Forced to catch the ball

[Marcus]

I think it's a mistake to tie forced catches to the handoff rule. Certainly the problem is more obvious when you have to take handoffs as an action, but this does not mean that the handoff rule is at fault. You still have to take a handoff to get the ball back from the "wrong guy" with forced catches whether or not handoffs are free.

Can someone give me a reason why catches should be forced?

If the answer is "cos a BB player would want to get the ball" then you can also explain to me why BB players are allowed to stop right next to the touchline but not step over it and score. Or why the coach is allowed to make them do practically anything else which is not directly related to their greater glory.

[Deathwing]

I like the hand-off rules as they stand as the moment. It was simply too easy to score with Skaven or Welfs back in 3e. I agree with Marcus, tying the hand-off to forced catches is wrong. The hand-off rule has much wider impact on the game than the nonsensical (albeit infrequent) situations that forced catches throw up now and again.

[GalakStarscraper]

So people are a much bigger fan of optional catches, with mandatory pickups - over mandatory both with 'free action' handoffs?

Both are valid solutions, however both provide different side effects elsewhere in the game.

Given the choice between the two options:

1) Optional catches/Mandatory pickups
and
2) Free action handoffs

GIVE ME NUMBER ONE ANY ANY ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!!!!

I do NOT want to see a return of the Wood Elf end zone to end zone 2nd turn score tactic that was commonplay in 3rd. The game has been SOOOOOOOOO much better with the hand off declared action that if you made it a free action again, I'd house rule it back to a declared action for my league faster than the ink could dry on the BBRC write-up of the change.

Also I not sure why #1 would have side effects ... none come to mind at the moment. As Deathwing said, catches and pickups are such very different creatures in Blood Bowl that they really should never be talked about in the same paragraph especially since failing one is always a turnover and failing the other by itself is never a turnover.

Galak

[Casper]

I entirely agree with you, Galak: option number 1 it is !

[Babs]

Galak,

There are other disadvantages/cheesy situations with the handoffs being a free action. One I know of is you pickup the ball, move a player over to be next door to someone else, who may have already moved, stood up or whatever.

You do a whole pile of blocks / other moves / other things, then come back for the handoff roll. When it was a free action it didn't need to be tied to any player's move or action! (in a strict reading of the rule)

I saw a vampire team use this cheesiness, combined with the 'free action' of hypnotic gaze, to devastating advantage in a league of mine. To leave a vampire next to someone to come back to them later to try to hypnotic gaze them, or to Hypno gaze them, then do other things to come back to the original hypnotic player to move them later!

Very frustrating - and I would have loved to inform them they were playing incorrectly, however I couldn't. Perhaps I'm not reading the rules correctly with 'free actions' however.

Thanks all for the feedback. I'm listening.

[Babs]

I'm interested in the comment that the handoff/pass 2 turn score is labelled 'cheesy'.

As a big fan of the elven teams (although I'm more successful on a per game basis with Chaos Dwarves and Orcs) I'm interested in more comments about how this was 'unbalanced' and how the game has improved with the new handoff rule in terms of strategy / less beardy behaviour etc.

Are elven teams less successful under the new rules? Are they significantly disadvantaged? Because I believe that elven teams are a difficult team to start with, and can be difficult to maintain in a tough league. They may need some help (but not necessarily in terms of free handoffs - but I am looking out for them - Dark Elves lost out with the change to Frenzy, for example).

[Grumbledook]

I gone from end to end with my undead team. Blitzed the ball carrier with a wight, picked up with another and handed off to a ghoul, who ran and passed to another ghoul, who then ran it in. Having to take the hand off at the end of the movement doesn't make any difference to this play.

[Marcus]

IMO Woodelves were practically unstoppable under 3rd ed. Far and away the best team and that was largely down to their ability to move the ball freely with passive handoffs. Nothing particularly cheesy about the old style. It was just spectacularly difficult to stop. You essentially had to hope for snakeyes.

The 2 turn "five eighth" play is now no longer nearly as effective as you can't step your five eighth down the pitch and have someone dodge out and take the handoff. Solution? Handoffs into traffic, Passes into the endzone etc. Much riskier plays, brings them back in step.

My original beef with the change was that it slowed the game down. You couldn't perform fast, fluid plays like you used to be able to. Having played a few seasons/tournaments with the rule I have to say it's made the games must tenser and much closer.

[Deathwing]

Tend to agree with Marcus. I've posted this before on here, but I always considered the 2 dominant teams in 3e (once you hit 250+TR) to be Welfs and Chaos. Mighty Blow/Claw etc being downgraded brought the Chaos back, and the free-handoff ( and the change to Leap) brought the welfs back as well. I don't see any team(s) dominant under the current ruleset.

