The rule "must declare action before moving"

[Haar]

To respond to Gorblitz and mickeX, I think the break in the game is exactly what I and others have described. I admit that the current rule (like the IPC rule) can be subject to munchkinization, I feel that it is far beardier to wait to declare "this is my blitz" until after you see if the player is in the clear to make the blitz. The game can flow just as quickly either way. The shadowing / diving tackle thing in particular is important as well, since those are one-use abilities.

So the break we're fixing is one of beardiness.

When the declare rule is combined with the four minute turn rule, you get a game where experience is important. You get good at quickly assessing a situation and making a tactical decision. You don't have time to calculate all the probabilities, or just try everything and go with the first thing to work.

If you don't like it, houserule it, but I really think the game is better for it.

[franck_le_grand]

Wow, alot of replies on this one
My point is; where is the logic in this???? Why can't you (the player) change your mind halfway through an action???

Now, I know that in a post or to (!), one of your guys are going to say: "but hey, Le Grand, BB is a game of fantasy and monsters of all kinds and thats not very logic and bla bla bla bling bling bling bla and so fourth"

Now all the other rules are based on logic and reality(throwing, catching, blocking, moving)

So, what you guys are saying;
What do we need this rule for?
Well for all the reasons Deathwing and some others wrote.

Why is it there?
Well we don't know that

Is it logic and realistic?
No way!!
I can play soccer, and first decide to pass the ball to the right to a teammate, and when I'm about to it, I can change my mind and pass to my left instead. (I was going to use block in this example, but that might sounded wierd for a game of soccer)

Last question; Is BB realistic?
Yes to a surden limit (for example when it comes to monsters)

Le Grand

[Grumbledook]

You can decide all the passing options in your head, its when you take you foot back to make the pass that you have declaired the pass action, the opposistion may or may not be in a place to block the pass or intercept whatever.

And the passing rules are logical, roll for an interception before you even know the pass made it to where the intercepting player is.

The rules aren't all based on logic its down to game mechanics.

We have heard the reasons why we think declairing is better, but what are you reasons for why its better not to declair?

[Dave]

I firmly agree with the posters that see it as a tacktical rule in the game

It evenforces you to plan when to put who back on his feet (and as you all know, we do that a lot )

[MickeX]

I feel that it is far beardier to wait to declare "this is my blitz" until after you see if the player is in the clear to make the blitz. The game can flow just as quickly either way. The shadowing / diving tackle thing in particular is important as well, since those are one-use abilities.

I can't really recognize the word "beardy" in the way you use it. To me, beardy is doing something that gives you the upper hand rules-wise, but goes against the spirit of the game.

It is not against the spirit of the game that someone changes his plans halwway through a move. Rather the opposite.

It is not against the spirit of the game that a player who may use shadowing/diving tackle does not know the full plan of the active player. In this case too, it is rather the opposite.

Neither would this game unbalance shadowing or diving tackle. They would be a bit less useful, but that's ok.

There are several ways to make "experience" more important in the same way. Why not demand that a coach declares where every player moves before touching the mini? I mean, why should a running team have more possibilities of changing tactics in the middle of a move than a passing team? It would certainly demand "more planning". And in time, it'll be in every experienced coach's spine.

The more I think of it, the more I feel that the declaring actions rule is downright silly. Why have the newbies learn more rules than necessary?

Micke

[Grumbledook]

Passing plays are more versitile, you only have to say which player is going to make the pass, where is the problem. You don't have to say where is moving to when he is going to do the pass, who on your team he is passing to, you don't even have to pass.

I am still yet to see a good reason why the declair action rule shouldn't be in the game, there are no apparent problems with it, as it has allready been shown.

[Gorblitz!!]

I think that the examples used by the pro-declare folks arent very good either. I think that the declare rule just shifts power from the PWTII(Player whos turn it is) to the PWTIA(Player whos turn it aint). If the PWTII wants to change his mind halfway through his action he should be allowed.

I started thinking about the way I play and realized that even though I dont like the declare rule I have been doing it since I started playing this game.(ex- Alright my Witch Elf is gunna blitz now) As a courtesy to the other guy. Its a habit I got into along time ago. REQUIRING me to say this stuff is another thing entirely!
You make a big deal out of the DT and Shadowing not knowing which player to "effect" well how would a DT player (in the grim realityof BB) know which person is blitzing or which is moving? Like I said a question of power. No-declare supposedly undervalues the nege-traits and pro-declare supposedly undervalues DT and Shadowing

I havent been convinced by the pro-declare folks. I think this is a question of taste. I like the power in my hands when Im the PWTII. I never argued that the rule has a huge effect on the game, just that it is a bur in my boot and I dont want to have to worry about it.

[Grumbledook]

Heh well if you have been doing it anyway i can't see there being a problem. It hardly shifts the power to the other team, you can still blitz. There would be little point in taking skills and traits that hinder the opponent in their turn if they can change their actions on the fly to negate them.

This is after all a turn based game and things don't happen on the fly, its hardly natural for a team to stand still while you get to decide which player to do what. Why should one team be able to do stuff on the fly and the other team not?

