GW bringing back Specialist Games?!?

[chigger254]

I assume that, seeing the pitch and rules on the BB-(related)games, GW will more or less follow those. I mean, it would make sense.

Yeah, I don't see how they would drastically change the rules/format of the game when they have Blood Bowl 2 out that has the same basic rules as LRB6, and they may be thinking they could try to get new tabletop players from the people who play the video game but not the tabletop game.

If they figure those people like the video game, it wouldn't make sense to make the new rules drastically different and risk those players not liking it, as that is a potential loss in sales. Maybe whatever rules changes come about for the re-release will mimic some of the stuff they have in Blood Bowl 2? (I don't know all the differences myself, as I don't have Blood Bowl 2)

[Kaiowas]

changing the board size (as in number of squares) would require an ENTIRE game rethink, I think we are more than safe there.

they couldn't go from a 26 square long board to 30 without considering the movement value of every single positional. It would break what balance there is

[mikeyc222]

and as axiom has stated a couple of times, they said they really did not intend to mess with the core game mechanics. i think people are knee jerking and we all just need to breathe a little, and wait until there is enough information available to decide whether we should actually be upset or not. for now, i choose to remain cautiously optimistic.

[Fold]

In some ways it's a shame they likely won't alter it.
I've always wanted to try BB on a hex pitch. It drives me mad that a diagonally running player can get so much further than a player running straight up or across the pitch and a hex pitch plus associated changes to movement values and rules (which would be a huge change) would resolve that. I know this would infringe on dread ball, but still.

[GJK]

It drives me mad that a diagonally running player can get so much further than a player running straight up or across the pitch...<snip>

It makes no difference actually. Start in the top right corner of the pitch and using an MA of 6, move diagonally down-left and then back up-left and you will get to the endzone on the 6th MP of move #4. Now do the same moving just horizontally...you will again enter the endzone on the 6th MP of move #4.

[lunchmoney]

It drives me mad that a diagonally running player can get so much further than a player running straight up or across the pitch...<snip>

It makes no difference actually. Start in the top right corner of the pitch and using an MA of 6, move diagonally down-left and then back up-left and you will get to the endzone on the 6th MP of move #4. Now do the same moving just horizontally...you will again enter the endzone on the 6th MP of move #4.

I think he means physical distance moved, not squares.

[Fold]

Yes indeed. The fact that the diagonal moving player can reach the same place as a straight moving piece in the same space of time is in fact the whole problem - he shouldn't!

[GJK]

It drives me mad that a diagonally running player can get so much further than a player running straight up or across the pitch...<snip>

It makes no difference actually. Start in the top right corner of the pitch and using an MA of 6, move diagonally down-left and then back up-left and you will get to the endzone on the 6th MP of move #4. Now do the same moving just horizontally...you will again enter the endzone on the 6th MP of move #4.

I think he means physical distance moved, not squares.

The only thing that affects is passing ranges and passing is such an infrequent thing in BB that I think the overall effect is very minimal.

[Fold]

Are you sure?

In fact, passing ranges are the only thing that it doesn't affect, because the passing ruler uses fixed distances, and is not based on the grid. A quick pass will always be anything up to a certain number of centimetres (I don't know the distances off hand), so is not distorted by whether you lay it an angle or aligned with the grid.

The square grid fundamentally distorts all movement in the game because you can go much further (physically) by travelling diagonally than you can by travelling in a straight line.

Let's use a simple illustration. Our player (W) has a move of 8 squares, so can reach the end zone by travelling in a straight line (yellow). Unfortunately he is confronted by 3 opposing players (O) blocking his way, but not to worry - since the square grid lets our guy move diagonally more efficiently, he can reach the same place while travelling much further by taking the diagonal route (blue).

diagonal blood bowl.png

How much further does he get to travel by going diagonally, exactly? We'll, let's assume for arguments sake that the squares are 2 metres square. That makes that the diagonal of the square approximately 2.8 metres. By going in a straight line, the player can cover 8 x 2 metres = 16 metres. By going diagonally, he covers 8 x 2.8 metres = 22.4 - a significant amount more.

