Movement cornerwise = 1,5 MA

[Balrog]

I like the idea of 1.5 squares for diagonal movement, I'll have to try it out first hand though.

-Balrog

[Zombie]

Yeah, hexagons cause some problems, but nothing that can't be solved with good design. I still think it's a better alternative overall.

And i don't like the idea of counting diagonals as 1.5 move. Too much of a kludge, especially for casual players.

[Joaquim]

Well... I guess there are 2 main things wich should be considered:

1st all those fields out there will (I think for the first time - 2 squares endzones isn't a problem) become obselet... this can be good: it gives some players a good reason to, at least. change that old field... and for GW can mean a lot more of selling... or people walking away from this «outrage»!!...

2nd... there will be more space in the field, as tackle zone will be reduced to 6 hexs and lateral movement will be more important... And I guess that for the endzones be nice the hexs need to be lateral oriented - and the midfield.... so the field will growth in both directions....

But... well, after all this really matters? Most of us are used to see the players «area of action» as squares, not hexs or something weirder... you can allways pick some reason for players to move «faster» in cornerwise (wise?!? well, he is moving in a wiser mode.. ) )... or thing that those square things aren't really squares... but a 2D represation of something more to the like of Stephen Hawking....

Anyway... I'm still looking (but not too hard) for a good old astroganite field... and I don't think changing the squares (or counting 1.5) will bring us much closer to «what BB should be like»... at least not without actually putting those protections and going to a field....

[stone]

I like the idea of 1.5 squares for diagonal movement, I'll have to try it out first hand though.

OK Balrog. Please, let me know, how it went. I mean, it is way too long time ago that I played any otherwise (there is that wise again, ) so that I could really take to account all the differences between official movement rules and our house rules.

A

[Pink Horror]

"No, i meant Canadian football. "





Oh, Zombie, that's a good one! Canadian football is the real football? I watched a Canadian match about a week ago and it was the lowest quality of football I've seen on television in my life, and I've watched local high school football on TV (I must admit that South Florida high schools have more talent than some colleges).

I'm glad that NFL failures like Lawrence Philips and John Avery have someplace to go, but the rule changes are a joke. The teams are full of players from American high schools and colleges, so you might as well let them play American ball. And was blocking neutured, or do the players just not care?

Back to the subject...

I haven't put muich thought into the hexagon field. It seems like a neat idea, but I like the squares too. Neoliminal has some good points, and I don't know for sure what the advantages would be over D&D movement, so I hope you guys keep discussing it so I can figure out if a house-rule hex board would be worth the time.

Joaquim, I think you've described pretty well how I think when looking at the board during a Blood Bowl game - I view the squares as merely representational of a much stranger space. When players are up close to each other, it doesn't really matter, but when trying to work with open space, 1.5 movement would change much of my strategy. Hexes throw everything off.



Pink Horror

[Dinaturz]

I think there movement rules are pretty good as they are.

I cannot see any good point in using exagonal paces instead of squares (oh my gosh... what about Tacke Zone and blocks supports??? )
I cannot see any good point in using a 1/2 movement rate for diagonals.

If you move diagonally you don't loose anything even if you change direction several times, but I don't see in it such a big fault...
The only instant where is important that the distance is the same in any direction is during a pass, but there we use a linear ruler, so even in this case we have a good management of the action. (if I am not wrong, in the 1st edition the pass distance was checked counting the number of paces between thrower and receiver...)

As tchatter said, both players are using the same rules, so where is the problem?

Make BB more similar to "real life"???

Ok, if you see some football match from the italian League you can find some similarity between "real life" supporters and BB Crowd , but this is not a sport simulation game, is a fantasy game and in my opinion the less rules it has (and the simpler they are) the more enjoiable it will be.

-Marco

[Joaquim]

I don't know why... perhaps it's from those wargames.... but I think I allways loved hexs...

If the field changes from square to hexs... well...

I guess most rules could stay the same... on the plus side you will allways pushback in the same manner .... and we would (probabily) say good bye to the D8 - as the ball would scatter only to six...

