Rather than a bigger field, what about....

[bruce888]

Rather than having a bigger field (pitch) to play on. What if all players movement (MA) was reduced by one (1) point? I am an advocate of both the passing and bashing game but I feel the game leans in towards the bash side more. This would increase the passing game and make players think about movement a little more I think.

[Pedda]

I'd feel sorry for all the halfling and undead players like myself.

4+ to stand a mummy up and just moving one square with a tree...

[bruce888]

What if the players you mentioned were not included?

[Fassbinder75]

I think it would just make the game slower and sludgier, generally. It would hurt bash more because 1MA represents a greater percentage of their movement, but it would also pretty much invalidate a third of the rosters out of hand. Anyone with 4MA becomes unplayable, essentially.

[Darkson]

I think this will just encourage more grinding, as the slower teams will find it even harder to even have a chance to score (relatively) quickly.
And if you have to make some players immune from your -1MA idea you're messing with the balance of the rosters.

[bruce888]

THANKS PEEPS

[Wifflebat]

I think it would just make the game slower and sludgier, generally. It would hurt bash more because 1MA represents a greater percentage of their movement, but it would also pretty much invalidate a third of the rosters out of hand. Anyone with 4MA becomes unplayable, essentially.

This is what I see. We should consider that those points of movement don't scale in a linear way. That point from 3 to 4 is a 33% increase in that player's movement. 4 to 5 is 25% more. Only when we get up higher can taking off a movement point feel anything like a "tweak."

And relative speeds are important, too. A dwarf lineman that is now 50% as fast as a Pro/Wood Elf catcher will be around 43% as fast if we take one movement point from each.

The reason passing isn't a better option is because it involves multiple die rolls, and every die roll involves a chance to lose the ball. The best passing teams mitigate that with skills. I assume that the reason we don't see more passing teams is because there are so many more attractive skills to take than passing and catching skills, and thus more optimal ways to move the ball down-field.

[bruce888]

So how can i increase the frequency of passing in a game?
Make passing skills cost less in terms of TV?
Give higher SPP for passes with regards to range but only if the catching player scores in the same turn he caught the ball?
Both?

[Darkson]

I think the big reason for passing being so rare is that if any one of the dice rolls go wrong it's a turnover (most of the time), whereas blocking has less chance of going wrong (though obviously still a chance).

Also take into account that many (most) teams are not designed for the passing game. For example, if you make passing more important you're screwing over Lizards (who have no normal access to passing skills on top of all the other disadvantages they have).

The only way I can see making passing more attractive is to say a team has to score in X turns, but that will just swing the balance to far in the favour of the elf teams. Even giving more SPPs for passing is an unneeded buff to elves.



Without a complete overhaul of the rules I don't think you can without screwing the balance any more than it is now.

[Blammaham]

Thought that this was going to be another anti 40mm board thread! S.

[bruce888]

Once again thank you for your help guys

[dode74]

So how can i increase the frequency of passing in a game?

An idea I mooted some time back: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35377

[bruce888]

Thank u Dode74 a great read

[elde]

I believe reducing MA would only result in more bashing game, and less passing, running or tactical maneuvers.

Players would clump up in the middle of the field, and then stay there beating each other.

[Jimmy Fantastic]

What we did in a local league years ago was give the TD Spps to the thrower as well as the catcher if a comp led to a td.