Discuss Fantasy football-style board games - GW's Blood Bowl, Impact!'s Elfball, Privateer Press' Grind, Heresy's Deathball, etc. THIS IS NOT AN NFL FANTASY FOOTBALL SITE!
Jural wrote:if the ball ends up in your player's hand without touching the ground, there is no turnover.
What rules are you playing? There is nothing about touching the ground in the rules.
Sorry, I forgot that was a house rule We do play that if the ball lands in an unoccupied square and then bounces to a player on your team, it is a turnover whether or not he catches it.
Was this the official ruling in LRB 4 or something?
Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't mean to confuse anyone.
As far as I can see we have two concepts of kicking here.
One independent of AG and ball possession using the throw-in template (I already posted rules for that);
and one using AG and the kick-off mechanic.
And we have no consensus between those supporting the first and those supporting the second. Instead we had a "either - or" discussion.
Well then, I see no problem with kicking rules that allow BOTH actions - the first as kind of a quick kick and the second as a high kick (or you could come along with better names if you find them, I don't mind).
For the quick kick; thanks to doubleskulls' note that here in "houserule-land" Jervis' rule of "no 3+" is not valid I'd be willing to change the away-roll from a 4+ into a 3+ .
And for the high kick, I think "AG +1" would be better than "AG +2" - I see no reason why AG 3 should be as good as AG 4 here... in addition, "AG +1" is the usual modification; only jump-up uses +2 ...
Honestly, I like the additional options both kinds of kicks offer. The quick kick being a last desperate measure in a defending situation (to get the ball away even if it's in a couple of tacklezones, which is a good thin IMHO as it reduces the reliability of stalling and grinding games); and the high kick as a measure of unreliable but quick ball movement also useful when receiving.
Jural wrote:if the ball ends up in your player's hand without touching the ground, there is no turnover.
What rules are you playing? There is nothing about touching the ground in the rules.
Sorry, I forgot that was a house rule We do play that if the ball lands in an unoccupied square and then bounces to a player on your team, it is a turnover whether or not he catches it.
Was this the official ruling in LRB 4 or something?
Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't mean to confuse anyone.
I think this was a gray area in 3rd ed (IIRC) that most interpreted as touching the ground being a turnover.
IIRC it got clarified in LRB1 (maybe in one of the other early revisions?) to be once the ball came to rest.
Funnily enough one of the refs at the BB GT told the table next to me the wrong ruling on exactly this issue... so I helped them out
Joemanji wrote:
Yeah, I considered that, but I couldn't see how to do it without breaking Jervis' "no roll on a flat 3+" rule.
I have to admit, I think that is one of the craziest JJ rules I've ever heard. The whole game of Blood Bowl is designed around a 3+ roll (every AG action except passing succeeds on a 3+ for the core human and orc teams, as well as 75% of the rest of the teams in the game.)
I don't understand why having a target 3+ is a no no, but having a target 4+ with a constant +1 modifier is good freakin' game design...
Anyway, that's why I did the same thing Target 4+, with a +1 modifier. What the hell are you talking about with your 3+ Joe?
I'm not sure I like the risky hail mary attempt at kicking. I'm aware it's not the same and it's riskier and all that malarky but it's too much, and restricting it with the pass ruler seems even more petty to me
What angle however could we take towards kicking at goal? not talking about place kicking/conversions. What is the stance towards drop kicks? I think that we've got somewhere with the throw in template to determine accuracy. place template in order, roll a dice (no idea on "fair" modifiers or tables as yet) to determine if he/she has kicked the ball away and then to see if it's got the direction. This also allows us to use wind in some way, unfortunatelty the weather table doesn't allow at the moment so maybe just leave that aspect. If it passes the central three squares at the end of the end zone it's good and the player receuives the equivelent spp as if a TD and it's a score of 1.
To make this fairer then only a player with the kick skill could kick at goal rahter then anyone but I think it would require more rolls and turn it into a long drawn out affiar. I think kicking should be more then a steal the ball, hoof it away tactic but I can't think of a way to make it a REAL benefit that player with hail mary picked up from a double wouldn't outdo.