This is becoming tempting... If I find around here some hexpaper with the «right» size - that is, one I feel confortable with the same throw ruler... I guess I'll see it for my self.... I only guess that speedy (and agily) teams will be a little better - because I've the feel that with hex there will be more space...

But, whatever I find out about «Hex BB»... I really don't think we need them - even if I must admit I love them...


Joaquim

[Zombie]

Canadian football is the real football?

I never said that. I said it's what i was refering to. I don't watch American football because i find it boring, so when i say football, i can't be talking about American football. It's not even a reality to me.

I watched a Canadian match about a week ago and it was the lowest quality of football I've seen on television in my life, and I've watched local high school football on TV (I must admit that South Florida high schools have more talent than some colleges).

The CFL is the hightest level of play you can reach in football after the NFL. It's about the same level as NFL Europe.

I'm glad that NFL failures like Lawrence Philips and John Avery have someplace to go, but the rule changes are a joke.

The "rule changes" aren't changes at all. The rules have always been like this. Football was developped in Canada at the same time as it was developped in the USA. You've even taken many rules from us to improve your game, many more in fact than we've taken from you. Our game is 10 times better and more exciting. The only reason that you didn't like it is that you didn't understand it.

The teams are full of players from American high schools and colleges, so you might as well let them play American ball.

So? The percentage of American players in Canadian teams in no higher than the percentage of Canadian players in American hockey teams. Or rules are better. Ask even the American players in the CFL. If they've been playing for at least a year, they'll tell you from experience that our rules are much better.

And was blocking neutured, or do the players just not care?

If you're refereing about the line of scrimmage, the one yard distance between offense and defense makes a huge difference. It's one of the many rules that make the game much more exciting. The quarterback better be able to run in our league. Either that or throw really quick.

The end of the story is, don't talk about things you don't know.

[Darkson]

Back on topic, the only problem I see (and I'm talking from limited experiance here) is if you have the hexs so that lateral movement is in a straight line any foward runs will look like a drunken stagger. Now, this may be an accurate representation of the coaches from Spiky on Sunday but I'd rather my players stayed off the beer before a big match (excluding norse and dwarfs of course).

Would it make much difference?

[Zombie]

So? Going along diagonals with the current board (right, left, right, left) looks even worse (45° instead of 30°). I do that sometimes, as it doesn't cost me anymore movement anyway.

In any case, my original suggestion was to have the hexes in a facing that allowed for straight up movement. We'd need to sort out the LoS and end zone, but surely this can be solved in some way.

[Darkson]

In any case, my original suggestion was to have the hexes in a facing that allowed for straight up movement. We'd need to sort out the LoS and end zone, but surely this can be solved in some way.

Sorry, missed that part. In that case i think it could be given a go. What about sidelines?

[Zombie]

Sidelines would be easy in this way. It's the lines in the other direction that cause trouble.

[Balrog]

I watched a Canadian match about a week ago and it was the lowest quality of football I've seen on television in my life.

Ah, the usual response from americans when it comes to sport: "Dawg gonnit, if it ain't american then it ain't any good... *spit*"

I watched an NFL monday night game once, and when the game ended it was 1h30 in the morning. Why is it that the two most popular american sports take 4+ hours to play? It just doesn't make any sense... the pace is so slow you might as well be watching sloths race.

Anyways, hex-based BB is an interesting idea. I do think that squares suit the game better, but it would be interesting to try it out on a hex board. Is anyone actually willing to make a hex board and test it out though?

-Balrog

[Darkson]

Sidelines would be easy in this way. It's the lines in the other direction that cause trouble.

Surely you'll end up with 1/2 hexes on all sides? How do you resolve these? (Like I say, I only played on hexes twice[car wars and star wars ship-to-ship] so can't remember if there is a convention in populat use.)

[Dinaturz]

The only way to solve the problem of the lines (LoS, sideline, ect.) was already discussed by neoliminal in a very effective way.

Following the only logical solution, the shape of the field will change and (but this is just my personal opinion) will loose the fashinating image of a football field.

Of course being a House Rule, everyone is free to use it, but I would never consider this for an official modification.