher. Short Pass:
AG4+Pass (89%) to AG4+Accurate Pass+Catch (97%): 86% (that's c. a 2+ on a D6)
Elf Thrower to Elf Catcher. Long Pass:
AG4-Long+Pass (75%) to AG4+Accurate Pass+Catch (97%): 73% (that's c. a 3+ on a D6)
Elf Thrower to Elf Catcher. Long Bomb:
AG4-Bomb+Pass (56%) to AG4+Accurate Pass+Catch (97%): 54% (that's c. a 4+ on a D6)

To me this looks rather sound (especially when looking at how the 'rough' D6 translations scale). And I can't really agree with adjusting that balance, other than adding improvements like Accurate and Strong Arm to slowly build the Thrower (& chances) up (either as improvements or by adding it to a roster player). That passes are not used or not attractive is not a problem of the scaling, imo. In fact, breaking that scaling could make matters worse. Giving a single team (like Human) a pass boost (Accurate/Strong Arm or Diving Catch) is another matter. (Like getting the Human Thrower on Short from 67% up to 79%). But overall the scaling above looks good. AG3 has a bit more need to improve, but I don't see having to pick up Accurate as a huge problem, and overall it seems a fair representation of the abilities AG3 and AG4 should have (especially considering that these numbers are not the ceiling, but the bottom on which players build).

[JPB]

It's been a while, but I forgot to post this concept/idea

Downs (drawing board concept):
Each team has 8 offence turns. Normal procedure to decide who kicks-off. Only the team in possession removes one of its offence turns. Teams not in possession do not. If neither team is in possession a “downtime” turn counter activates which has 4 turns. If these 4 turns run out the team with the smaller amount of offence turns remaining, must kick to the other team (reset). If both have the same amount of offence turns the team that kicked last, receives now. Teams can score during their offence turns or during downtime (if they have no offence turns left). When a team uses up its last offence turn the “half-ends”, i.e. reset and the team has to kick to the opponent. When both teams have no offence turns left the game ends immediately, or once downtime has winded down (if active). A scoring team kicks to the opponent as usual.
(Note: I can't say how much issues this have. I can probably think of several but will need some time. For now, the game length may (?) be screwed up, and there could (?) be exploits with downtime. But overall this would cancel stalling, encourage passing and may create some exciting moments when teams have to get something done in downtime. In fact a team can go for a Hail Mary in their last offence turn and hope for downtime should the pass fail and the opponent is unable to recover. However, this is just a concept.)

EDIT:
I had 48 hours to think about it and I think this idea is another one for the vault. I'll get the chains.

The problem is game length. Just one downtime turn and the game is in overtime. I think this is the fundamental problem. Guaranteeing offence time, results in increased game length (sounds logical, doesn't it?). But shortening offence time (to make up for it) doesn't work so well. Dwarves can score in 6 turns, but sometimes they need 8. There are a few awkward ways around it, but in general that is the Gordian knot of this specific approach that is difficult to break.

Another problem is that I made an error. I believed 8 offence turns is sufficient. However, after thinking about it I believe it is actually rather 12 offence turns (winner) and 4 offence turns (loser), splitting that in 8 & 8 may not work, except with 4 turns downtime per team, and that would make the game rather long.

So I would say, atm, this won't work, and probably would need tweaking (if even possible). Which is a bit of a shame as the concept looked interesting.
Ah, well, I get the chains.

[Christy42]

It I'd an interesting concept though.

Though yeah it is easy to imagine weird scenarios. If I have no downs and no downtime the ball is immediately kicked if I knock the ball loose? Can I score in defense? As in knock the ball loose, pick up and score on a single turn and not have it count as a turn?

Another similar idea would be to guarantee a 2/3 turn offense each half. By that I mean the if an opponent receives at the start of the half and scores on t8 then the half is 9 turns. Otherwise 8 as normal. You could extend that to 10 turns or 9 if they score on t7. What if no one scores would still be an issue but then I am happy to leave the half end on t8. There is less benefit to stalling of you don't score!

[JPB]

Though yeah it is easy to imagine weird scenarios. If I have no downs and no downtime the ball is immediately kicked if I knock the ball loose? Can I score in defense? As in knock the ball loose, pick up and score on a single turn and not have it count as a turn?

Yes, that's basically the idea behind downtime. 1: To have a rule when no one is in possession. And 2: to allow a team to play even if out of offence turns. The last bit wasn't very well phrased I admit. May even be called an oversight on my part.

It's these two pints, isn't it :
When a team uses up its last offence turn the “half-ends”, i.e. reset and the team has to kick to the opponent.
When both teams have no offence turns left the game ends immediately, or once downtime has winded down.

