| Author |
Message |
Doubleskulls |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 02:24 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: 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.
I would have thought players with Jump Up (i.e. Norse Blitzers, Witch Elves) have a good use of Piling On as going prone is less of an issue. If you want to go down that route MB would be my 1st choice, followed by Piling On.
So I think that pretty much restricts effective PO use to
1) Norse Blitzers (MB/PO/JU)
2) Players with Claw and MB/RSF
There is also the tactical element of using PO to target key opponents (say on a Human Blitzer with MB/Tackle/PO to get rid of receivers).
Other than that there are almost certainly better choices. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 07:20 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: 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.
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. while what you propose might make more sense to you it also adds SEVERAL steps to the whole process which are TOTALLY unneeded. why not just leave things how they are and quit trying to change every aspect of a FANTASY game that doesn't make sense in real life... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 10:38 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
mikeyc222 wrote: 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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 11:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: Name one step that is added. I don't see any.
OK, rolling for the pass before the intercept last time i checked is an added step. rolling for multiple intercepts is another...hmmm, if you don't see any added steps maybe you just need glasses. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 11:37 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| 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. |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 11:43 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
mikeyc222 wrote: 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.
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.
The problem is that to argue in favor of the current passing sequence, only two arguments have ever been given.
1) It's a game mechanic. So what? Passing before intercepting would be a game mechanic as well if it were made the official rule...
2) It's important to keep the number of interceptions up. Well, that can easily be solved.
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 12:03 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: Just ask any rookie coach how they feel about it.
My league consists almost entirely of rookie coaches, about a dozen of them, who all know the passing rules and have never made such an opinion publicly known. Similarly in my previous league, made up of veterans, not a single coach declared any part of the passing rules to be stupid.
I have also noticed an inconsistency in your arguments. You want various parts of the pass sequence rearranged for realism, but want to enforce the rule for which square the crowd throws the ball back from as written in the LRB. I.e. from the last square the ball travelled through on its way off the field as compared to from the imaginary square the ball ended up in (with or without adjustment to compensate for how deep into the crowd the ball went).
I would have thought that you would be demanding that the rule be re written, especially as most coaches have the crowd throw the ball back from the imaginary square. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
TuernRedvenom |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 12:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 142
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote:
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 01:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
TuernRedvenom wrote: Zombie wrote:
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?
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 01:22 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
TuernRedvenom wrote: 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.
I've always liked this house rule in principle, but never had a chance to try it.
We agree on the passing sequence and what it needs to be.
As for multiple interception attempts, i don't particularly care for that. I've never tried it, and to be fair i only thought about that after someone mentioned it on this forum about a week ago. But if it can make the "interception-happy" people "happy", so that they accept a change in the passing sequence, that's a compromise i'd be willing to make. To be honnest, i don't think it would make much difference anyway. How often do you currently see passes thrown over more than one opponent? I almost never see that. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mtn_bike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 01:23 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote:
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.
Been playing BB for about 4+ months and I like the passing sequence. I've only seen one INT ever but I see the play a bit like this.
Offenseive player drops back to pass. Defense player yells "PASS!" Defensive player down field turns and trys to intercept the ball and yells "COVER!" so all players around passer lets him make the pass. If intercept roll fails it is also like a roll that the players covering the passer and they ignor the cover call and shake down the passer.
I play other RPGs so I use my imagination.
If you want realism then there should be a "tip the ball" rule. Just like an intercept but your target number is +1 (not +2 like it is to INT) to tip the ball and will then make the accurate pass that is +1 to catch a 0 modifier.
Actually this may reduce the number of passes so leave well enough alone. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 01:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
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.
mtn_bike wrote: I play other RPGs so I use my imagination.
Blood Bowl is not an RPG. |
Last edited by Zombie on Feb 25, 2004 - 01:34 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
TuernRedvenom |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 01:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 142
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: TuernRedvenom wrote: Zombie wrote:
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?
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.
My apologies, I misunderstood your post. As for the passing sequence I agree it is stupid and makes no sense whatsoever. But really, turning around the passing sequence changes very little, mainly because interceptions are very rare. Which I don't mind at all, since an interception is the most drastic turnover you can suffer, you can't re-roll it and your opponent gains instant possession of the ball. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 02:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: 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.
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.
Zombie wrote: 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.
i had NEVER once heard this arguement until the very small population here and @ TBB brought it up. so until you give me a GOOD reason why it should be changed i never will feel the need to listen to you repeat the same things over and over again.
seriously, do you just argue for arguements sake? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
(Perhaps a mod could move the last 1 1/2 pages or so of this discussion, as it seems to have moved away slightly).
I've never once asked for more interceptions, or less interceptions. I just want the same number of interceptions.
If someone can come up with a set of passing rules that has the pass roll before the fumble, but still leaves the same statistical probability of a interception, then I'll willingingly support it, but so far every idea has decreased the chance (or increased it on occasion).
And I agree with mikeyc222. 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. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
