Neoliminal's Incremental Go For Its

[Babs]

Have other people been trying out Neo's (John's) 2+, then 3+ , then 4+, then 5+ then 6+ thereafter extra steps rules?

Basically you could go for as many extra steps as you like, but they get progrssively harder each time.

We have just run a league in Gosford, Australia and the rule has been ery interesting. As a Chaos Dwarf coach with Bull Centaurs - the sprint, Sure feet action is a lot less of a 'given' thing.

In general, the game tended to close up rather than what we were thinking - that it would open the game up. Because the second Go For It was 3+ less chances were taken on making the second GFI.

After watching 10 weeks of matches with it in play - I'm happy to say it is an acceptable rule, but the effect it has is:

1. Sprint / Sure Feet is taken less often.
2. 1 Turn Touchdown monstrosities score more rarely.
3. The GFI is a rarer event (particularly the second step).
4. In 'make or break' plays a few people used a reroll to gain that extra step - but it made little difference to game balance.

I'm interested to hear what other people have to say about the rule - I'm suprised that it hasn't been discussed here before!

=-) Babs (Who really needs a piccy by my name sometime soon!)

[voyagers_uk]

That is the rule, I couldn't remember that I wanted to try out. Thanks Babs.

[Toby]

I think the idea of "giving all teams the POSSIBILITY of OTTD's" is the way to go. However i am still in favour of a Limit on GFI's.

Something like...
GF1=D6+0 GF2=D6+1 GF3=D6+2
Sprint = +1 MA
Sure Feet = Re-Roll for 1 GFI per Player Action

Human Blitzer MA7 + Sprint + 3*GFI = Maximum Movement 11

The Dwarf Team should get 4 Halflings for Possible Throw Teammate Touchdowns (they have an Ogre) instead of one turn running plays.

[neoliminal]

Hey Babs;

I'm glad to hear that you've had some interesting results. Can you tell me what the coaches have been saying about the rule? Does it add tension to the game. Is it more fun, less fun, the same?

Thanks!

John -

[GalakStarscraper]

I'm interested to hear what other people have to say about the rule - I'm suprised that it hasn't been discussed here before!

Uhhhhhh......... Babs ..... check here ... 5 pages of discussion:

viewtopic.php?t=824&start=0

Galak

[Cervidal]

I'm in John's league and the rule was implimented from the get go. It really hasn't changed the basics of the game. What it HAS done, though, is this:

1) It increases late game tension

Knowing that anyone with a MA 8 or better player has a chance to score, the final turn of a half now means something more often. I got really tired of having to set up for one last turn just to kick around/be kicked around. Now, if I'm not careful, I could get burned by that late, improbable touchdown.

2) It decreases one turn scoring

Skaven teams aren't able to score as easily in one turn. Now a roll of doubles and Sprint doesn't net a player a 2+^3 to score. He'll now need 2+, 3+, 4+.

3) It increases the importance of Sure Feet

What used to be a pretty boring skill, something that allowed you to reroll a roll that should be almost auto-pass, Sure Feet has become a more strategic skill. It's a common first choice on my Lizardmen team now because of this rule.

[plasmoid]

Hi,
I'm not exactly sure what we're discussing here:
Is it incremental steps - but still the same ammount allowed?
Or is it incremental steps, and you are allowed to take as many as you like.

If it's the second, then what exactly does sprint skill do?

I like option one. It will make it harder to score in one turn.

I definately don't like option two. To me, giving everybody potential one turn scorers isn't a brilliant solution to the problem of one turn scorers.

IMO, a lot of good tactics revolves around "counting squares". Don't turn this game into a "beer and pretzels" game, by allowing everybody to potentially move as far as they can keep rolling 6's.

[Devil's Advocate]

John's GFI rules allow for as many as you want to take, with increasing difficulty (2+, 3+, 4+, etc). The Sprint skill was changed to give you a one time +1 to a GFI roll.

His rules actually make it harder to make a one turn score with my Gutter Runner (with Very Long Legs, Sprint and Sure Feet).

The old way I needed to make three 2+ rolls (with a reroll) to make a TD. Neo's way means I need to make a 2+, 3+, and 4+ (with a reroll and one +1).

