Why big guys are not big?

Harry Kerry · Post by **Harry Kerry** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:39 pm

Hi all,

I have seen from an old topic that big guys no more take up four squares since 1994.
viewtopic.php?t=5266

In fact, I intend to play with the very old four squares rule (After all, BB is the only game of GW where Ogre or Troll are not bigger than humans on the pitch...)
But I have not a lot of experience of BB with the current rules.

Do you think that the game will be too much unbalanced if I play like that?

Does anybody know the reasons why this old rule has changed?

Abator · Post by **Abator** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:06 pm

The biggest issues will be concerning assists, both giving and taking. Since you are effectively taking 2 squares on each side, your ogre will be able to be blocked by the whole eleven guys, it'll probably never happen. but there is still that chance.

I don't think it will unbalance the game, but you are definately going to have to think about some of the rules with this change.

Abator

Harry Kerry · Post by **Harry Kerry** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:06 am

Thanks for the answer and for not discouraging me Abator

!
I don’t think that it is required to change other rules to play like that (or I hope so!).
I play with the vault rules for some days and it seems to work.
It is difficult for me to judge if the game is less balanced as I have never try to play with “one square big guys”…
I thought that someone who has tried the two combinations could explain me what I miss (if I miss something).
For me, it seems more realistic to play with four squares big guys. (Yes, I know… realism in a Fantasy world

)
There must be some good reasons to give up this old rule, but for the moment I don’t see them.
(and I don’t find a topic that speak about that).
I don't think it is an handicap that big guys could be potentially blocked by the whole guys of the other team. It is not a good strategy to put all your players on one big guy, so it will never happened, I think.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:39 pm

I personally don't see any problem with using 4 square BGs as a house rule as long as you keep the movement rules that are associated with them (I believe it cost a square of movement to turn), as well as keeping the rule about not having a tackle zone at the back. I believe the only reason it was changed was just for simplicity, 3ed was streamlined and simplified compared to 2ed. Simplification is the driving force behind the vault rules now, but I personally don't believe that simplification for it's own sake is necessarily a good thing. We can wind up with a game that appeals to 12year old newbies, but it wouldn't appeal too much to me. There were some rules I liked from 2ed that were ditched mainly because of streamlining and simplifing the rules for 3ed (that being said, I think 3ed was a better game than 2ed, but I think oversimplification can ruin a game, need to keep a little complexity in the game to make it interesting).

The Florist · Post by **The Florist** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:21 pm

I'd love to play an ogre team with those rules.
Try sneaking a reciever past me now, elfboy!

Harry Kerry · Post by **Harry Kerry** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:48 pm

Yes, you’re right. No ogre team available with this rule

But with a max of 2 (or 3…) big guys by team, it works and it’s quite fun to play.

What I have seen now:

Advantages for big guys:
-Four squares occupied on the ground, so very better defence.
-It gives sometimes the equivalent of +1MA. (Of course it depends of where you want to go).
-They have more chances to catch the ball when the thrower miss his pass.

Disadvantages for big guys:
-More dodge roll to do
-You can’t go through a one square space between two players (very frustrating when those are two prone players…)
-You suffer more assists

I don’t know if disadvantages compensate the 2 great advantages.

I don’t use the rule that says it costs one square of movement to turn. So it is very easy to play. Not more complex than moving a “one square player” on the pitch. A 12 years old player can do that. I’m not sure that complexity is the reason why this rule has been stopped.

Gizzurd · Post by **Gizzurd** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:42 am

I tried playing the 4 square rule early in my BB playing and found it more annoying than anything. Who gets moved when the BG is pushed back, blocks, assists, needing 2 squares to move through players, etc, etc. Plus you need to roll a d12 to see where the ball scatters when it is dropped, and I think we lost it.

Dr. Doom · Post by **Dr. Doom** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:15 pm

Oh, and you have to wonder about bouncing balls. A BG has a decent chance (3 in

to get a second chance to catch it.

Harry Kerry · Post by **Harry Kerry** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:13 pm

Gizzurd wrote:

Plus you need to roll a d12 to see where the ball scatters when it is dropped, and I think we lost it

I use a d12 to see where the ball scatters. It could seem astonishing, but throwing a d12 is not more complex than throwing a d8.

I was playing WFRP last week-end and I seized the opportunity to read the descriptions of some Big Guys in the rule book.
I found that for Ogres:

“Physique: Ogres are large humanoids, about 12 feet tall and almost as broad. Their bones are massive…” p.224.

12 feet = 3.66 m.
Ogre = 3.5 m broad.
Human = 1 m broad (max!).

So, how the whole BB community could assume that Human and Ogres take the same space on the pitch? It seems so weird IMO…
Yes, maybe I must assume that Ogres are not any more so big.
But what happened to them? Another Warpstone rain?

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:19 pm

Well, the sqauare is supposedly about 15 yards, which is about 13.5 metres, so I guess a 3.5m wide Ogre would have trouble taking up 4 of them.

Harry Kerry · Post by **Harry Kerry** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:23 pm

That’s not really a problem.
You must simply assume that the ogre is in the centre of the four square zone, as you assume that the human is in the centre of the one square zone.

Where have you found that one square is about 15 yards, Darkson?

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:25 pm

To be honest Id really like to see a return of this rule so I say go for it!

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:27 pm

Harry Kerry wrote:Where have you found that one square is about 15 yards, Darkson?

Not honestly sure which foum it was on, but Galak worked it out based on the pitch size in some fluff somewhere. I'll try and dig it out.

{Edit} Sorry, couldn't find it. With over 7000 of his pots to look through, and not being 100% sure when or where it was posted, it's like looking for the pproverbial needle in the haystack.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:30 pm

Harry Kerry wrote: -You can’t go through a one square space between two players (very frustrating when those are two prone players…)

Not so. In 2nd ED Big Guys were alowed to move over prone players as part of your move as long as your turn didnt end on top of them.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:39 pm

Torg wrote:(I believe it cost a square of movement to turn)

Thats not true either. You could turn for free but you couldnt move diagonaly so a diagonal move would be one square forward/back and one square left/right.

I think the 4-square rule has as many advantages as disadvanteges game wise but the big advange to me is that I could actually fit my ogre team on the pitch! Try making an ogre team cage up It'll drive you mad! Its especially bad when a few of them are prone. Ive all but given up on my team now

.