Go For Its, GFIs

[PairODice]

Having seen too many agile players die from GFIs(and likewise too many players turned off of Bloodbowl because of it) I would suggest a change to the failed GFI procedure. A failed GFI player would make an Agility roll - if the roll was successful he would be placed prone face-up - if unsuccessful the player would be stunned(i.e. face down). The drawback to the proposal is a strong bias in favour of agile players; alternatively, an Armour roll could be made in the event of an unsuccessful GFI Agility roll to preserve game balance but that would mean an additional die-roll. I would suggest that the GFI agility roll be made before any other applicable roll such as a dodge roll. I suggest the Agility roll be unmodified by enemy tackle zones though I could see the roll working either way. I am sure many of you have had like experiences with GFI. Do you think a simple change would improve the game?

[Greyhound]

Conclusions:

- Dark elves with AG4 and AV8 become the master of GFI and have now overcomed their little drawback of not-so-amazing speed.
- one turner are risk free, and sprint becomes an awesome skill.

You have to think of GFI as something you are NOT meant to use. Your speed is listed and that's what you get. MV6 can move 6. When you GFI you are really pushing all boundaries of the body, you are getting your heart racing over its speed limit and you are pulling muscles beyond what is humanly (elfly, orcly etc...) possible.

The trouble with players hating GFI is that they consider their MV6 as an MV8 with some minor challenge for the last 2 squares.

There is a perception that 2+ is meant to read: "you should be able to do this without a thought, it's a given. Please move another 2 MV for free and just for fun roll a die"

I have recently taught a friend how to play and the first game was without GFI, then on the second game I told him: now if you really want you can push a player beyond that speed but there is a high risk and you will have to throw a die to make sure he doesn't die or get injured for each square after that. The meesage was clear and GFI were used with careful understanding of the risks.

I think the rule is fine, it's the perception of what the coach can push his player to do which is the root of the problem

[mattgslater]

Really. If you can't handle a few casualties, stop GFI'ing.

[Greyhound]

Having seen too many agile players die from GFIs

Furthermore shouldn't the agile teams be doing LESS GFI than the low AGI teams?
As a rule of thumb low AG players tend to have low MV, surely they would be the one doing GFI!?

I only GFI for three reasons:
1) scoring, if GFI will get me there and I have a reroll and I'm in the open, sure run-run-run
2) Stopping scoring, if the only way I can stop a score is to GFI, then yes, I'll push my players
3) provide an essential, and game-winning assist, or a blitz.

Most of the games I play will not see more than 4 GFI, and usually there will only be 2.
I GFI less and less as my players become experience.

Exception: 1-turn scorer, who GFI every game, but then again these guys live a short life anyway.

[anc001]

I think the idea is well thought out, but like the others I'd be worried about it changing the balance too much, disadvantaging teams that are fast by allowing others to GFI with less risk to catch up.