| Author |
Message |
Doubleskulls |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 05, 2003 - 05:57 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Mestari wrote: GalakStarscraper wrote: it also creates a vast number of cheesy/beardy Punting plays
Which have never existed anywhere else except in the vivid imaginations of those who oppose the 'natural 1's rule. The cheesiness of throwing inaccurate long bombs is simply lost on me, and the extent of their use in leagues with no range modifiers has always been very small.
The ECBBL reimposed range modifiers on passing exactly because of this beardy play. Its a low risk, high reward strategy that occassionally is extremely useful. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 05, 2003 - 08:15 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| I agree with Mestari. It's not cheesy, and if the situation even occurs where it's worth doing it, it's the other coach's fault for not covering his backfield. |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 05, 2003 - 12:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie69 wrote: I've always found the official rule extremely dumb, as it means that some players can never throw an inaccurate pass and always fumble if they miss! Doesn't make any sense at all.
The same applies to AG4 players throwing Quick Passes, but I've never heard a single complaint about it. But I've lost count of the times I've heard complaints about overly agile players fumbling long bombs because of range modifiers. But they're both functions of the same rules, really.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 05, 2003 - 12:53 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
-I have the ball in my half
-I can throw it without opposing players in my tackle zone
-I decide to throw a long bomb that's most likely going to be inaccurate and thus end my turn.
Ian, please explain to me where's the cheese in that? What beardy is there in giving up your turn in exchange of putting the ball loose into the opposing side of the pitch? |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 05, 2003 - 01:58 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Mestari wrote: -I have the ball in my half
-I can throw it without opposing players in my tackle zone
-I decide to throw a long bomb that's most likely going to be inaccurate and thus end my turn.
Ian, please explain to me where's the cheese in that? What beardy is there in giving up your turn in exchange of putting the ball loose into the opposing side of the pitch?
Your were saying that the punting plays "have never existed anywhere except in the vivid imaginations of those who oppose the natural 1's rule".
I was pointing out that in this instance that is not the case and a league of experienced coaches disliked natural 1's so much that the dropped it.
The risk/reward for punting the ball downfield when your opponent only has a turn or two left is just too good. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 05, 2003 - 03:45 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Doubleskulls wrote: Your were saying that the punting plays "have never existed anywhere except in the vivid imaginations of those who oppose the natural 1's rule".
That's not what he said. He said that the beardiness never existed. By his own admission, the play was there (though very rare), but there was nothing beardy about it.
And i agree with that. Like i said, it's the other coach's fault for not covering his backfield properly. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 03:35 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
My misinterpretation of his post then - so I'll address the cheesy issue ( )
Imagine that there is one or two turns left at the end of the half and you've been pinned back near your own endzone. You know that your ball carrier is going to get sacked and your opponent probably score. So instead you punt the ball 12 squares downfield (plus your movement).
Covering the backfield is fine and normally I'd consider it weak play not to - but when you've only got 1-2 turns left its a very very hard to have enough players covering the backfield that you can still pick the ball up from pretty much anywhere and score. Sure if you are Skaven or Woodies its not a problem, but how about Dwarves? Out of their 4 AG3 players which ones are going to be hanging back in case the opponent punts the ball, and which ones are going to be chasing the ball carrier so they can score?
There is nothing under the current rules that stop you punting the ball downfield - its just got a 50% chance of failure. So for a 1/6 chance of failure you dramatically reduce the odds of your opponent scoring - probably a vital TD.
On top of which if you have a decent passing game - your Pass/Accurate /Strong Arm thrower will be the one punting the ball downfield and he'll still only fumble on a 1. The idea an unskilled Saurus is as good as a specialist thrower is unrealistic.
I've done it and I've had it done to me. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does its very frustrating.
For all those reasons the ECBBL overwhelming voted to abandon our "range modifiers do not affect fumbles" house rule.