Its a case of balence and having to declair actions means you have to think about field position, try to read what the other team is trying to do. You have to think more carefully about which player is going to do which action. Overall it adds more depth to the tactical decisions and rewards the coach who makes the better decisions, rather than the one who relied on the dice to make the decisions for him.

[longfang]

Somebody please lock this thread because it's getting way too

[MickeX]

Passing plays are more versitile, you only have to say which player is going to make the pass, where is the problem.

I was making fun of the argument that extra rules makes the game more complicated, and therefor more interesting. I don't want more silly rules, but with the kind of argument you're using, it would be easy to defend a number of obviously silly rules - like, for example, having to declare where you're moving before you touch the mini.

Good games combine advanced tactics/strategy with inituitive rules: take Go or Backgammon, or why not Roborally? The concept of Less is more definitely works for game rules.

I am still yet to see a good reason why the declair action rule shouldn't be in the game, there are no apparent problems with it, as it has allready been shown.

Most newbies encounters the problem sooner or later: playing against the beardy guys actually using the rule. It's often quite easy to get a newbie all stressed up by being hard on this rule, and some people use that to their advantage.

Micke

[martynq]

Why is it there?
Well we don't know that

Is it logic and realistic?
No way!!

The rule isn't there for logic and realism reasons - it is there for gameplay reasons. Without it, the big guy monsters dominate game play in the manner explained by Deathwing. You could use your ogre as a blitzer, safe in the knowledge that if he fails his bonehead roll then you can blitz with someone else.

You can't rely on logic and realism for a strategy game. You have to see how the game plays and it was for this reason the rule was introduced (IMO).

Cheers,
Martyn

[franck_le_grand]

Well ok I can see what you mean, but...

IF there's a reason why you fail a action with a player it almost results in a turnover, example:
Human rookie blitzer is one dodge away to make the blitz, he rolls and fails to dodge, reroll and fails again. Now he's on the ground TO!!
Same thing with throwing, so the rule isn't that unbalanced.

The thing about big guys dominating the play, no they don't! As I said we don't use this rule, and the big guys a no problem at all! They don't dominate sh*t.

I've been writing down some things that makes this clear:

1)It's only the ogre, rat ogre, mino and krox, you can use as blitzers (ma 5-6)

2)You might don't want to GFI as you can't use re-rolls

3)It's not often that these guys stand alone (no TZ, as you don't want to dodge, with AG 2-3 and no re-rolls)

4)These guys don't start with block, so a rookie big guy is not the best blitzer in the world and it will take longer time for him to gain block.

5)The mino and the rat ogre has WA, so they might f**k up before even thinking of blitzing.

So no the big guys don't dominate the game.

Yes the game isn't interly based on logic and realism, but real games are also based on game-mechanics.

Another point, can you say with a guy, "he's going to start blitzing" and then move him and change your mind and say "no wait, he's going to throw the ball instead", move him a little further and then say "No, he's going to hand the ball of instead" and then hand the ball of.
If you can do this, the player has just used three actions in one turn, and you can't do that with one player, according to the rules.

Le Grand

[Haar]

I agree with Franck, I think. It usually doesn't come up where you would fail an action and keep on playing, the case really only exists when you use a one-shot skill (sure feet, dodge) in the first of multiple rolls and decide to play it safe.

I also agree that Big Guys are pretty balanced right now, they don't dominate, and if they're played right, they don't stink too much.

As for the realism argument, I think a Bigger Deal would be to argue about the realism of restricting the number of blitzes per turn to one. No realism there. The declare rule isn't entirely realistic, but it is a balance thing. Or you can consider that the blitzing player needs to know from the start that they're blitzing and get up a big head of steam or some such.

Anybody who resorts to cheesy leaning on newbies shouldn't play Blood Bowl. You should be helping newbies learn how to play and love the game.

Finally, I see the point made by the opposition, and would play that way if it were the rule (and did, I think, back in the 3e days). But the rule as it stands isn't broken, so I don't think we should fix it.

[franck_le_grand]

But the rule as it stands isn't broken, so I don't think we should fix it.

I'm not saying it's broken, I'm just discussin wether or not it's good or bad, and right now I must admit that I'm beginning to feel that the rule isn't that bad anyway, but I'm still not convinced.

[Deathwing]

I still see non-declaration as an 'easy out'. Failed actions and turnovers are beside the point. Quite apart from the Bonehead/Really Stupid thing, how about BOBs/CWs/Trollslayers/Mummies with Stand Firm. It's a free shot. A no risk option. You'd still be able to Block the guy who has a TZ on you if you fail the dodge, and blitz elsewhere.
Edit: Of course that's incorrect, you'd lose your chance to Block, so it wouldn't be a 'free' shot at all, but it'd remain a no-risk option.

"I'll blitz with this guy because it's to my advantage even though he needs 2 gfis. If he get's there without using a TRR, fine, I'll throw the block. If I have to use a TRR on the first gfi, I'll leave him there for the assist and use somebody else. How about that Stand Firm guy? Damn, he's failed the dodge, I'll go to the 3rd option..."

I don't like it.
Weigh up the situation, use your judgement, make the call and put faith in Nuffle.