No, once it's off the pitch it's off, there is no further scatter and the crowd does throw it back in.

Zombie - I'm sure I've seen an official clarification that you don't continue to scatter once its off the board.

so as soon as the ball leaves the field squares DURING the scatter, it's treated as landing OOP.

Although i do understand Zombie's arguments, I'm amost 100% sure that Ian is right there and this has been officially ruled differently.

I remember the line of argument, that there are no squares outside the pitch, so as soon as the ball leaves the field squares DURING the scatter, it's treated as landing OOP.

Page 11 of the 2002 Annual from the 2001 Rules Review:

Q. Is a thrown ball or kick-off that scatters off the pitch thrown back in by the crowd as soon as it leaves the field? Or do you track it all three squares and only throw it back it if it finishes off the field?
A. As there are no squares located off the field you should stop rolling for a scattering ball as soon as it leaves the pitch. Although a bit of an abstraction (as the ball could scatter back onto the field if you kept rolling) this method has the distinct advantage of keeping things nice and simple.

I believe you're talking about the FAQs in WD 182. I've got them on my computer, and they have nothing of the kind.

Scattering into the crowd before the final position of landing is determined.

Intercepting the ball before determining where the balls flight path is or whether the pass was fumbled.

Only one player being allowed to try to intercept.

Players on the passing team not being able to try for an intercept.

Zombie when I disagreed with a BBRC member about the propper use of the Dirty Player skill (I think I stated I was skeptical of how Chet explained it. I NOW know understand it & accept it.) But back then you told me there was no point in being skeptical cause these are the guys who write the rules.

These are people answering questions about a rule written by another person. They don't know what that other person thought. If the rules are contradictory, i'd rather stick to the original.

Can we have a member of the BBRC adress this rule?
I'm the Commish of the NFBBL, & other than the new Stadium rules, I'd like to follow, the Living Rule book as much as possible, so for my understanding can I have a BBRC Person please let me know what is the official rule?

Thanks Rod

I doubt JJ had much to do with those FAQs. In any case, he's only one person out of 7, and not even the most influential of them.

With all the talk of posting the older FAQs along with the newer ones maybe the editors this year will just put the FAQs in the back of the LRB.

The most recent LRB is supposed to be all that you need to play the game. That's what we've always been told. The annual is often outdated before it's even out. Currently, the rules don't include the FAQs you're mentioning.

Where is the rule written? It isn't in any document i have and isn't available anywhere on the internet. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll forget to add it to the pack when they finally do add the FAQs to the rules.

Where is the rule written? It isn't in any document i have and isn't available anywhere on the internet. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll forget to add it to the pack when they finally do add the FAQs to the rules.

Don'tget me started on the changes to piling on. It's all right, if you don't mind not seeing a single player with the skill ever again.

So where are the "many things that do happen in real life that cannot take place during a BB pass action"?

Players on the passing team not being able to try for an intercept.

Again, not true. Claw plus Piling on is better than the old piling on alone, most of the time. But I digress...

Oh, and the idea of having more than one player allowed to try for interceptions really will put people off anything other than a safe pass. One player with a 1/6 chance of an intercept is fine with me, but four or five? Forget that!

Only players with claw can use the new piling on with any kind of consistency. The only other times when the skill has better chances of helping you than hurting you is when you have mighty blow and the opponent has AV7, or when the opponent has AV6 or less. And even then, it's only slightly more often useful than harmful. It's a waste of a skill now unless you have claw or mighty blow and jump up.

It would increase the value of safe throw, an underused skill at the moment. It would also increase the frequency of interceptions, which i thought was what people wanted after all? Heck, they have a dumb rule that's impossible to explain to a newbie (intercept before passing) just to increase interceptions by tops 20%. Drop the dumb rule and allow for more than one interception, that might solve your problem right there.

while what you propose might make more sense to you it also adds SEVERAL steps to the whole process which are TOTALLY unneeded.

Name one step that is added. I don't see any.

not to try and start this up again but the point is NOT to increase the # of interceptions but to keep them the same and NOT decrease them.

Just ask any rookie coach how they feel about it.

2) It's important to keep the number of interceptions up.

And why is this important? Most of the teams play a running game as it is, why would you want to further decrease the chance of a completed pass?

