Talk Fantasy Football

Hi, me and my friends are currently debating certain rules, and I was just wondering if you have encountered these, or maybe just have some great arguments for either side. As I said, we are new, so we don't have the experience to judge if these make sense.

1. Deciding whether you pass/handoff anytime during your move, so you can run and pick up the ball, then decide what to do with it.
- this may be against the rules, but it doesn't seem like it unbalances.

2. Deciding if your block was actually a blitz after you see the dice rolls. Again, not in the rules, but seems to work concerning the line of scrimmiage. You can see if you've punched a hole, and if you have, you run through, otherwise not.
- Often, you'd probably move to get close, then it's obviously a blitz, but for when you begin adjascent, this might make sense.

3. You can "take" a handoff if you don't have the ball. i.e., carrier is done, but you have a fast guy nearby and he runs past, grabs the ball and keeps going.
- This one instinctively seems wrong to me, but I can think of a couple occasions where you might want to do this. I just wanted to hear your opinions on this.

So, the thrust of the logic behind these changes are from one guy, and they're in the interest of opening up the game, to have more options.

What do you guys think?

Absolutely against all three of them.
All three reduce a very important aspect of the game:
"Think through what you want to do and live with the consequences."

Especially the third I don't like. This would allow a blitz and a handoff by the same player, something which is strictly forbidden by the rules. Of course, in your rules the "handoff"-action would be done by another player, not the blitzer, but it is still the same.

As you're all new to the game, my recommendation: Play the game with the rules it is meant to be played with. If after 10 games or so you think you still want to change them, go ahead and do it. But only after you know what you are doing.

I don't think the first suggestion will have much impact on the game (in fact, that's how it's played on FUMBBL (online league with >10000 coaches) and I haven't seen anyone comlaining about it). It has the advantage of coaches who tent to forget trivial things (like saying "I'm taking a pass action" at the start of the action) aren't at a disadvantage.

The second rule will make the gameplay different than it was meant to be, providing new tactical options and probably removing others. I suggest getting used to the standard rules.

The third suggestion used to be allowed in the rules (in the third edition of '94), and was very practical for two-turn TDs for elf and skaven teams. Apparantly too practical, seeing that it was changed.

my sentiments echo David's 100% on all three counts.

Personally, I against all 3 suggested changes, especially #3.

Thanks guys,

I do agree with all of you. I imagine as head coach, we call plays, and the players know what they'll be doing if all goes as intended. Of course it never quite does, but if you 'told' one guy to blitz, that's what he's going to do regardless of what happens on the other side of the pitch.

well whenever you are going to handle the ball either with a player with the ball or going to pick up the ball you should declare a pass or hand off action (unless you are blitzing or blocking). This is because you don't have to hand off or pass during the action, just keeps the option alive and if you don't hand off or pass, the ball will remain with the player and you won't be able to use the pass or hand off action anyway (unless you have a big guy w/TTM and right stuff player-then you might want to save the pass action)

Against. But everybody I've played with seems to be reasonably flexible about declaring actions while a move is in progress -- as long as its before any dice have been rolled. Its fine by me to start moving a player, and while you're counting out squares, declare 'this is the pass action' or 'here comes the blitz' This both keeps the game moving along quickly and maintains a friendly atmosphere.

Cheers,
Maureen

Darkson wrote:Personally, I against all 3 suggested changes, especially #3.

seconded.

Mo wrote:Against. But everybody I've played with seems to be reasonably flexible about declaring actions while a move is in progress -- as long as its before any dice have been rolled. Its fine by me to start moving a player, and while you're counting out squares, declare 'this is the pass action' or 'here comes the blitz' This both keeps the game moving along quickly and maintains a friendly atmosphere.

That's also how we handle it, but it's important to declare the action before any dice have been rolled.

We play a fluid system where you don't really need to call plays as most of them are really obvious and it has no bearing on the game whether you call before, during or at the end of a move.

The Blitz action is the one we are strict on though; especially in relation to the standing start.

Also, skills like stand firm alter the game so with players with that calibre things need to be called in order not to skew it.

Otherwise it is relaxed and friendly. Playing rigidly never seemd to be the point of Bloodbowl.

Your hand-off suggestions are straight out of third edition by the way. It made elf and skaven teams devastating as they were nigh impossible to defend against. One player would dodge/leap away from defence and receive the ball; then another player would run by, take the hand off, and score.

I'd stick with the new rules if I was you.

1) against all 3 on principle, but I might be convinced with a table top demonstration. Though probably not.

2) as for leniency on when actions are declared, the group I play with generally use what we like to call "Stoner's Rules." As long as dice aren't rolled, you can change most things. Exception: Technicals (gotta move the turn marker!) This does lead to a lot of people saying "Did i use my blitz yet?" and the like, but we're pretty laid back. Well, most of us are.

We tend to say nothing is set until dice are rolled, but then there is no going back

On #3, how about if it was made a high-risk play? For example, a high chance of fumbling the ball (say fumble on a 1-4 on a d6), would make this into a high-risk, high-reward play, and account for the fact that the player wasn't expecting to have the ball taken away.

I think the main problem with not having to declare is blitz is that it helps to negate big guys negative traits.
How many plays have gone to waste due to a declared blitz followed by a failed bonehead