Range Ruler question

[DG_Slider]

Ok, so whats a good number to count for passing in say FUMMBL? 3.5,3.5,3.5,2.5?

This get worse when throwing diagonally. Whats a good way to count range in on the board without a range ruler?

[Mootaz]

Some guys from Munich, Germany made a nice passing template that makes it easy to determine the passing distances by counting.

http://lines42.de/Material/BBLRange%20RulerTemplate.pdf

[Ravage]

except that their template is wrong. didnt even have to look hard - they measure short passes as only going 6 squares in a single file, which is incorrect.

Yes, we all know pitches aren't made 100% symmetrical. But THIS file actually is accurate assuming the pitch is perfect. (not that I'm biased since I made it myself, but I'm really just sick of seeing so many incorrect passing templates out there and pimp this whenever I can to try and help people) http://trollserver.com/bb/teams/dave_m/ ... mplate.xls

[Snew]

How can you possibly have an incorrect passing template when the squares on the board are different sizes from one section to another and completely different between the Astrogranite and the cardboard version, though you got the same passing template with each one? Apparently it doesn't matter what you use as a passing tempolate as long as both coaches are using the same one.

[Ravage]

Astrogranite vs cardboard I cant speak for - I know the boards are completely different sizes.

But me and my leaguemates all agree it's asinine that a Short Pass on one part of the board would be a Long pass on another part of the board simply because GW can't be bothered to make a symmetrical playing area (when quite obviously, that should have been the intent). We only use range rulers for determining interception possibilities, and even then most of the time it's so obvious who can/can't intercept that we don't use it.

The reason I prefer using the "correct" ranges is because the different bands dramatically (IMO) change the passing game. Teams that rely on passing get screwed out of part of their benefit when the ranges are suddenly made "shorter" than they are supposed to be. And I'm not even playing elves in this year's TT league and I feel that way Manufacturing defect shouldn't penalize those teams when their main strength is supposed to "shrink" the field for them by being allowed to throw greater distances across the pitch. Some people may not feel that one square here or there is much of an issue, but I know a lot of coaches who can tell you how much that one square is worth then they have to GFI for the endzone and 1,1 trying to score

[Snew]

Aren't you one of the Fluffy crowd? Different passing ranges across the same pitch are part of the flavor of travelling band of players playing in any venue they can get time in. Not every pitch is the superdome.

I think if one coach is going to gripe over a square here or there he's probably not worth playing with. When you grant him that extra square, who's saying it's supposed to be longer range instead of the shorter? Maybe that passing team is supposed to have their "benefit" reduced. It's been my experience that a successful passing game really can get out of control and that benefit is disproportionatle strong. I'd argue to reduce the ranges a bit, if anything. Actually, I'd just leave it the same. and deal with things the way they are now. No special rules for a certain type of team over another.

[Mootaz]

@Ravage
I've marked on my template where your template and the Munich template differ and I'm just going to use the Munich one but in case of these special cases (it's 10 fields where they differ) I'm going to measure.

[Ravage]

snew, my league tends to be... for lack of a better term... hypercompetitive. so a square here or there isnt the core issue so much as consistency. We like rules to be solid and defined, and uneven pitches altering the passing ranges leaves a bad taste in the mouth of most of my coaches (myself included). Which is why we moved to using the template I created which takes the passing rules to the letter of the law and gives us a static passing template to work with. For example, the Ruler is EXACTLY 13 squares long (in front of the thrower). Since the rules state that the ruler must entirely cover a square in order for it to be eligible/the current band and not the next band up, simple mathematics tells you that if you angle the ruler even one square diagonally at 13 squares away, that 13th square on the 2nd file CANNOT be entirely covered. Tilting the ruler means that SOME part of the square, no matter how small, is going to be uncovered, making it outside the Long Bomb range. Yet templates like the Musich-guys' template say you can throw LB's 13 squares long or 13x1 squares.

Like I said... mine is the most accurate I have ever seen for use on a fair pitch and in accordance with the rules. I tell people that, but hey they're free to use what they want. Make a range ruler that says every band is 2 squares long in my opinion - if your coaches want to play by those rules, good for them. But my league wants to play the game in what we feel is the "intended" way.

And snew... sure not every pitch is going to be the astrodome, but then again BB players wont be running around taking up one "square" on the pitch apiece either if we want to look at it from a real-world perspective.

[Snew]

I'm one of those that thinks "realworld perspective" needs to be kept out of the rules too. The mechanics work fine and they apply to everyone equally. You start trying to apply your perspective to how the rules should work and you may inadvertantly grant an edge to someone, as I think you've done with your range ruler. not a big deal but I still don't agree with it. That said, I'd happily play with your rules. You'd just see my playing a High Elf team and passing the ball just beyond where you can reach with your players on the ground. Fun would be had by everyone.

[Ravage]

my point isnt granting anyone an "edge" though - it's keeping a certain level of consistency to the game. I don't see you arguing the actual ranges of the template, just that we shouldn't use it everywhere on the pitch. But what I don't agree with is that a pass 7 squares long on one part of the pitch should be considered a short pass and the same 7-square pass should be considered a Long elsewhere on the pitch. It just doesnt make sense.

[Mo]

Variations from pitch to pitch are perfectly within the fluff of the game.

For the most part, my homemade pitches have 29mm squares. Except for one of the BB7s pitches, Ferryway Green, which accidentally wound up with 28mm deep squares between the 2 lines of scrimmage; and my streetbowl pitch, Baincroft Road, which deliberately got 27mm wide squares in the wide zones so it would fit on the boards I as painting.

I'd expect this range of vartiation on any custom pitch -- and I'd much rather play on cool custom pitches

Cheers,
Maureen

[Snew]

and I'd much rather play on cool custom pitches

Cheers,
Maureen

Me too!

[Ravage]

me three. But we're not even talking about custom pitches, we're talking about a poorly designed pitch that comes in the boxed set from GW which they couldnt even manage to make with perfect squares.

[mattgslater]

The variance in square size can be used to explain turf conditions. Just imagine that big squares represent level ground with good grass and no obstacles: you can cover a lot of ground on foot by comparison to the range of a pass. Smaller squares may represent mud puddles, rocks, uneven areas or deliberate obstacles: the ball goes just as far in the same amount of time, but the players don't.