We use passing house rules (eg balls scatters as many squares as length of pass -> quick pass = 1 scatter, long bomb = 4 and we first rool to pass -> fumble -> no interception possible), but there's no way multiple interceptions is gonna be in it, ever.

Until i hear a better argument (and i have never been shown that such an argument even exists) or the rule is changed, i will not drop this subject. This rule IS stupid. Just ask any rookie coach how they feel about it.

I play other RPGs so I use my imagination.

I never said i wanted that. It's not my argument. To be fair, i really don't care either way, as long as the passing sequence makes sense.

From those who do want more interceptions, i believe the arguments range all the way from "why even have a column for interceptions if they almost never happen anyway?" to "this would increase turnovers and make the game more exciting". Maybe the people who do want that would be better suited to answer your question.

The first of these is not an added step, but a re-aranging of the order of currently existing steps. The second is not an added step either, as there already is a step where you roll for intercepts. It's just a longer step in certain cases. You still haven't named any "added" steps.

Many people in the past have expressed the desire for an increase in the number of interceptions. Besides, you don't know what effect this would have. For all we know, 20% or less of the passes would be made over the head of more than one player and the frequency of interceptions would remain the same.

Blood Bowl is not an RPG.

In real football, you don't yell "pass" and "cover", and you WILL rush the passer regardless of whether or not one of the 5 potential targets is covered! That's the most ridiculous fluff based argument i've ever heard.



Blood Bowl is not an RPG.

WRONG. you are adding steps to what is currently in the LRB. don't say that you are "rearranging" them because those steps don't exist in the case of an interception. therefore, you are talking about ADDING them. that's what adding means. putting something where it wasn't before.

and the ONLY arguement i have EVER heard for changing the sequence is because "it makes more sense. it doesn't happen like that in real life."
if i hear ONE more person compare a game with elves, dwarves, and orcs to real life i think i will die of laughter.

Nor is it a real life simulation.

You say I don't yell pass or cover. Yes I do. When I play two touch with my buds. It's a 7 mississippi count which is out loud and then you yell blitz to let the players covering the recievers the passer is being rushed. Once the passer passes the ball I yell pass. I will admit cover is never yelled.

BB not being an RPG? I have to disagee. Sorry, this is way off topic but you roll dice with target numbers for "players" to accomplish tasks. Players and team ratings can go up or down levels. Players go down in stats by getting an injury, niggle or aging roll. Players that increase levels gain skill or traits. Fact is, you are a coach of a team. Your Role to Play the Game.

There's also the fact that the rule is easier to teach to newbies if the pass is rolled before the interception. That's not a real life argument, but a purely mechanistic one.

There's also the fact that the rule is easier to teach to newbies if the pass is rolled before the interception. That's not a real life argument, but a purely mechanistic one.

There's also the fact that the rule is easier to teach to newbies if the pass is rolled before the interception. That's not a real life argument, but a purely mechanistic one.

And to me, a 20% change in interceptions is a big thing, either way. Mabe not in a small league over say 10 games, but long-term, that would add up to a lot more/less interception.

In a game with Orcs and Elves, giant spiked pitch rollers flattening players, b&c weilding fanatics, and wizards firing off fireballs and turning players into frogs, arguing against a rule because "it doesn't work like that in real life" is laughable.

But now, should you tackle all the other stupid passing rules? Like how distance effects fumble probability

how balls end up OOB on the first scatter offpitch

how passers never seriously over/underthrow a pass?

Or how about this: I make an inaccurate pass, which ends up going two squares past my intended receiver. The intended receiver should still get an intercept attempt now, since it is going over his head.

The point i'm trying to make is that making a realism argument doesn't pass the face validity test for reasons that go beyond the whole elf and dwarf thing.

In the end, I agree with you, a fumble should counteract an interception. It doesn't make sense, but then again, lots of things don't.

Is a 5% change still big? If allowing for multiple interceptors and changing the passing sequence would result in a 5% or less change in frequency of interceptions, could you live with that?

They can overthrow or underthrow by 3 squares. A square is a little over 4 yards (100 yards divided by 24 squares, not counting end zones).