Sure, it also means that I can try for a one turn score with my rookie Gutter Runner, but with the last step being a 5+, its not likely.

It does make for some very exciting and tension filled last turns.

[neoliminal]

IMO, a lot of good tactics revolves around "counting squares". Don't turn this game into a "beer and pretzels" game, by allowing everybody to potentially move as far as they can keep rolling 6's.

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.

[Babs]

Thanks Galak for finding the thread for me - I must expect I wasn't expecting it in General Chat.

Looking over the thread - Pink Horror on his last made point made some statements which turned out very true:

1. Passing plays were reduced
2. Aggressive Defenses were up.

In fact, our touchdowns per game was down by almost 20% from previous leagues.

Although the statistics are not meaningful due to the choice of teams in the makeup of this particular league, passes in general seemed to be down - I didn't mind the rule personally for my team (Chas dwarves) - even though it narfed my Bull Centaurs - it aided my aggressive defense.

In terms of coach feedback - most coaches weren't super enthusiastic with the rule. Most could live with the rule - but most waivered around slightly negative comments on the rule. If it was an official rule most coaches wouldn't have minded overly much.

It was worth playtesting. I myself was not overly fond of the rule to begin with - however I did think it was meritous enough to be worth playtesting.

Personally, after playtesting, I like the change to GFI in that it's less of a given thing - and as your new coaches to the came said - the old way doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.

Certainly one thing was very obvious from playtesting - the talk about it 'making Blood Bowl more open' and threats about all players making one turn touchdowns is complete nonsense - it actually reduces the chance of one turn touchdowns (which is why our skaven coach is the most violently objected coach to the rule). It actually does exactly the opposite.

=-) Babs.

[neoliminal]

Babs:

So you've seen a reduction in passing? What do you attribute that to? I haven't seen that in our league, but I guess we never played without PGFI.

It seems to me that there would be a constant threat of passing, because players would go all the way.

BTW, have you seen a end to "do nothing" turns at the end of halves?

[Marcus]

Disclaimer I have not tried these rules

The reduction in the amount of speed plays makes some sense to me. Essentially you are talking about reducing the chance of making GFIs, even just the second one. Most players worth their salt will cringe in fear at the thought picking up the dice for anything but an armour roll.

During a blizzard you rarely, if ever, see GFIs and a 2nd GFI in, essentially, blizzard conditions, should ensure very few of these get made.

Personally I might give it a go, but I'd be much more inclined to pick up sure feet and jump up.

Marcus

[voyagers_uk]

Although I am in favour, the coaches in my league voted not to include this as a house rule this time, they felt that it took away part of what makes a speed team attractive. they didn't want people with short legs catching someone with VLLegs due to luck.

As I am not a dictator I had to accede, I'd like to show them it as an experimental rule in one of the mags someday as that might sway them to rethink.

But we agreed to take on Chets (big New Idea) changes as I stated in a previous post as is.

first games this weekend.

Sorry John.

[GalakStarscraper]

I have to admit JKL that I could easily see it reduce passing. Often to make a pass worth while you need to GFI twice to get to the better range. Now I've run the numbers before and while statistically it might not make sense ... its that feeling of Short vs Quick that will push you for the 2nd GFI. If the range was important, I'm probably not even going to try for the pass at all if the 2nd GFI means 3+.

Also a lot of my scoring plans are based on the 2 GFI for the catcher to score. If the 2nd GFI is out that is one more square I have to pentrate to get the score ... so I'll just run the ball thank you very much.

No I can easily see how it would cut down on the passing games from both the thrower and the catcher points of view.

Galak

[neoliminal]

Interesting.

The passing game relies on throwing the ball some distance rather than handing it off. The increased distance increases the risk that the throw will go badly. As you've pointed out, it's rarely benificial to GFI in order to reduce a range band... there are exception (having a RR, and a player with pass skill, for example.)

I'm willing to bet that passing games are still lucrative, and that this is just an initial gunshy reaction to the PGFI. Perhaps you could show me a hypothetical board situation where PGFI would be adverse to passing?