Forced to catch the ball

[plasmoid]

Hi Tim,
he was trying for a OTS.
So the Troll couldn't take 2 actions, handing off the ball and throwing the goblin.

Cheers
Martin

[Skummy]

Hi Tim,
he was trying for a OTS.
So the Troll couldn't take 2 actions, handing off the ball and throwing the goblin.

Cheers
Martin

Well spotted, jolly good show!

[plasmoid]

Hi Skummy,
as you may be able to tell from my "avatar" I'm a gobbo coach at heart myself.
So I recognized the problem because I've been in it.

Cheers
Martin

[Xeterog]

The worst moment in the history of forced catches:

Down 2-1, my Orcs have a chance to attempt a last second throw teammate to try for the tie. We've got a catch goblin, a pair of throwers, and two 4 agility players on the team. Shouldn't be too hard to do, right? Not so fast. The ball scatters to the Troll, who catches it. Can't hand off and throw in the same turn.

Sounds like the Troll failed his Really Stupid roll a bit early

[Skummy]

I prefer to think that it stuck on his spiky helmet.

[D'Arquebus]

I'm definitely with Deathwing on this one and have been for years. My house leagues have played alot of rules sets for this beloved game over the years including the lastest 4th Ed LRB. The only house rule we are playing at the moment is to remove 'must catch'.

To be painfully clear nd seperate the issues,

1) Must pick up - no problem. You choose to step onto the ball.

2) Hand off being an action - no problem. It rewards clever play from BOTH the defence (tieing up players with tackle zones) and the offence (clearing said tackle zones or severly limiting them in the first place).

3) Must catch - BIG PROBLEM. It makes moving in assists inherently risky particularily at the end of a half with time running out. It also lacks any potential for abuse. If I or my opponent chooses not to catch the ball then I/they don't have the ball!! Even if I pass the ball to my player accurately why must I catch it? If I dont on the low chance it'll scatter elsewhere why not pass to that point in the first place? And by failing to catch the thrown ball it'll be a turnover and the other player can set about retreiving it. Again, if it has scattered to an already moved player and I choose to let it bounce on the chance it'll go back where I wanted it, who cares? That is a very risky play to attempt and the negatives of this rule vastly outweigh this potential benefit. Besides I'd be of the opinion that the risk (of scattering to the ground and suffering a turnover) deserved the possible reward.

The 'must catch' rule causes improbable and stupid events (players having already moved catching it and being surounded) and is not abusable if one chooses not to catch. It definitely needs to go!

[wesleytj]

agree with above post, with the exception that i miss being able to TAKE a handoff from a player that's already completed their action. it allowed for some very wild dynamic plays, some really memorable stuff.

imo, they need to EITHER remove forced catches of bouncing balls OR go back to letting a player TAKE a handoff as part of a move or pass action, in leiu of a hand off action. it seems like the consensus is the former, but the latter would be fun too.

[Skummy]

RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE

And the subject of Forced Catches returns more annoying than ever!

[D'Arquebus]

"more annoying then ever!" ?

So do you believe that the rule is a good one or you're just sick of hearing about it?

From my reading of this thread most people who replied wouldn't have a problem with this rule being removed. The major dissention seems to stem from the alternative to just bring back the free handoff (which I think would be a bad idea) or the determination of some that the forced pick up remain in the rules (which as has been pointed out is/or should be a seperate issue).

My resurection of this post was due to the fact that this is a forum apparently attended or at least perused by those whom have the power to affect such changes as removing this stupid rule. As the rule remains and there exists no convincing voice as to the viability or validity of the current rule I seek to acheive a remedy.

I even sought out the original thread so as to avoid clutter on the site and because it covers most of the relevant ground.

edited: correcting spelling

[Skummy]

"more annoying then ever!" ?

So do you believe that the rule is a good one or you're just sick of hearing about it?

I'm sick of it not being fixed. There just isn't a good reason to leave the rule as is, and it is more irritating than ever becasue there is no rules review this year.

[Bludbowler]

The biggest problem with this is the following. A member of your team passes the ball to a team mate who hasn't had an action this turn. Now the pass is inaccurate and it actually ends up going to the square of a player next to the intended target. This player has allready taken an action and is yet forced to catch it. If he does catch it you then can't do anything else with the ball this turn as he has had his action.

A way aroud this to stop it being too beardy (which i can't really see happening anyway forced pick ups stopped mostof this) is that if a player has taken an action allready, then you should be able to let him decide not to catch it.

In the above example if he could have decided not to catch it, then you would have had a 1 in 8 chance of it scattering again to the player you intended it to go to in the first place. If this happens then that player can take his action with the ball, possibly for a TD run.