It should work like this in theory (even more pints!)
So if you are on your last offence turn you must score now, or you'll have to kick to your opponent. If your opponent drops the ball, and/or you strip it, while being out off offence turns, then you should be playing on 4 downtime turns until you score, they wind down, or the opponent regains possession (which puts him/er on offence turns again). If the opponent is out off offence turns, too, it ends the game (once downtime has winded down).
Otherwise the opponent continues to play on offence turns, until s/he runs out off it, which ends the drive and s/he would have to kick-off, or it ends the game, if both sides are out off offence turns, and downtime is not active.

Another similar idea would be to guarantee a 2/3 turn offense each half. By that I mean the if an opponent receives at the start of the half and scores on t8 then the half is 9 turns. Otherwise 8 as normal. You could extend that to 10 turns or 9 if they score on t7. What if no one scores would still be an issue but then I am happy to leave the half end on t8. There is less benefit to stalling of you don't score!

This sounds a bit like the 4 quarter concept. Having an offence time that can't be wasted. The issue I have with it is that the overall game time could increase too much.
And second it is difficult to balance between Elves (who can score fast) and Dwarves (who may need their time). So it would give passing/fast teams and advantage. And I found it hard to balance that without increasing the game length even more.
A minor point, that isn't as crucial, but needs to be considered too, is one-turn-score and Throw Team-mate.
But otherwise that is another approach.

[Christy42]

Indeed. I think all the latest suggestions are well past the point of not needing non passing teams like Dwarves needing rebalancing. I would say increasing their defensive capabilities to ensure they have options to defend a 2/3 attack.

[Mystic Force]

I wonder if some the problem with the passing game is the lack of reserves on less durable teams. Because of the effect of TV, teams are kept trim, with only 1 or 2 reserves. This means that teams start to get reduced in number, no longer fielding 11 players making the game harder to manage when defending, that means quick scoring is not a good tactic for these teams. The other advantage of having larger rosters is that you can have players specializing in offence and defense. My favorite player on my HE team is my defensive thrower, his job is using NoS and other useful skills to run in pick up loose balls and get them to safety when defending. They are almost defensive scoring specialist.

So as demonstrated passing is really not that low probability say compared to having to make a lot of blocks, but the effect of failure is higher.

I have long wondered if there was a way to change TV calc (or compensation for being lower) which would allow for larger team rosters without screwing things up. I have been unable to come up with an easy formulation that would work for this. TV was meant as a tool to even up matches not be a meta game all of its own. The team with the higher TV should expect to be the better team, with on average a >50% win chance against an underdog. the bonuses are meant to close the gap, not shut it.

[Christy42]

Hmm. I am not sure if a lack of reserves is the issue with passing teams. I mean many suffer from it due to design but they suffer from it when they run it as well.

However to go down that route I would say the main option would be
1: TV for your 11 most expensive players is counted normally. Each player after that counts 50% (rounding up to the nearest 10k) of their normal TV. It changes the cost benefit of a fee more, potentially situational reserves. Not sure who it would benefit most though.

However I personally feel that that would be a different direction than simply helping the passing game. Not sure if it would help teams who suddenly might get a reserve bench like elves or teams like Goblins who already have one anyway more. However I don't see it overbalancing the game too much.

[JPB]

Note: I edited my suggestion, if interested, but only to add that I don't think it works and why.

Regarding TV and the current problem. I'm personally a bit dumbfounded, as I have no idea why it even exists and why it was implemented.

The only reason for the current TV system, I can think of, is to prevent leagues from entering the scenario that a new team has to play against teams with a TV of 3.000.000.
However, outside of tabletop leagues, I'm not sure the capping TV system is even needed. Not if you have match-making etc.
And even tabletop leagues may find different ways of dealing with it (i.e. balancing of long-term leagues).

But, as said, I don't fully understand the reasons behind it, nor do I remember any reasoning.

But I don't think reserves have much influence on passing, as the reason not to score fast is rather to deny the opponent offence time, I would say. But it would be nice to have more elaborated teams (offence & defence specialists) but a problem of that is in my experience the limitation to only 11 players on the field, which leaves very little adjustment room. It's usually always the same gang over and over again.

[dode74]

However, outside of tabletop leagues, I'm not sure the capping TV system is even needed. Not if you have match-making etc.

This is only true if inducements are actually worthwhile. We know that they are overcosted, and we know that some teams scale up better than others (using whatever metric you like - survivability or winning). With no cap (soft or otherwise) and with overcosted inducements you get the situation where, eventually (and it doesn't take that long) the good high-TV teams become dominant both in terms of numbers for the survivable teams and in terms of win% for the scoring teams. Basically it becomes a mostly-Chaos/Nurgle/Chorf league with a few Elven teams taking the wins. This reduces the variety of teams which are played, and played against, and that has been one of the major issues with large open leagues we've seen.

The above is not speculation: it's based on what's happened both in FUMBBL B and on both Cyanide platforms. We've limited it somewhat in CCL by having full resets (effectively caps) every 6 weeks, but people still complain about lack of variety.