Neoliminal's Incremental Go For Its

[Pink Horror]

I always enjoy it when someone tells me I have no "real way to judge" something only because I haven't tried it first-hand, and then someone's testing shows that my judgements were at least as good as anyone else's.

Of course passing games can still be lucrative. You can still make money selling computers too, but that doesn't mean that the market is good. I said earlier than the quick pass / hand-off combo should be relatively unaffected. It's the long pass, the pass that I'd love to see more of, that's diminished by PGFIs. Actually, if runners start injuring themselves more at the end of halves just to try a one-turner, the entire passing game will be affected indirectly.

And what should be the chance of falling over when a player sprints? Do we want even more players hurt from attempting to near the personal full-speeds? I always thought it was kind of silly that around 1/3 of attempts for all-out speed result in nasty falls. There must be a lot of debris on that field. Increasing that number doesn't sit well with me.

I don't need playtesting to figure any of this out. You might be the show-me type of person who'll make me waste my friends' time just to prove something to you, but I don't have to give in. I value the hypothetical. A reasoned thought-experiment can be more useful than a real experiment. Even though I may cheat, get mean, or go crazy on occassion, I still know Blood Bowl.




Pink Horror

[neoliminal]

I always enjoy it when someone tells me I have no "real way to judge" something only because I haven't tried it first-hand, and then someone's testing shows that my judgements were at least as good as anyone else's.

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion regarding the rules without testing them... that would be crazy. I am saying, however, that since you wont take my word that this rule is good, the only way to prove it to you would be to have you play a game with it.

I never said there was no real way to judge without testing. I said that your judgements didn't jive with my real world experiences and that the only way I saw to make you see what I was talking about was for you to test it since there were no rhetorical ways to express the differences between when you thought and what I saw. I'll not that this exchange was before you mentioned any of the ideas about how PGFI would affect passing.

Of course passing games can still be lucrative. You can still make money selling computers too, but that doesn't mean that the market is good. I said earlier than the quick pass / hand-off combo should be relatively unaffected. It's the long pass, the pass that I'd love to see more of, that's diminished by PGFIs. Actually, if runners start injuring themselves more at the end of halves just to try a one-turner, the entire passing game will be affected indirectly.

I'm assuming you mean catchers when you say runners. Can you explain to me how PGFI diminishes the long pass. I'm having a hard time understand that point of view.

[Pink Horror]

Neo, you wrote this in the last thread:

"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."

There certainly are rhetorical ways to express your experiences. You might not know them, but they exist. Blood Bowl isn't magic. If you change a rule and experience differences, there's a way to connect them logically. There's cause and effect. You could explain that to me.

Yes, I mean catchers or runners. They're the same to me.

A lot of times with a long pass you're just trying to get the ball out of reach of the defense. If you throw it far enough, completion or incompletion doesn't matter. But, if "far enough" is extended by progressive go-for-its, taking that risk is worth less. The quick pass and hand-off combo is too popular without any rules changes. Adding to that popularity will only simplify the general strategy of the game further.



Pink Horror

[neoliminal]

A lot of times with a long pass you're just trying to get the ball out of reach of the defense. If you throw it far enough, completion or incompletion doesn't matter. But, if "far enough" is extended by progressive go-for-its, taking that risk is worth less. The quick pass and hand-off combo is too popular without any rules changes. Adding to that popularity will only simplify the general strategy of the game further.

Show me an example.

[plasmoid]

Can I just say that I do very much like the "brick wall" of counting squares. I certainly don't like that tactics are lost when any screen can be circumvented by the guy with supreme luck.

No siree-bob!

And I'll repeat myself too: If there was a problem with 1 turn scorers, you shouldn't "solve" the problem by giving everybody some.

[neoliminal]

Can I just say that I do very much like the "brick wall" of counting squares.

So you'd like to see GFI's removed altogether?

Personally I think Brick Walls suck. Particularly at the end of the half when instead of playing for TD's, you just moving the players around for no reason. I hate that.

I can understand how someone might want a "sure thing", but I think the game is more interesting with surprises. This isn't chess.

[Pink Horror]

There's nothing you can do to take pointless turns out of the game. What if one team is up 2-0 and kicking off with a turn left? Do you want to add a dice roll that will give you a chance for 2 TDs? Oh, but you say, the other team can still go for the SPPs. Well, I say the other team can still go for the SPPs from blocking.

A turn that's only spent rolling dice to see if you score is the same as a turn that's only spent blocking for SPPs. There's no strategy involved in either situation. Why one counts as having a reason and the other doesn't, I don't know. I think both situations have their reasons.

Do you really need an example of a team throwing the ball beyond the reach of the opponent? Is that situation really that hard for you to imagine?



Pink Horror

[neoliminal]

There's nothing you can do to take pointless turns out of the game. What if one team is up 2-0 and kicking off with a turn left?

I run into dead turns a lot more often than I run into single turns in a 2-0 rout. Dead turns can all but be eliminated... as has been seen in my league.

Do you really need an example of a team throwing the ball beyond the reach of the opponent? Is that situation really that hard for you to imagine?

I have my doubts that you can show me an example where I can't counter the arguement, so yes, show me an example. ( I know you're not lazy even if you are a cheat... show some moxie.)

