Author |
Message |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 03:12 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
mikeyc222 wrote: and while most passes may be made "in situations where you only fumble on a 1" that's not the only time they are made. as a matter of fact i REGULARLY make long passes. that's because i actually use my throwers as throwers and build their skills as PURE passers and make even AG3 passers deep threats.
So what's your point? A thrower with accurate making a long pass still only fumbles on a 1.
mikeyc222 wrote: if you would like to play test your proposed rule changes then by all means do so and i will look at any VERIFIABLE data you have the proves your point.
I've been "playtesting" this for about 10 years now. Never played differently. Unfortunately, as my leagues where always table top and never had records kept on computers, i'm afraid that i can't provide any numbers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 03:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Mordredd wrote: Zombie, foul appearance working when prone is not absurd. I made the argument in the thread about FA earlier. I notice you had no come back then, so just drop it already.
I'm afraid i've lost track of that thread and can't find it anymore. Point it out to me and i'll be sure to give you a satisfactory answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 04:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
How about the one entitled "Does Foul appearrance works all the time?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 06:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
I didn't even know which forum to look in! It appears it's in this one. Thanks for pointing it out and i'll get right to it. |
_________________ They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
|
|
|
|
smeborg |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 05:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2003
Posts: 223
Status: Offline
|
|
I would favour a change enabling interceptions to be made AFTER inaccurate passes are scattered.
I understand there would be a few complications, but they don't look difficult to resolve in a simple way.
I agree with Bevan's earlier comments (risky passes are discouraged).
I would add that the current rule favours AG sides and sides that come with Throwers. If you play a low AG side, or one that comes without throwers or catchers, most of your pass attempts could be deemed "risky". It's frustrating to see a pass which has a 1 in 6 chance of going to the target square land neatly in the interceptor's hands every time.
Just my tuppence worth.
Cheers
Smeborg the Fleshless |
|
|
|
|
|
Apedog |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 05:58 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
This whole argument always seems to come down on the 'it's not realistic' point.
Have you considered that you are playing a game of american football with Orcs and Elves where one team moves while the other waits for them?
And what about the Turnover rule... one player drops the ball and the rest of the team can't move. I think we should get rid of that next |
_________________ Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
|
|
|
|
smeborg |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 01:19 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2003
Posts: 223
Status: Offline
|
|
I wasn't making a proposal on the basis of "realism".
I suggest the rule (or sequence) could be made better from the following points of view (among others):
- Easier to assimilate for newbies (because more in line with common sense). Fewer rules questions.
- Greater variety (and hence more character or colour).
- Some potential for more skilfull coaching (without a corresponding increase in complexity).
I also find the way interception works at the moment (especially with a good interceptor) somewhat mechanistic and automated. Maybe that's just a matter of taste.
Cheers
Smeborg the Fleshless |
|
|
|
|
|
|