first down

[dodolulu]

hello there,

i searched for "first AND down" in this forum, but couldnt find anything related to it. given the analogy to american football, i wondered a bit and hope i didnt oversee a thread with this suggestion.

what do you think about a first down rule in bloodbowl, where you have a certain amount of turns to advance the ball at least a certain amount of fields?
and what do you think will be ok if the receiving team doesnt succeed?

[voyagers_uk]

http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/vie ... hp?t=25614

some of us have played with the idea a bit... nothing concrete though

[mattgslater]

Given the pace of blocking, a single AmFB play translates to about 2-4 BB turns for the offense. So you can think of a BB game as covering the span of two AmFB series. That throws a real wrench into the relative meaning of a "down."

[dodolulu]

although my reason to think about an analogy to the first down thing in AF was stalling too, i dont think the concept of 4 turns a drive and resetting (either at field position or even more so on the los) after that would work.

while it would be easier to handle than something like a first down (my idea was 7-9 squares per 3 turns) i guess slow teams would suffer more than fast teams as the average amount of squares a fast team advance is higher, assuming all teams are balanced, both coaches are on the same level and its equally hard for both teams to steal the ball from the opponent. (or is there a special race that shines in ball stealing?)

eg: slows receive first and advance 8 squares in the opponents half.
what would prevent the fast team to punt or hail-mary the ball far in the opponents half, knowing the slows definitaly wont score in 4 turns starting deep in their half and advancing to around the middle from where the fast team can start then?

if the fast team receives first they either score in 4 turns or advance, in average, more squares than slow teams, so chances they score in the next drive are better.

additionaly, i guess the flow in the game would slow down a little bit resetting every 4th/8th turn.

edit: did you do your test-tournament and what were the results?


assuming that even the slowest team is able to advance 3 squares a turn in average isnt overassessed in my opinion. so i think 7-9 squares per 3 turns is doable for every team.
i just dont know what would be a fitting action when someone doesnt succeed.

[Ziggi Abschuss]

I recall that downs were used somehow in 2nd ed NAF rules, but I cant really remember how as these rules made a slow game even slower and we didnt use them much. Can someone else remember those times nearly 20 years ago?

Ziggi

[frogbear]

I played one half of downs under the 2nd ed rules.

Dwarves are king in such a game as you have to keep setting up again after a down and you cannot outrun the dwarves. You also suffer a mass of injuries in the game and cannot really continue past half time.

Try it and see. I am sure you will be just as put off the game as I was.

There are board games with counters and a card game that do a better representation of gridiron.

[dodolulu]

just to clarify, setting up again after a down is the last thing i want. i dont want to take the flow out of the game.
in my idea, you play as if nothing happened when you reach the amount of squares per x turns.
and if you dont reach it, i thought about things like a throwdown like in soccer or giving the ball to the last player of the opponent team, throwing the ball in from a sideline/ an endzone etc whatever is possible without resetting up the teams.

[frogbear]

just to clarify, setting up again after a down is the last thing i want. i dont want to take the flow out of the game.

So maybe you should look at a rugby league or union format. Then again, that is almost what Bloodbowl is.