The Rule of Diagonals

[IONDragonX]

How do you work out interceptions?

The same way that dodges are now. Without using diagonals for movement, you actually roll a lot less dodges to get where you want to go. Every time you argue against diagonals, you are arguing against the logic of the range ruler (ie triangles).

What? You've lost me now! Why does making you pay 1.5 squares to move diagonally make you roll less dodges (apart from the fact you can't move so far)? And what has that got to do with interceptions?

I'm trying to say that the standard rules allow you to roll less dodges. With one dodge and a higher MA, you can run around an opponent too easily. The proposed rule of diagonals increases the number of dodges. As to why using squares for throwing doesn't make sense for the purposes of interceptions, I know that! You must think I'm retarded or something. It wouldn't make sense and I was using that as an argument for the proposed rule. That is the very same feeling that I have about moving at 45* faster than at 90*. Field position is vital in football, even more so than the abilities of the players (to some extent).

And what about the questions I asked in my previous post? Are you going to remove all those game mechanics as well?
If so, with what?
If not, why this one and not the others which don't make real-life sense?

Darkson, your arguement style is completely destructive. I seem to have touched some 'sacred cow' of yours. I was discussing the movement rules being illogical and you toss the entire rulebook at me and command me to make it logical to you. You even badger me about stuff that I didn't even bring up and didn't start the thread about. How unfair. How unappreciative you are of other peoples point of view. I thought that this was an open forum for discussion and if I choose to see the movement issue as priority #1 then I may do so. Its not like I'm stupid. I can understand that you would rather attack me with as many non sequitors that you can come up with but (guess what) you don't have to attack me at all! Do you get your jollies from bullying other peoples ideas until they are too shy to even post on this board? That's just cruel.

[DesTroy]

While I agree with certain things IONDragonX has said, I personally think (based on my viewing of the results) that Ion is beating a dead horse. Obviously not enough people think change is necessary to even warrant its continuance as a topic of discussion.

As for the idea of counting squares, you need only go back to First Edition Blood Bowl for that to be used. The Range Ruler was introduced to the game in Second Edition, and was carried over to Third (and subsequent) Edition(s) for simplicity's sake, not for accuracy's sake. If accuracy were to be figured in, the Range Ruler would have had to expand with the size of the squares, which (as we all know) it didn't.

Accuracy is one thing, but simplicity of play is quite another. Is it any wonder that the worldwide BB community (as expressed on TBB) grew out of Third Edition rather than previous (more complex) versions of the game? I think not. Sorry, Ion.

[datalorex]

What? You've lost me now! Why does making you pay 1.5 squares to move diagonally make you roll less dodges (apart from the fact you can't move so far)? And what has that got to do with interceptions?

I don't want the change either, but just so you know it's not unprecidented, the Star Wars Miniature game counts moving diagonally as 2 pts of movement and it works well for that game.

[Mo]

Actually, back when I started up a league when 2e came out, the first house rule we implemented was a much simpler version of this proposal and we all liked it very much. The easy version is:

* Double everybody's MA.
* Moving in a straight line costs 2.
* Moving Diagonally costs 3.

The only reason why I'm not using this as a house rule now is because there's such a great tournament circuit these days, so I want to keep the rules close to what will be used when travelling to a tourney.

Yes, it changes the game. Yes, Skaven Runners are still a lot of fun.
I'd be very happy if this were official.

Cheers,
Maureen

[Darkson]

Darkson, your arguement style is completely destructive. I seem to have touched some 'sacred cow' of yours. I was discussing the movement rules being illogical and you toss the entire rulebook at me and command me to make it logical to you. You even badger me about stuff that I didn't even bring up and didn't start the thread about. How unfair.

How is it unfair? You were the one going on about how unrealistic the movement rules are. Well, I agree, they are unrealistic, but we're not playing a "real" game, we are playing a board game that represents an imaginary game, and are using game mechanics to describe such a game, which are balanced to the game, not to realism.
I brought up the other points to show the other unrealistic rules that are in the rules.

So the question is, why is the movement rule more unrealistic that the others I mentioned, and why should the movement rules be changed before any of the other?

[da_crusher]

Although I don't want to change any of the core rules of BloodBowl, they do work pretty well and up to now this movement thing has never come to my mind, I can see IONDragonX's point.
But wouldn't going from a square based game board to a hexagonal one solve all those problems. No one would have to count fractions of movement, the blocking etc. would work as on a square based field. Actually I can't think of any problems except the LOS not being a straight line, which brings to my mind, why this hasn't been done in the first place?
I think Elfball moved from free movement to a hexbased board (not sure, as I have never tried it) and other games eg. BattleTech have them as well.