I like the idea of kicking though and hope we can find something that looks workable enough to be made official but as long as we keep thinking up something I'm sure we'll get something worth really moving with that most people can say "yes fantastic idea"
Phut. I really don't understand this obsession with the throw in template. It is an ugly, counter-intuitive mechanism. Just because the template exists, doesn't mean it should be used.
Reason:''
*This post may have been made without the use of a hat.
I have to admit that I've sort of lost track of the debate on the Kicking issue, but nevertheless...
Allow me to ask a question. What function is it that we would like Kicking to fulfil? Besides the Kick-off.
As it is we can accurately move the ball through the air with the existing passing rules.
We can throw it anywhere on the pitch with the Hail Mary Pass skill.
We can't move the ball from a square without trying to pick it up, but IMO nor should we, no matter how random the ball's movement might be.
I'm not opposed to having rules for kicking in the game, but unless it's going to bring something new to the game, what's the point?
It gives players without a specialist (and rarely taken) skill to get rid of the ball inaccurately. At present a player in trouble has no option but to hang onto the ball and hope he doesn't get knocked over. The 50% of fumbling a long bomb is too great a risk. And so teams can commit all their players in the hunt for the ball, bunching up the play and making the game dull at times.
Note this is why I advocate the 2+ "away roll". Reducing the risk from 50% to 33% seems hardly worth the trouble.
Reason:''
*This post may have been made without the use of a hat.
Kyrel wrote:I have to admit that I've sort of lost track of the debate on the Kicking issue, but nevertheless...
Allow me to ask a question. What function is it that we would like Kicking to fulfil? Besides the Kick-off.
/Kyrel
As I'd been thinking was an alternative method of scoring, adding in the idea of the drop goal gives that little more for the last turn, you may not have enough for that TD but get into a good kicking position andi t's all to play for. I agree that the way most are discussing it is maybe not so good, I don't think a glorified pass is the way forward if you look at introducing kicking (the cross field kick is an idea but... that's what throwing can do anyway).
First, the one Joemanji mentioned, for all those good reasons...
Second, I also like the idea of moving a ball without picking it up first - a rather random move of the ball, of course (that's why the throw-in template is so interesting), but independent of tacklezones;
to reduce the success of those boring "grinding and pinning" tactics where nothing but cageing is done and the cageing player can be sure that nothing happens to him because even if his ballcarrier is knocked over he is likely to put numerous tacklezones over the square the ball is in and a pick-up would only result in bouncing the ball one square.
This second type of kicking should have the effect that a tactic of maximum concenttration of players (instead of tactical spreading) is no longer rewarded by game mechanics.
Together, these two types of kicking should make the game more dynamic, and that means interesting and fun.
You know, I can follow some of the argument about the 50/50 chance of fumbling the ball from the square being too much, but isn't that easier to fix. by simply saying that you only fumble the ball on a natural '1', rather than a modified 1 or less? You can of course argue that if a player is surrounded by 8 other players, then his odde of getting the ball out should be pretty slim, but then only count tacklezone modifiers when checking for fumbles. It doesn't make sense to have the range increase the chance of a thrower dropping the ball in his own square anyway.
Regarding a 'Punt' type kick, designed to simply get the ball out of the way, I can see another way of making this work, and at the same time giving kicking a specific role. As it is now, you are allowed to pass the ball to an empty square. I've never liked that (intentional grounding anyone?). If you make it illegal to Pass the ball to an empty square (Hail Mary Passes must target a player), then you can use a Kick option to fulfil this "tactic", since a Kick could be allowed to be directed at an empty square.
Possible rule:
The ball can be kicked to any square on the field.
A kick can not be Intercepted.
Enemy Tacklezones on the kicking player gives a -1 modifier to the attempt, but range is not a factor
4+ after modification = The ball scatters one square 3 times, and bouces 1 time.
2-3 after modification = The ball scatters as on a Kick-off (D6 in a random direction, and the Kick skill can be used to half the scattered distance as normal)
1 or less after modification = The ball scatters D6 squares in a random direction.
As for kicking the ball from the ground, I'm just against this on general principle. It's Blood Bowl - the game of fantasy football, not fantasy soccer. It just doesn't feel right to me, and I can see it leading to some cheap moves to try and prevent the opposition from scoring and/or getting the ball.
