One Turn Scorers redux...(PGFI)

[sean newboy]

Amen Neoliminal. My feeling exactly, no version of pgfi will create a situation where an experienced coach is less able to win than a rookie coach. I personally found it funny when a Woodelf Runner (st 2) got hit by my Krox (st 5) by a blitz one game and was still standing due to the 3 skulls with no rerolls left. But becuase i was an experienced coach, i still won the game, Hoo Ha.

[Dangerous Dave]

Neo, I agree with your analysis. However this assumes a rookie playing a pro. All games are not like this! A lot of games are played between Coaches with similar experience. My view here is that luck is playing more of a part than skill with the PGFI system.


Dave

[Acerak]

In my opinion, that makes Blood Bowl very interesting. As a veteran, I have to decide if I think that an extra square of two of movement is worth the risk entailed.

If I'm reading Dave correctly, he feels that the game currently has this. You can decide whether or not an extra square or two of movement is worth the risk entailed. Here's how it breaks down now:

* One square, no Sure Feet is equivalent to an AG4 dodge into 0 TZs.
* One square with Sure Feet is equivalent to an AG4 dodge with Dodge into 0 TZs.
* Two squares with no Sure Feet is on par with an AG3 dodge into 0 TZs.
* Two squares with Sure Feet is on par with an AG3 dodge with Dodge into 0 TZs.

Coaches make decisions like this all the time; they're the standard, really, when measuring a risk of a turnover. But the game currently has an element of pure skill (positioning) outside of pure luck (making the rolls). The proposed rule will change this. The skill factor will go down, because it can be undone by the luck factor; currently, you can hit a point in the game where it can't be undone.

I'm not saying I agree with this position, but that's what I'm hearing.

-Chet

[neoliminal]

Coaches make decisions like this all the time; they're the standard, really, when measuring a risk of a turnover. But the game currently has an element of pure skill (positioning) outside of pure luck (making the rolls). The proposed rule will change this. The skill factor will go down, because it can be undone by the luck factor; currently, you can hit a point in the game where it can't be undone.

I'm not saying I agree with this position, but that's what I'm hearing.

It's what I'm hearing too, and I don't agree with it. Adding more choices to the game will not reduce the factor skill plays. It's simply one more way to differentiate those who have skill and those who don't.

Skill will find ways to counter what PGFI gives in the way of luck. So you can't move a player just outside of someone's blitz range. Great... because, IMO, it was beardy to begin with. Skilled players will take care to cover their ball carriers with blockers rather than relying on knowing the meta game knowledge of their opponents MA.

[plasmoid]

Hi all,

IMO, counting squres, so that you know that a position is "safe" is an important part of the game. If an opponent overextends his attack, then it is fine that you can punish him by running a lone unreachable player through his line.

IMO, if you want to make skaven/woodie 1-turn-TDs harder, just kill off sprint skill.
Simple.
Effective.

[bj0rn]

progressional gfi is nice, but not without a gfi cap...

i'd still limit it to 2 gfi. the first gfi at 2+ and the second at 3+

sprint would allow you a 3rd at 4+

bj0rn - no more...

[Toby]

Lets meet in the middle:

Going for
the first square, the player falls on a roll of 1
the second, the player falls on a roll of 2-
the third square, player falls on a roll of 3-

Maximum is 3 go for it attempts.

Sprint adds a -1 modifier to any go for it rolls in a players turn.
Sure Feet allows the Player to re-roll one of the maximum three go for it attempts.

Note that a unmodified roll of 6 always succeds and a unmodified roll of 1 always fails.

Opinions ?

[bj0rn]

the first square, the player falls on a roll of 1
the second, the player falls on a roll of 2-
the third square, player falls on a roll of 3-

Maximum is 3 go for it attempts.

Sprint adds a -1 modifier to any go for it rolls in a players turn.
Sure Feet allows the Player to re-roll one of the maximum three go for it attempts.

Note that a unmodified roll of 1 always succeds and a unmodified roll of 6 always fails.

hmm...why do you reverse the numbers?

its 1 fails and 6 succeeds!

and the "correct" phrasing is 2+, 3+ and 4+

bj0rn - ...nothing serious

[Toby]

ähm sorry ^^ ill edit it

[Haar]

I think we oughta keep the GFI rules the same, I think they're fine the way they are. I also agree that the kicking rules adds more to the game than a PGFI, and would like to see those rules become a more permanent addition to the game (official) in a year or so when they've been thoroughly tested.

[Pink Horror]

I'd like to lend my support to the no crowd.

When I first heard of JKL's idea months ago, I got this bad picture in my head of a huge Blood Bowl player foot race. With the usual Go For It rule, the players would be expected to finish in order of their movement values. Some players, but only a minority of them, would fall over.