One thought though, how good would Lizzies be with a 'free-handoff'?

[GalakStarscraper]

Are elven teams less successful under the new rules? Are they significantly disadvantaged

Hmmmm ... I don't know that I'd consider them so much less successful as one of their biggest trick plays got removed. I'm with Deathwing. I found TR 250+ Wood Elf teams just plain nasty in 3rd. The free handoff was one of the larger reasons.

I've found Blood Bowl games to be much more balanced and interesting since the free handoff rules was removed. No way I would go back to handoffs being free after enjoying BB without them.

On the two topics I really could care less if pickups are forced or not, but I do agree that some very weird tactical problems occur from the must catch rule. Removing it does seem to be in the best interest of BB. There are only two times in BB that I can think of (there might be more) that I would deliberately reroll a success in order to "fail") ...

the first is the 1st block of a Frenzy where I rolled double pows and I wanted a push result for a bulldozer play into the crowd .... this is tactically fine in my opinion if a player wishes to do this.

the second is rerolling a successful catch in order to fail so that your player who no movement left doesn't catch the ball. This one just makes no sense to me why it adds value to the game. I would have to believe that any event in BB where you'd reroll a success is something that probably needs changed unless there is a very good reason for it to be that way. I cannot find the good reason for the forced catch, so I'd suggest it go.

Galak

[Munkey]

Not sure i'm understanding all the issues here can someone clarify a little
Here are the main issues as I understand them:

a) Should players be forced to pick up a ball in the square they have just moved into.

I believe the rulebook says yes and i'm inclined to agree, otherwise I could move a player into a tacklezone with the ball in just to scatter it free and pick it up more easily with another player; surely this would be unfair?

b) Should a player be forced to catch a ball that scatters onto him as a result of a blitz.

We used to play as a house rule that players in this situation did not have to pick up the ball until we realised that if they failed this did not cause a turnover. I do not really have a problem with an option not too catch in this case.

c) Should a player be forced to catch an innacurate pass that has scattered to him.

Surely if he chooses not to catch the ball then he has 'not caught' the ball and the team suffers a turnover, or am I to understand that if a player fails to catch a throw and it scatters to another player on the same team it is not a turnover if this player catches it?

Sorry to appear thick but I just want to make sure i'm following all this.

[Marcus]

a) Should players be forced to pick up a ball in the square they have just moved into.

Check the forced pickup thread for both sides of the argument on this one.

b) Should a player be forced to catch a ball that scatters onto him as a result of a blitz.

That's the main issue here. Not just a blitz, but any ball set in motion.

c) Should a player be forced to catch an innacurate pass that has scattered to him.

As you mentioned, it's a turnover if you dont' catch it. The tactical reasons discussed here for allowing the option to decline a catch don't really apply here.

[Babs]

I'm a little surprised to hear about Uber Wood Elf teams in 3rd Ed. They certainly existed, and were difficult to stop. I'm aware of all those.

I guess they were just up there with the other Uber teams that existed in 3rd Ed. The Uber Undead (until WD 182 chaged Regen to 4+), the Uber Chaos teams, the Uber Skaven, the Uber Orcs and the Uber Human teams.

Unlike some of those, Woodies were prone to the Uber Foul.

I do concur however, that the handoff being an action does solve other issues.

I will do my best to see that forced catches (from a bouncing ball - which isn't a tunrover Munkey) becomes an optional thing.

[stone]

I do agree that the current 'Forced Catch - Forced Pick-Up' -rule should be changed to optional catch and forced pick-up. For the reasons so throughly explained here. And, hand-off should remain an action rather than became a free action again.

[Sputnik]

Just another thing which I already posted somewhere else but fits in here nicely.

I kicked the ball to the line of scrimmage where an opponent (a dwarf longbeard) HAD to try to catch the ball.

Since he had to try he could have ended with the ball in his hands but would have obviously gotten into trouble with any handoffs or dodges there to get away with the ball.

Now, he failed and the ball scattered over into my half, resulting in a touchback.

I think the whole scene is not fair. I kicked it into his half and he let it slip. Not my fault that the ball came back into my half. Why a touchback???


Further, if he could choose not to catch it (because then hopefully the ball scatters either into my half for the touchback which is o.k. as a rule for me or alternatively behind his first row of players to make it easier for him to secure the ball) it would be a much better option.

Now, I would like to see this touchback rule changed if an opponent lets the ball slip and to go back to voluntary catches which help you for example in such situations.

Sputnik