1 or 2 square endzones?

Piepgrass · Post by **Piepgrass** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:38 pm

Just wondereing.

Poul

shaniepoo · Post by **shaniepoo** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:40 pm

Does it make any differance? If you have 2 squares you just have to pass the line or do you have to get to the 2nd square to get a TD?

Piepgrass · Post by **Piepgrass** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:45 pm

It matters when you are in the endzone waiting for a ball to be passed.

Poul

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:52 pm

I loved the 2 square end zone. It's one thing that I miss a great deal from 2nd edition. The 2 square endzone made maneuvering in the zone alot of fun.

It also looks alot more like a regular field.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:56 pm

Ah but the 1 square zone makes goal hanging a much riskier proposition.

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:59 pm

True. I didnt think about it like that. Oh well, I could just use my Frenzying Troll slayer

Blood

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:35 pm

My theory is that the two square endzone (introduced in 2ed) bit the dust when big guys stopped taking up 4 squares on the pitch.

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:38 pm

Depending on the size of your mini's, they just may still take up 4 squares

Blood

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:07 pm

Have to admit I voted for 2 squares, because I started playing on Astrogranite(R).

lawquoter · Post by **lawquoter** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:22 pm

I voted for the 1 square end zone. Nothing is more satisfying than smashing an elf in the crowd after he decided to pitch camp inside my goal line. Then again, I'm sure I'd love to have that extra row of end zone if I'm playing elves, just so I can pitch camp inside the goal line. Never had astrogranite, wouldn't mind if they came out with it again.

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 11:01 pm

I play Dark Elves, and never pitch camp. Why? Because it is easier not to. On the first turn I run someon down pitch untill they are within their normal movment of scoring. Then keep the ball nice and safe on my side. If I fear them ganging up on the reciver I send several.

Then a nice pass downfield, a dodge or three (it is nice to be an elf), and a two turn score.

But, I can see how some would like a deeper endzone. I rather like it as is, but could live with it either way.

Bob-the-Fish · Post by **Bob-the-Fish** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:54 am

1 square endzones make it more risky to score. If a player is camping and waiting for a pass, you have to be careful because theres a chance he could drop it and have it scatter out.
But more importantly, it really makes you think twice about pushing it into the endzone, tripping, dropping the ball and having it scatter back down field. This is a pain when it happens to you but it makes coachs think about just running it in. And it gives those 1 turn scorers a small chance of failing and setting you up.

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:59 pm

We play long time on a 2-square endzone. The problem for the field-goals can be avoided by using a d8 for range ... we have some good results so far, and I can only advise anybody to try the 2 square endzone for a few games ...

the last Goal-Line stands are very heroic ... believe me

Devante · Post by **Devante** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 6:03 pm

Gotta love that old two square end zone with the teams name going across it, used to have great fun making those for a team.

SgtCaples · Post by **SgtCaples** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:50 am

I actually liked the 2 square endzone better but voted for one because I have no desire to see a new/changed board even contemplated.

Talk Fantasy Football

1 or 2 square endzones?

Do you prefer the 2. ed where endzones was 2 squares or is 1 square better

1 or 2 square endzones?