next big soapbox rant: picking up/catching/handoff issues

[Deathwing]

Grumbledook-

I'm not saying that Bloodbowl should mimic the real world; it's obviously not a relfection of reality, what with the goblins, mummies and whatnots that inhabit the game. What I am saying is that certain things make sense. BB isn't chess, it's not a complete abstraction of war. It's a portrayal of a game, and as such IMO those two rules seem right on.

From a purely strategic point of view, one might not want to have certain players attempt a catch, fair enough. But if the models represent actual beings and not just pieces on a board, it makes sense that anyone would try to grab a bouncing ball. If one ignores the ball entirely, isn't that just a different form of Warhammer or Mordheim?

-Zergo

And how often to you see an NFL kick returner leave a kick if it's going to go into the EZ for a touchback? Likewise in rugby you aren't allowed to handle the ball in a ruck, therefore most players don't. So 'real world' arguements don't hold water IMO, just because you can try and grab the ball doesn't mean you automatically do.

I've said this before. Forced catches are about the only situation in BB where it could be in your interests to use a RR to deliberately try and fail a roll that you've passed. That's just plain ludicrous.

Edit: Thread here:
viewtopic.php?t=2837&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[wesleytj]

We dont play forced catches, but players rarely miss the chance to catch it.
We still play handoff as effectively free action, guess it makes more sense to us that way. to be honest i dont even see why a handoff should require an agility roll, i like it as just a 2+. That way even low agility teams can pull off running plays. It also helps teams advance slow low AG players if they are willing to spend time scoring rather than hitting ppl with them.

What do you think?

making it a 2+ universally is not a good idea. i assume you still add modifiers for rain and so on? Anyway if that's how it worked i'd just hand the ball off to the mummy and let him score all my td's...sure he'd be slow but who's going to stop him?

the agility roll is there for a reason.

[wesleytj]

This simplifies the game and speeds it up. I like this change.

The game is already pretty simple and fast. If it's not fast enough in your league bring back 4-minute turns

This one was absolutely necessary. It used to be that elves were almost impossible to stop from scoring. The old play of pick up, move back, position catchers, and second turn, move, pass, move, move, hand off, move, score, was impossible to stop unless the coach messed up with his dice, which was pretty rare (just a couple of 2+ rolls). Now elves have to think a little bit to score, and that's a great thing for the game. This i find to be one of the best changes of all of the new rules.

We never had a problem with elves dominating our leagues. I could win with them, but if i do say so myself that was at least partly coaching ability because plenty of coaches couldn't handle the rate at which they lost players, how much they cost, and so on. Also this affects defense way more than offense...

These two changes taken together, and coupled with the change to leap (use once only now), also bring down the all-mighty power of the wardancer and the like, against which no cage could ever hold. They work against elves, and give a chance to bashing teams who can still surround their own ball carrier for extra protection wherever he happens to be. With all the changes that helped elves, these were really necessary. Plus, wardancers were too good before, now they're good but not unstoppable.

I love both these changes.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't think wardancers were unstoppable no matter how many leaps you let them make (3+ and no rr isn't that great, PLUS you still have to make a hit at 2db against when you get there usually)

To me these changes screw everybody, the ball could just as easily scatter to the troll in as it could to the elf in 4 tackle zones who has already moved and can't get rid of the ball. It's not just an elf-thing or an orc thing or an undead thing, it's just annoying.

[Milo]

There were two main factors, IIRC, to the BBRC's decision:

1) In most or all team sports involving a ball, controlling the ball is always a player's first priority. It doesn't stop with just American football and rugby -- the same is true in soccer (football), basketball, hockey (with a puck), baseball (if you're playing defense), etc. It doesn't matter if you're an offensive linebacker or a wide receiver -- if the ball is loose, you make a play for it. It defies logic that Blood Bowl players would purposefully ignore the ball in the same situation.

2) It is more consistent with forced pickups, which was an issue we felt much more strongly on than forced catches. Optional pickups is, quite frankly, never going to be back on the table.

None of the arguments here have changed my mind yet, but I am listening. We realize that this is a change from what people were accustomed to -- but that change can equally affect all players and all teams. It's just something you need to adjust your strategies and game plans to. For every game YOU might lose because of it, there will be a game your OPPONENT will lose to you because of it.

Milo

[Marcus]

Milo: I think that's looking at the wrong side of the problem. Leaving pickups aside (which will always be voluntary in the ECBBL while I have my breath) reducing coaches' scope for decision making on the pitch dumbs down the game and has, in my experience with the new rules, made the game less enjoyable.