With Progressive Go For It, the race is very strange. Almost everyone would fall down. The winner's pace would be straight out of Space Balls - ludicrious speed. Assuming we have enough participants in this race, he'd have run over twice his usual top speed.

But, that's enough of trying to picture the world in which this rule would exist. I don't like its game effects either. I think some things should be simple and predictable, and some should be a little more difficult to predict. Someone's running speed, I think, should be a simple thing. The slow guy shouldn't be able to catch the fast guy unless he trips or slows voluntarily. Those mishaps should be rare. Keeping movement simple allows you to think of other things during your turn. It reduces the natural, un-clocked length of the game.

With PGFI, you're introducing randomness for randomness's sake. Things like whether a tackler can stop a dodger, whether a blocker can take down his target, or whether a pass is inaccurate make sense as random events. Foot speed does not make sense as random. The idea that a runner can, once or twice in a career, catch up to a drag racer bugs me severely.

Please, JKL, your league might love this rule, and there's no reason you should stop using it. This limited poll we have says its not so popular, though, so I ask you to trust it. Remember morgnthorg's league, and free action fouling? They loved that rule, but how would you like it if you traded places with him, and he was the BBRC guy pushing that idea in the face of obvious fan disapproval? He'd seem like a selfish jerk, right?

I have a bad feeling you're using your closeness to the ear of the game's designer to try to make your own personal mark on Blood Bowl. At least Chet's kicking rules seem decently liked. (I have no desire to add kicking to Blood Bowl, personally. I prefer the current scoring simplicity.)



Pink Horror

[Acerak]

I'll say this for the rule - it would make certain situations more interesting. Case in point: in my current MBBL game, I had a Catcher with Sure Feet in possession of the ball ten squares from the end zone. The Dwarf team had a Runner right on her TZ away from the play. I sent a Linewoman in to blitz, pushed the Runner away, and ran the Catcher another 8 squares upfield. At this point, the Dwarfs had no chance to put so much as a tackle zone on the player.

Had we used the GFI rules, I may have ben tempted to score. The Runner may have been tempted to try a Blitz. I may have felt a bit more pressure to extend my squares. Or to leave my Linewoman in harm's way (adjacent to the Runner) instead of in a position to force him to burn an extra MA to get around me.

I agree that "racing the dragster" is rather silly. Of course, it's practically impossible, because while you can roll 18 6's in a row if you try long enough, no one will ever try it, much less make it. But I think a more open system with a bit more risk - say, 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, or fewer squares if you like - might add more to the game than it takes away.

As for the Kicking rules, I'm glad people like them. And a lot of people seem to like them. Aside from some initial complaints during playtesting - complaints that centered around AG4 non-Kick players having a big leg up with enough MA - I haven't heard from a coach who had tested the rules and found he didn't like them.

Cheers.

-Chet

[neoliminal]

I have a bad feeling you're using your closeness to the ear of the game's designer to try to make your own personal mark on Blood Bowl.

Pink Horror

I'd like to ease you feelings Pinky. In no way am I going to railroad a bad rule into place... it's not possible. There are seven members on the BBRC for a reason.

I'm working to educate people about this new idea.

It seems to me that you have a bad taste in your mouth over this rule, but I'm 99% sure you've never played a game with it. If you had, you'd be singing a different tune. To be honest, I don't even agree with much of your logic. If movement were simple like you say, then we'd never have a sprinting competition in the Olympics, and Quarterbacks would never get sacked. I think players in BB should be able to push as hard as they want to move somewhere, and suffer if they fail.

You've made your point of view clear, as I've made mine. The only real step untaken is for you to actually test the rules. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion regarding the rules without testing them... that would be crazy. I am saying, however, that since you wont take my word that this rule is good, the only way to prove it to you would be to have you play a game with it. Until then we're just repeating old dogma. I'd really appreciate your input if you do test it, so let me know.

On a side note, we have several coaches who started playing Blood Bowl using PGFI. They had never known another way to play. When I explained to them the original rule they hated it. "That doesn't make any sense... why limit it to two extra squares. And that second square is so easy, only a 2+." They didn't know that PGFI was my idea, they thought it was the rule all along. Just some perspective for you.

John -

[neoliminal]

But I think a more open system with a bit more risk - say, 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, or fewer squares if you like - might add more to the game than it takes away.

I've been thinking that a limit might be best... say 6+. After you're 6+ roll, that's all you can do.

John -

[Pink Horror]

Okay, before I give this opinion on the BBRC's chances of passing a bad rule, I must say that you opened the door.

"Test it first" didn't work for the BBRC, but it's supposed to be good enough for me. Why should I subject my friends to a test I don't expect to enjoy? I'll meet you halfway, Neoliminal. I'll play against you with the PBeM tool. I was wary about the MBBL2, but now I'm enjoying it, so a PBeM demonstration could work on me. This is "halfway" because I'd only need to provide half the necessary two test players.

Pink Horror