[GalakStarscraper]

My comment would be ... when I get the new Elfball rules written that if you want to do hex based fantasy football to try out the Elfball rules and see what you think.

The conversion of the rules to hex took longer than I thought ... but I almost have it all finished.

Galak

[Gumbo]

I was discussing the movement rules being illogical and you toss the entire rulebook at me and command me to make it logical to you.

Surely you trying to change the game to a more "logical" ruleset is a waste of your energy? Why would you change chess in the same way (in terms of diagonals)? why would you change D&D because a firebolt wouldnt work in the rain? (ok im not a D&D geek but you get my point). You're applying over-analysis to an area of Blood Bowl that, in a game system that has seen so many changes to rules, really doesnt need changing. Think of a new race, think of a new game system (a la Street Bowl, "field goal rules" etc) but please leave the squares on the board alone. Thanks...

[IONDragonX]

My comment would be ... when I get the new Elfball rules written that if you want to do hex based fantasy football to try out the Elfball rules and see what you think.
The conversion of the rules to hex took longer than I thought ... but I almost have it all finished.
Galak

Thanks for the news Galak.
This is supposed to be an open forum guys. Movement on the board only bothers me because its in contradiction to the pass action. One uses triangles, the other does not. I can suspend my disbelief about a lot of things but NOT when it comes to contradictions. I can't prove my feelings to any of you, but I'm not trying to. I'm just trying to have my say where it matters. This is supposed to be a place to discuss Blood Bowl, not to force others into your own ideas.

Hey Mo, I'm glad you've used something similar. I'm sure that you've noticed that the game really changes, eh? More strategy involved (unless you don't care about winning). I'm going to edit the first post with a quote of your system.

[Snew]

You're an arrogant prick, eh? You insinuate we're all powergamers or too stupid to handle strategy. Way to get people interested in seeing things your way.

[ravyn]

Fight Nicely Children
Seriously I don't like the rule for the same reason I don't like it in D&D Minis, It slows the action down. and as i tell my D&D players If you want reality you are playing the wrong game.
Vern

[Pink Horror]

I don't know about "more strategy". My brain's a little flawed: for me, the deep strategy can only come into play if I don't have to think about the little stuff. It's harder to picture where every player on the board might be in a couple of turns if I can't count all the squares as being the same. For me, hundreds, if not thousands, of possible player-steps have to at least be heuristically judged each turn. I don't know if I could manage that if the steps were more complicated. Sure, blindly moving one guy towards a particular goal won't be any harder, but assigning goals will be.

[dendron]

I voted for No, because keep it f****** simple!

Dendron

[David Bergkvist]

The argument that says that people don't have enough short term memory to do this are greatly overestimating its difficulty. Its really very easy after practising it a few times.

I do double digit additions at the end of each day at work (since we have a time reporting system and are supposed to fill in how long we've worked), but I still suck at it (which is why I round everything to even half hours). I would hate to have to do ~1000 double digit additions per match, instead of just one or two per day.

Plus, how many bits of information do you actually have in your mind when taking a turn. It must be over 100. Literally. There are huge amounts of info that fans of the game have committed to memory.

Even if that's true, the requirement that one must do double digit additions will reduce the number of bits available for planning. And since doing double digit additions is not what the game's about, your requirement dumbs down the game.

Darkson wrote:
How do you work out interceptions?

The same way that dodges are now.

Huh? Let's say I pass the ball, for exampe, five squares forward and three squares left and there's an opponent two squares forward and one square to the left. How does "the way dodges are worked out now" specify whether the opponent can intercept or not? If there was an easy way to determine mathematically if a player can intercept, I would prefer that over using the range ruler, but there isn't as far as I know.

[Gumbo]

One uses triangles, the other does not. I can suspend my disbelief about a lot of things but NOT when it comes to contradictions.

Problem is, most people can suspend their disbelief, because its not an area that anyone needs to think about changing (says who? me and the poll you put up). You're right this is a forum for open discussion and debate for the betterment of Blood Bowl. But to that end, certain "leftfield" (thats slang for weird, out-there, or random) approaches to changing the game have to be left out of the discussion for everyone's sanity. Clearly you disagee, but the poll and the posts thereafter would suggest this is a subject you and you alone feel particularly strong about.

Sorry Man, life's a b****.