The player's square is not just the little spot he takes up on the field. It's a section of the field about 4 squares wide. If the throw was really 2 squares too long, then it's over his head, there's no way around it. If it's 2 squares short, it hit the floor before reaching him. This is all pretty spot on to me.

Your argument is faulty here. A "square" has no size. I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that says a Blood Bowl pitch is the same size as an American Football Field.

Consider that your calculation means that the endzone is only 4 yards deep.

can attempt to grab it only if they are on the opposing team?

Remember the 3rd ed fluff. Blood Bowl was invented when a dwarf found the rules to an ancient game inside a stadium for the said game. The field had strange lines drawn on it. It's the size of an american football field all right. Besides, i seem to recall hearing a BBRC member (don't remember which) saying about the same thing about field size about a year or two ago.

In 2nd ed, the end zone used to be 2 squares deep. It was only changed for balance reason (being able to push anyone into the crowd who stands in the wide zone).

Like i said before in this thread, if a real life football player tries to intercept the pass thrown by his own quarterback, his coach probably won't let him play for the remaining of the season after that.

But what about a Blood Bowl player? If you drop a pass in Football, you get a Do-Over (minus a down). If you drop a pass in BB, you probably have given the ball to the opposing team. That's more like in Ultimate Frisbee, where we have the maxim: "any catchable disc", meaning if you can get it, do so. Blood Bowl is also a lot more ad-hoc. You don't have a play and receiving patterns the way you do in football. Really, every Blood Bowl pass is a hail mary.

Or what about a receiver who sees the ball coming to him and knows it is going over his head? If the intended receiver can't get it even though it is due to land one square past him, nobody in the middle of the pass should be able to make a grab for it either.

Deciding to add a skill after the roll is usually just as silly

So again, you can argue for a point, like switching the order of accurate and intercept. But your argument is strengthened not by crying "realism", but by crying "playability". Does your rule change significantly improve the playability of the game? Or is it a minor tweak which isn't worth making because the cost of changing it is not worth the benefits?

The benefits are rules that are easier to teach and remember

We should aim to be as realistic as possible as long as it doesn't make the rules anymore complicated. If it does, then the cost of the complication should be weighted against the benefit of added realism. That's how a game is designed in the first place, and i'm sure that these were the kinds of choices that Jervis had to make when he invented this game.

Deciding to add a skill after the roll is usually just as silly

The dwarf doesn't have to stop them both simultaneously. He can stop one elf, slightly stepping into his "square", then turn his attention to the other elf.

I don't find it silly at all. I find it to be a good abstraction of a real learning process.

The benefits are certainly higher than the cost, since there is no cost at all! The only argument ever made against changing it are that it has always been this way, which in itself is not a good reason, and that it would decrease the frequency of interceptions by somewhere around or below 20%, which i don't think would have any influence on the game at all!

Added realism should always be favored when two basic rules are met : (1) there is no added complexity and (2) the delicate balance of the game isn't affected. I believe both to be the case.

But if a dwarf can dance around in his square, why does he have to stay there? Why can't he just go and knock down one of the elves? And how does he know which one is going to dodge away first?

What I meant was deciding to add the Mighty Blow (or Piling on, or Dodge) skill to a roll after you know whether or not you need it. Or the idea that you can only use a skill once per turn. Oops, I dodged there, but I seem to have forgotton how to do it over here.

There is a very real cost associated with any rule change. It needs to be debated by the BBRC, making the review take longer, or bumping something else off of the hotlist. The new rules need to be disseminated. Every player has to understand the new passing sequence. And no matter what, any rule change in a game as complicated as Blood Bowl will raise new corner cases and create strange new FAQs that need to be addressed and hashed out (like the timing of Passblock). Piling On only became really abusive recently? Why? The change in order (before/after the roll for all skills). Little changes here and there can affect other things far away.

If you're like them and you believe in playtesting everything instead of examining the game theoretically the way i like to do, then let me tell you that there are countless leagues around the world who have been playing my way for as long as 10 years now. The data is there. The change is minimal.

i know you love to stand on your soapbox and preach but honestly, no one(other than you and about 5 other people that i have actually seen) really cares about the passing sequence.

I dont think thats in the current debate atm.. you guys seem to be going back and forth well enough without anyother thoughts.