John -

[Pink Horror]

To me a "dead turn" is when there are no strategic decisions left to make. If all you could do is run down the field hoping for good luck on GFI rolls, the turn is dead.

I'll try to describe an example. Let's say I'm Orcs (and no one on my team moves over 6) and you're Skaven. You kickoff and roll a Blitz. I crush your line and move everyone forward. There's no one farther back from the LoS than 1 square (I've done this to people before on some unintelligent blitzes). I've used 3 guys to front your gutter runner (who's 1 square from the LoS and in a wide zone) but he still has a couple easy dodges to escape down the field.

Okay, now it's your turn. You want to punish me for my mistake. You don't want to risk throwing into the group around the gutter runner (who doesn't have catch), so he dodges out and uses all his movement and 2 GFIs to get 9 squares away from any player on my team. Then, you pick up the ball and throw a long pass to him. At this point, with the current rules, as long as it doesn't scatter back towards my team you should score next turn. Either the runner will catch it or he'll pick it up. Nothing can be done and I've been bested without anyone really taking much of a risk.

With proposed rules, even though I've made a stupid error, I can redeem myself. First, the gutter runner will have a worse chance at the second GFI. Second, no matter what happens, I can still get the gutter runner, the ball, or both next turn if I'm lucky enough. That's not right. I'd rather admit defeat on the play than earn back the advantage with amazing luck (or even fake luck).



Pink Horror

[GalakStarscraper]

Sorry John ... I know this is your pet ... but I actually agree with PH.

Since I've been playing a lot of stunty teams lately, I getting really used to only having a MA of 5 .... I NEED that 2nd GFI normally just to offer up the smallest amount of defense or offense

The other thing ... I really hate hurting my players on failed GFIs ... dodges, leaps, blocks ... those I can handle and accept ... injurying a player just on GFI is one of those things that just ruin my mood.

Galak

By the way ... I think this is a great house rules and I'm glad that you league, Bab's league, etc. have tried it. I'd be curious as Babs didn't say ... if he puts it up for a vote for his next season would his coach approve its continued us or go back .... all he said was that the majority wouldn't MIND if it was official .... that's not the same as voting it in.

[Thadrin]

Me too. The current rule isn't a brick wall: its a rubber wall - you can stretch it a little but it has limits. I'm really not keen on the idea of this unlimited safety net, even though it may give my slow arsed team an advantage. As it stands there is a strategic choice on how far you need to GFI to make things maximum inconvenience for opponents, but the miracle play PH describes is out.

Now, if you told me pGFI was to replace the Sprint skill as is (a player may GFI for 2 squares at 2+ each or Sprint - pGFI - at 2+, 3+, 4+ etc.) then I'm with you, even though it does make Chaos Dwarfs even scarier. That gets this nice idea into the game and improves the sprint skill.

[neoliminal]

pGFI isn't broken in any sense of the word. It works fine and there are no magical plays that show up. On a rare occasion someone does something truely amazing, but as noted it's truely amazing and kudo's are given by all who see it.

One thing that tells me this idea is better than the existing rule is that when new players are introduced to the rule they understand it easily and when they are told how the rule was "supposed" to work they think it's strange.

Every coach who learned to play BB with pGFI has balked at the original rule. When you think of it from that point of view, it seems arbitrary to have only two extra squares of movement. The question from the new players go like this:

"Why would you only be able to move two extra squares, it doesn't make any sense."

The "Rubber" wall isn't rubber at all.

[Mestari]

One thing that tells me this idea is better than the existing rule is that when new players are introduced to the rule they understand it easily and when they are told how the rule was "supposed" to work they think it's strange.

Although I feel that both ways are equally good, the above argument is just silly.
It's called "getting used to doing something in a certain way". Coaches who have learned to play it the official way certainly would think that the pGFI way of doing it is strange. But that simply doesn't mean that pGFI of doing it is faulty. And certainly it applies the other way round too, just as JKL has noted.

Secondly:
As a house rule, this is fine. But I haven't seen a fault in the existing rules nor have I seen a huge benefit from the pGFI rule to merit changing the official rules.

[wesleytj]

It is a beer and pretzels game already. But don't worry, PGFI doesn't change the fact that you need tactics to win... you still need tactics. Counting squares still factors in, but now it about the odds rather than a brick wall.

I prefer the brick wall. If I'm 6 squares away from the mummy there should be no way in hell he can catch me no matter WHAT he rolls. He's a freakin mummy!

I don't mind incrementally harder, but put a limit on it (2 or 3). Otherwise you're very much weakening the advantage to be had by speed teams.

[Thadrin]

I prefer the brick wall. If I'm 6 squares away from the mummy there should be no way in hell he can catch me no matter WHAT he rolls. He's a freakin mummy!

I prefer the rubber wall: No freakin' way at six, a little nearer and there's a chance if the Mummy REALLY pushes it....hence GFIs as they are.

I don't mind incrementally harder, but put a limit on it (2 or 3). Otherwise you're very much weakening the advantage to be had by speed teams.

I dunno...I don't think the strength teams would have any more to gain from the new rule on average than the speed teams. If anything, I think there could be an advantage to the speed teams as 1 turn Scorers become more likely.