I don't think the real world arguments apply at all as there is ample examples where a player would and would not immediately attempt to control the loose ball and in every single occassion it's because there is an advantage to the team to do it one way or another. Under no circumstances does a player control the ball just "because it's loose". They always control the ball "because the ball is loose and if it remained loose then <insert consequences for particular football code here>"

By removing the assessment of consequences from the coaches' decision making process you reduce the scope for skillful play and increase the number of situations in which the coach simply waits to see what the dice hold. I do not believe this is a good thing.

[wesleytj]

There were two main factors, IIRC, to the BBRC's decision:

Yay! I've been waiting for that.

1) In most or all team sports involving a ball, controlling the ball is always a player's first priority. It doesn't stop with just American football and rugby -- the same is true in soccer (football), basketball, hockey (with a puck), baseball (if you're playing defense), etc. It doesn't matter if you're an offensive linebacker or a wide receiver -- if the ball is loose, you make a play for it. It defies logic that Blood Bowl players would purposefully ignore the ball in the same situation.:

I have never really bought these kinds of arguments. "real" sports players all move simultaneously, not in turns as it is in BB, so you don't have to worry about someone already being "done" in a real game, it's a continuous thing.

2) It is more consistent with forced pickups, which was an issue we felt much more strongly on than forced catches. Optional pickups is, quite frankly, never going to be back on the table.

I don't want it to be. Forced pickups I have no problems with. But forced catches cause problems.

None of the arguments here have changed my mind yet, but I am listening.

Yay!

We realize that this is a change from what people were accustomed to -- but that change can equally affect all players and all teams. It's just something you need to adjust your strategies and game plans to. For every game YOU might lose because of it, there will be a game your OPPONENT will lose to you because of it.

Milo

Change I got no problem with, as long as they're good changes. I like the new star rules, I like the new wizard rules, (new as in lrb), I like a lot of things that were changes. I don't mind adjusting to new strategies and all, as long as the changes are a good thing and make the game better or more fun. Problem is, I don't see that here.

I'm not arguing about this one because it's "not the way we always did it". I don't like winning by this rule any more than I like losing by it; It's no fun to win because the opponent got screwed, so that argument doesn't make me feel any better about it...saying "everyone gets screwed equally" isn't a valid answer, although of course it's better than screwing people unevenly.

So basically it sounds like the rule was changed to streamline with the "forced pickup" rule, and because it seemed to fit a "realism" thing. I really hope there was more to it than that...

[Marcus]

We never had a problem with elves dominating our leagues

TJ: I have to disagree. The OLBBL, back in the days we both took part, suffered from a marked dichotomy between Woodelf scoring machines and teams designed to obliterate Woodelf scoring teams. I've found the rules as they are now to be far more balanced. Under 3rd edition rules I wouldn't dream of taking anything other than 3 or 4 specific high-scoring teams to a tournament. Under the current rules I'm confident I can do well with almost any team because they really are very well balanced.

[wesleytj]

We never had a problem with elves dominating our leagues

TJ: I have to disagree. The OLBBL, back in the days we both took part, suffered from a marked dichotomy between Woodelf scoring machines and teams designed to obliterate Woodelf scoring teams. I've found the rules as they are now to be far more balanced. Under 3rd edition rules I wouldn't dream of taking anything other than 3 or 4 specific high-scoring teams to a tournament. Under the current rules I'm confident I can do well with almost any team because they really are very well balanced.

Well, I'm going to sound like I'm bragging here, but I've won tourneys with Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Orcs, Skaven, and Chaos, all under various strains of 3rd Ed, and all of various sizes.

The chaos was an opening day tourney where all teams started at tr 100...everybody said chaos couldn't win as a new team, so I made chaos just to show em.

I didn't see olbbl as wood elves vs. the rest of the league any more than it was most other teams, but ymmv. We did have the one wood elf coach who was 26-0 but I think that was mainly coaching skill...he has played halflings to an almost .500 record as well. There were also plenty of teams in olbbl with records at/over 85% win who were NOT wood elves.

I've always thought the main out of the book teams were pretty balanced in 3rd ed...each having their own advantages and disadvantages. People argue all the time, on here and elsewhere, that "X" team is too powerful, and I've seen many different teams under "x". Just in the last few days on here it's been dwarves and undead. To me that's a sign that they're all pretty balanced.

[Deathwing]

2) It is more consistent with forced pickups, which was an issue we felt much more strongly on than forced catches. Optional pickups is, quite frankly, never going to be back on the table.

Milo

I really see no need for consistency here, catches and pick-ups are entirely different things:

Different skills apply, namely Sure Hands and Catch.
Nerves of Steel applies to catches but not pick ups.
Picking up a ball has a +1 modifier whereas catching a bouncing or scattering ball does not.
A failed pick-up is a turnover, a failed catch is not.