As for the "fieldgoal" type kick, I'm a little up in the air about that. I can see it work, but I see some structual changes needed to the game in order to set it up properly (at least in my present view).
since it is fantasy football, what about using football scores?
without a transformation kick (that it is maybe a bit too much) it could be 2 points per touchdown and 1 per fieldgoal...
alternat wrote:since it is fantasy football, what about using football scores?
without a transformation kick (that it is maybe a bit too much) it could be 2 points per touchdown and 1 per fieldgoal...
If you'd want to change the scoring system with regards to points being scored, then I'd be tempted to say why not transform it into the same score system you get in the NFL. 6 pts. for a DT with an option for and extra point for kicking the ball through the goal posts, and 3 pts. for a Fieldgoal. The trick is, of course, to come up with some decent rules for this type of kicking.
Possible rules:
TD - As normal.
Extra Point - Make a basic AG check (D6 against AG, success on equal or lower result, '6' always fail). On a success the kick is accurate. If accurate, roll 3D6. You get an extra point on a 8+. The Kick skill allows a re-roll of the AG check, and adds +1 to the 3D6 roll.
Field Goal - Make a basic AG check (D6 against AG, success on equal or lower result, '6' always fail). If you are successful, count the distance from the player to the end of the board and add +3. Roll 3D6 and compare the result with the no. of squares +3. If the roll is equal to or higher, you have enough range to score a Field Goal. Kick skill allows a re-roll of the AG check and adds +1 to the 3D6 roll.
One thing that I dont think has been mentioned is how much kicking will bring out the importance of having a player who can throw the ball. At the moment, I very rarely see a player who passes the ball further than a short pass, due to them positioning the recievers and then moving up in the next turn before making the pass. This to me defeats the point of having a passer and takes away the chance of amazing passing plays, such as seen in real NFL games.
If you introduce the idea of the other team being able to boot the ball all the way back up the pitch (as I would do all the time being a Halfling player), then having somebody who can pass effectively, becomes gold. The kick is made which causes a turn over. Sensible players will have their thrower back for this eventuality, where he can now pick up the ball. Unlike at the start of the drive when plays can be formed the fact that the ball was kicked in the first place probably means that players up field will be all over the place. This combined with the fact that the thrower will probably not be able to get too close to the centre line will force him to have to pass it longer down the field. If you have an accurate, skilled up thrower with somebody who will catch, then you will probably score (remember that the catcher will already be down the field otherwise why would it have been kicked away).
In theory then, kicking, rather than be annoying, should seriously favour any high AG or pass orientated team. A running team shouldnt really ever have to kick away anyway. It probably will be the domain of the desperate.
Northernknight wrote:One thing that I dont think has been mentioned is how much kicking will bring out the importance of having a player who can throw the ball. At the moment, I very rarely see a player who passes the ball further than a short pass, due to them positioning the recievers and then moving up in the next turn before making the pass. This to me defeats the point of having a passer and takes away the chance of amazing passing plays, such as seen in real NFL games.
Except that most NFL passes would be of the Short Pass variety anyway, thanks to the success of the Bill Walsh/49ers offence. Yawn...give me a CFL Long Bomb over that any day.
But getting back on topic, why does there need to be field goals? I was once of the opinion that Blood Bowl was missing something in its translation of American Football without field goals; maybe it's because I'm getting old (I turn 40 tomorrow) but I think to allow kicking into the game, you need to keep it simple. I like the idea of not being able to kick the ball off the ground (which you can't do in the NFL anyway), and the idea of disallowing the ability to pass the ball to an empty square (I hate intentional grounding, especially now that it's become such a part of American Football). Adding these two caveats to Joe's rules would make them perfect IMHO. Like I said before on this thread: keep it simple, stupid.
Reason:''
---troy
[img]http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p41/DesTroy1968/nba3-1.gif[/img] [b]NBA Novice Heretic[/b]
As renowned bard Bruce Slannstein said, "Blind faith - in anyone or anything - will get your ogre killed."
We do play that if the ball lands in an unoccupied square and then bounces to a player on your team, it is a turnover whether or not he catches it. 
Target 4+, with a +1 modifier. What the hell are you talking about with your 3+ Joe? 
