1 square passing and interceptions.

[The Strange Dude]

I know you wanted a spp, but why not hand off as the RR clearly touches the opponet's square on a diagonal

Good question. Better question; why are we attempting ANY of this in a tackle zone to begin with. Blitz that guy away first and save yourself the misery of inevitible failure (barring double skulls on the blitz of course).

Actually it was slann catcher to slann catcher turn 6 first half with 3 re-rolls in the bank 3+ to throw, 2+ to catch (diving catch gives +1 to catch an accurate pass thus effectivley negating tackle zone) then 2+ leap to freedom and a touchdown. So while yes I could have handed off with one less roll needed I felt it was worth it for the extra spp for the thrower. Of course in this case my opponent declared and made the interception and it wasn't till looking at the rules I felt unsure of that call.

Thanks for clearing it up guys.

[dode74]

For the movement, though, geometry doesn't apply to BB: actually, moving diagonally costs the same as moving in a straight line.
That's a huge, huge flaw that nobody bothered to fix after all these years.

I wouldn't call it a flaw. It's really about the relationship between the various MAs and how you want them to pan out. Make movement geometric and you devalue MA and reduce the need to spread across the width of the field on defence. It works.

[MattDakka]

If you make the movement geometric, actually the importance of movement, and relative movement, between two teams is increased, in my opinion.
Fast players as catchers, and generally speaking, fast teams, might move away from the slower players/ bash teams.
Dwarfs, for example, benefit a lot from the diagonal-straight movement paradox, they would struggle more to defend, if the offence can swap sides thanks to its higher movement.

[dode74]

Dwarves would be advantaged, I think, under a geometric system. Currently fast players can swap sides and advance plenty (meaning they can score in fewer turns than they would under a geometric system), whereas under a geometric system they trade one for another, substituting effective sideways movement for forwards movement, and therefore taking longer to score. This would allow slower (bashier) teams to close up more as they would need to cover less ground. All hypothetical anyway - it works as it is