So it's not as if pick-ups and catches are anything like consistent with each other anyway!

And you have to agree that a situation where it's in your interests to re-roll a dice roll (that you have just passed) in order to attempt to fail it is an anomaly and totally inconsistent with the whole way that BB works.
That reason alone is a pretty powerful arguement against the forced catch rule.

[Zombie]

To me these changes screw everybody, the ball could just as easily scatter to the troll in as it could to the elf in 4 tackle zones who has already moved and can't get rid of the ball. It's not just an elf-thing or an orc thing or an undead thing, it's just annoying.

I don't think you understand that argument i made. It affects bashing teams less because when somebody gets stuck with the ball, it's easier for the rest of the team to protect him with other players who didn't move. An elf and his buddies in the middle of a brawl is bad news for the elf. For an orc, it's just standard play!

[wolvendancer]

I don't think the real world arguments apply at all as there is ample examples where a player would and would not immediately attempt to control the loose ball and in every single occassion it's because there is an advantage to the team to do it one way or another. Under no circumstances does a player control the ball just "because it's loose". They always control the ball "because the ball is loose and if it remained loose then <insert consequences for particular football code here>"

This simply isn't true, and ignores all of the very cogent arguments Milo was making. On every one of the Junior High, High School, and College American Football Teams I have played on, there was an absolute insistence that possession of the ball and the pursuit thereof was the Number 1 goal of every player - one tried to strip the ball, pull it loose, hit the ballcarrier, jump on a loose ball, etc. There were even special cries one made on the field (Eagle! Eagle!), codes shouted when a loose ball hit the truth, alerting everyone to look for and pounce on the ball. Bringing up very specific instances (kickoffs), where the rules specifically and intentionally make it a viable strategy to let a live ball go, and where (it so happens) the teams haven't engaged yet and the situation is much less hectic (you have 4 or 5 seconds before the defenders get in your area), is just wrong-headed.

Similiarly, argueing that anything that limits the control of a coach on-pitch is bad is incorrect. So-called 'Fog of War' in computer wargames are a wonderful invention, adding 'realism' and a touch of the uncontrollable and unknown to what is 'realistically' a very harried and stressful time.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue that forced catching/pickup is anything but a realistic interpretation of the situation the rules are meant to simulate. It is theoretically possible to argue that such realism is bad for the game as a whole, but I would suggest that such a position would have to be strongly supported. So far, I haven't seen it.

Best,
Gabriel.

[Grumbledook]

Your basing that arguemnet on american football, this isn't american football, its blood bowl. Besides there are instances in american football where a player wouldn't be able to get the ball, like they are blocking another player at the time. Also in american football should a fumble occur and the defensive team gets on the ball, the game stops and they reset up again.

Its a different game, I could arge football (ie soccer) where players will ignore a pass to them and let it run pass them, because they have another team mate running up behind them who will be in a better posistion to have the ball, often to put a cross in or shoot on goal. This is also a real world representation where you would deliberatly not try to get the ball.

It can work either way.

[Thadrin]

I think the rucking and mauling in Rugby is a far better parallel. There you'll see hordes of forwards piling in while the backs set up their play.

Forced catches suffer from the problems DW has pointed out.

AS for going back to the old way as TJ wants - I will fight this to my last breath for precisely the reasons Marcus stated. Wood elves are still probably the most powerful team in the game once developed. My league has a 200 or thereabouts TRR WE team that has wiped the floor with pretty much everybody. I was ecstatic in the last game I played against him because I held him to a draw.

[Zombie]

This simply isn't true, and ignores all of the very cogent arguments Milo was making. On every one of the Junior High, High School, and College American Football Teams I have played on, there was an absolute insistence that possession of the ball and the pursuit thereof was the Number 1 goal of every player - one tried to strip the ball, pull it loose, hit the ballcarrier, jump on a loose ball, etc. There were even special cries one made on the field (Eagle! Eagle!), codes shouted when a loose ball hit the truth, alerting everyone to look for and pounce on the ball. Bringing up very specific instances (kickoffs), where the rules specifically and intentionally make it a viable strategy to let a live ball go, and where (it so happens) the teams haven't engaged yet and the situation is much less hectic (you have 4 or 5 seconds before the defenders get in your area), is just wrong-headed.

I don't know about american football, but in canadian football, when the ball is kicked all the way through your end zone, it's always better to let it go out, giving one point to the other team but assuring you a great field position to start from. Also, i'm not sure about this, but i believe that linemen in canadian football are not allowed to catch the ball (it's a rule of the game).

[Munkey]

I have to agree with Deathwing that any instance where it's in your interests to use a re-roll in order to try to fail a roll is something that needs to be considered for change.