This is the distortion effect that I'm talking about, which is largely eliminated with a hex grid because travelling diagonally on a hex grid does not get you as far forward on the pitch from your starting point as travelling in a straight line does

Note, I obviously don't want Blood Bowl to change to a hex grid, because it might not be as cool a game, and that's too risky! But I do think the grid is a big problem and it's interesting to imagine it getting fixed.

[adhansa]

To me the current sollution is by far the best sollution.

With a hexgrid you would have to try to adjust a square field to a hexgrid. That would either force you to distort the short line , making the goalline and the LOS zigzag and making sideway moving costing a alot of movement.
Or it would distort the longside you are forcing a zigzag movement between the LOS and endzone making it longer than it really is.
If keeping a squaregrid field but making moving diagonally cost more than 1 movement it would make counting movement more complicated and that would also make it harder to at a glance read the field.

So screw Pythagoras, the current system is nice, simple and fitting to the field.

[mikeyc222]

agreed, the current field is the easiest solution, by far. in the above triangle pattern example, i would simply, jokingly say that the opposing coach just needs to do a better job of creating more tackle zones.
and yes, the passing template is definitely affected by diagonal squares. if you pass in a straight direction (forward, back, side), then a quick pass is 3 full squares. if you pass diagonally, it drops to 2 squares because the 3rd square you get on a straight pass then falls under short pass range.

[Darkson]

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/01/106395.html

Specialist Games
Forge World is effectively being divided into three parts all overseen by Tony Cottarel in an Emperor Palpatine-esq way (in my mind at least). One section is led by Alan Bligh and will continue producing all the normal 40k, 30k and Age of Sigmar that we are used to. Second section is led by Andy Hoare and is focusing on the traditional specialist games that we would recognise from the past like Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc. The final section is going to focus on Lord of the Rings. Each section includes the manager and three developers.

In terms of models, there will be a core focus in plastic in the starting box sets that will be designed by the SG department and then manufactured by the main Studio. Blood Bowl is currently in development but mentions were made about Adeptus Titanicus coming back to its roots of a Titan vs Titan game set in the heresy and additional Necormunda gangs made in resin. All of this is still in very early days of development and chat. The new department opens officially on the 18th January.

[VoodooMike]

In fact, passing ranges are the only thing that it doesn't affect, because the passing ruler uses fixed distances, and is not based on the grid.

The game is based on taking the ball into the opponent's endzone, and those are on opposite ends of the field. The salient issue is the distance a unit is able to travel toward the goal of a TD, and in that respect the movement toward the sidelines is fairly irrelevant.

The square grid fundamentally distorts all movement in the game because you can go much further (physically) by travelling diagonally than you can by travelling in a straight line.

It doesn't matter if you are covering move overall ground, you're moving no greater distance toward your ultimate goal by moving diagonally than you are by moving in a straight line toward it.. and you're not sacrificing your ability to move toward the goal when using strategic positioning. The grid makes it easier to choose appropriate movement allowances, and makes it easier for players to estimate the amount of time it will take them to reach their goal. A more "realistic" movement system would simply slow the game down.. and the last thing BB games need to be is longer.

[Jural]

I think it would be interesting to play on a hex pitch as well...

But it would really change the game a TON. Forget movement, that's really aesthetic. Think blocking. only 6 guys factor on a square instead of 8. Then, to guarantee a dodge is required to get adjacent to a square, 3 team mates are required, not 4.

But its even more complex, of the 6 squares around a given square, each of the 6 only worries about two other adjacent squares (as opposed to currently where half of the surrounding players deal with 4 squares and half with 2.) That significantly changes how assists are lined up, the value of guard, the value of +STR in general.

Interestingly enough the blocking die are also slightly more useful at moving people out of the way...

Very interesting idea- and the last thing I want GW to try with this edition!!!

[Kaiowas]

I've not played it but I'd say if people want Hexes there's dreadball from Mantic to consider as you say thats the last thing you want GW to do and I'm fairly certain they are right there with you