There may be an arguement for letting any player refuse to catch it (like he is surrounded but then is likely to fail the catch anyway) I think that just allowing players who have taken an action allready to automatically fail their catch, seems like a fair proposal.

Some people may think this is unfair because you can just throw to a group of your own players and get lucky. I would say to them this is good coaching for the player to have got into such a position, he still would have needed the lucky scatter.

What does everyone else feel about this?

Forcing a player to grab a randomly bouncing ball is a reflection of the "reality" of what actually happens in a football game.

An (American) football player is trained from day one to grab a loose ball at all costs, even if he doesn't happen to be the prefered player to have the ball at the time. If you're the fattest, slowest guy on the team and the ball lands at your feet, you grab the ball and start running anyway because the really fast guy on the other team might get it if you don't.

If the Troll ends up catching the ball instead of the Ork Thrower, deal with it. If the Kroxigor picks up the ball instead of the Skink, go to "Plan D."

Coping with random events successfully is the mark of a good head coach, and part of what makes the game of Blood Bowl fun and exciting.

[Snew]

Some balls are held for charity
And some for fancy dress
But when they're held for pleasure
They're the balls that I like best
My balls are always bouncing
To the left and to the right
It's my belief that my big balls
Should be held every night

[DoubleSkulls]

Forcing a player to grab a randomly bouncing ball is a reflection of the "reality" of what actually happens in a football game.

An (American) football player is trained from day one to grab a loose ball at all costs, even if he doesn't happen to be the prefered player to have the ball at the time. If you're the fattest, slowest guy on the team and the ball lands at your feet, you grab the ball and start running anyway because the really fast guy on the other team might get it if you don't.

Why would you train a Blood Bowl player exactly the same way as an American football player?

Rugby players (forwards) are taught, on occassion to ignore the ball to let either a team mate catch it (line outs and kick offs you see this all the time) or because they are a in a position where handling the ball would be a penalty offence.

So the "RL" side just carries zero weight IMO.

[D'Arquebus]

Bludbowler wrote:

Coping with random events successfully is the mark of a good head coach, and part of what makes the game of Blood Bowl fun and exciting

That is true with respect to how one can best cope when their carefuly laid plans go wrong due to failed rolls etc. However, the must catch rule actually inhibits the much greater aspect of "a good head coach" IMO. That is, the ability to successfully negate the opponents assists and get one's own where they count. The must catch rule means that doing so can set you at a disadvantage as these used players can randomly end up with the ball when it is clearly not in their own or their teams best interests.

For example, you (quite sensibly) move up an assist to down a thrower in his/her own backfield then blitz within reach of scooping up the scattered ball and scoring. But then the player assisting has the ball bounce to them and they MUST catch it. Particularily on last turns this is foolish and penalises the sensible tactic (ie the assist which is given alot more text as a core mechanic then one measly line - which must catch earns). Not an insurmountable problem with free hand-offs but they are gone. As I've already said I believe their removal adds to the challenge and tactics of the game and are thus a good thing. But the combination of these two factors leads to a problem. As no conceivable "beardy" or "cheesy" benefit can be gained by the option of NOT catching the ball and problems do arise with it, it should be removed.

Additionally, the notion of the real American footballer is not wholly redundent, as the game is indeed roughly equivalent to the style of that game. However, not discounting your notion out of hand, I would point out that if the said American Footballer happens to get the ball then they also get a new Down for their team. No such mechanic exists in Blood Bowl which in its continuous flowing style more resembles Rugby Union. As ianwilliams points out, in that game for a slower player to grab the ball all the time is not always a good idea, similar to Blood Bowl.

And I dare to suggest that if a lumbering centre on an American football team were to have a lose ball bounce to him on the half-way line with only one play, as in Blood Bowl, (or a few seconds) to get it to the end zone and a speedy wide receiver standing next to him he would not in fact grab it. He would instead let it bounce to the ground and stand over it and block anyone who came close until the appropriate player (ie the wide receiver) stepped in to scoop it up and dash off. Therefore, the rule should still be dropped.

[Ravage]

a "good coach" knows that the highest percentage play isnt always going to be the "safest" when it comes to scoring though. If you have the option to assist for a 2d block in turn8 or turn16, you should do so in a way that your blitzer pushing the ballcarrier will be AWAY from the assist, so that there is no chance the ball will bounce to them. Or... shocker... take the 1d block. Is it the percentage play? No. But is it the safe one? Depends on your definition. If you're complaining about the ball bouncing to people who you dont want to have the ball, it is. You eliminate the 1/8 chance of them getting the ball by not having them in the play in the first place.

Then again, people will always find something to complain about. I'm not saying forced catches dont screw me on occasion either, they definitely do. But you try and play smart, avoid the plays that will result in a higher percentage of you getting screwed, and hope the dice go your way. If they don't.... that's BloodBowl *shrug*