Say what you like but a over a dozen experienced coaches tried it over a couple of seasons and didn't like it. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Here's another situation, which has happened to me.
I've pinned the cage containing nearly all the team, including ball carrier, on one side line. However 2 guys on the opposite flank have got really lucky and stunned or KO'd their covering players about six squares from the end zone. Knowing the cage can't break through, well it's failed for the past 6 turns, he punts the ball over to the far side. It's so far the pass can't even go to one of the players, but an inaccurate pass will do because the cover is out for the next turn.
It was a desperate play, and it should have desperate play odds too.
Also only fumbling on a 1 makes a mockery of putting pressure on the thrower. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:32 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Edited by Indigo cos I was daft  |
_________________
NAF #60
Last edited by Indigo on Nov 06, 2003 - 06:32 AM; edited 2 times in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:34 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| hmm I've actually re-read that and it will need tweaking.... we WANT a pressured thrower to fumble. |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:40 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
what about this.
Consider the total negative modifier on a throwing player from opposing tackle zones, then from range modifiers. Apply the highest score that applies.
For example (using an AG3 unskilled player)
A long bomb punt is a -2 modifier. A LB punt in a tacklezone WOULD make -3 but because we want it to be possible to fumble AND be inaccurate we only apply the -2 mod. Fumbles on a 3, inaccurate on a 4/5 accurate on 6.
A pressured thrower - 1 TZ on the thrower, who is throwing upto short pass would mean a -1 modifiier - fumbles on a 2, inaccurate on 3, accurate on 4+
A really pressured thrower trying to punt it - 3 TZs on the player, long bombing it. -3 from TZs, -2 from LB but we only use the -3. Fumbles on a 4, inaccurate on a 5, accurate on a 6.
This is better - ignore my other idea 
Considering a player with Accurate:
1) LB punt, no TZs. -2 range mod, +1 accurate
Will fumble on a 2, inaccurate on a 3/4, accurate on 5+
2) Pressured. 1 TZ, upto short pass. -1 TZ, +1 accurate
Will fumble on 1, inaccurate on 2/3, accurate 4+
3) Pressured punt. -3 TZs, -2 range, +1 accurate
Fumble on a 3, inaccurate on a 4/5, accurate on 6 |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 06:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| Not bad. Definitely worth considering. I'm glad you withdrew the first one in favour of the second. It would have taken a lot away from nerves of steel. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 06:31 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
yer, screwed that first one up a bit 
might edit it out so I don't look like a total n00b |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 07:22 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
Matter of opinion, I guess, but I still see nothing cheesy in that. Mind you, the league I'm in uses only the official+officially experimental rules, but I never experienced any problems. Sure, it can be frustrating if the opponent manages to get the ball and lob it out of your reach, but that happens as a result of you neglecting certain parts of your gameplan.
Why is the opponent about to be sacked, near his own end zone? Most likely he got the ball from you. Why isn't he covered in TZ to prevent him from moving his MA downfield and throw the ball? Because you aren't in a sufficiently certain position to sack him.
But anyhow, I've done this discussion quite a few times and the entrenchment lines are not likely to move. I just consider that for this play to be succesful, the other coach must've overcommitted his team to certain direction, and should be frustrated - not because of the opponent, but because he went into a trap. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 03:12 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Doubleskulls wrote: Covering the backfield is fine and normally I'd consider it weak play not to - but when you've only got 1-2 turns left its a very very hard to have enough players covering the backfield that you can still pick the ball up from pretty much anywhere and score. Sure if you are Skaven or Woodies its not a problem, but how about Dwarves? Out of their 4 AG3 players which ones are going to be hanging back in case the opponent punts the ball, and which ones are going to be chasing the ball carrier so they can score?
A single dwarf runner can cover more than half of the field with a single go for it. And he's got access to passing skills to send it upfield after he pickes it up.
Besides, how is it that you allowed that one player to get away and move his full MA before throwing the ball? That means there must have been something very wrong in your position. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
