Movement

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:49 am

Has anyone ever been wondering about the fact that the movement radius is actually not a radius but a square?
Once I played in a league in which every 2nd diagonal movement consumed an extra point of movement. This measure made movement far more realistic and added strategic and tactical depth to the game.
And - contrary to what one might expect - the rule proved to not be complicated at all (neither to rookies nor to pros).

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:02 pm

This has been proposed before, but most people (including me) didn't like it because it adds unnecessary complexity.

Rune · Post by **Rune** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:04 pm

It's a well known fact, but I don't see it as a problem. Yes it is a bit unrealistic, but so are a lot of other things too.

One way to look at it, is that the field is not really rectangular (even though the board that represents it definately is)

Hieronymus · Post by **Hieronymus** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:24 pm

Rune wrote: One way to look at it, is that the field is not really rectangular (even though the board that represents it definately is)

I like that explanation. After all it´s the Blood Bowl.

I don´t like the idea of introducing "realistic" diagonal movement either. The question is: What does it add to the game?
If you wanted to introduce this, it might be more practicable, to introduce free movement, like in most wargames (ignoring the grid and measuring movement with tape measure).

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:44 pm

This has been proposed before, but most people (including me) didn't like it because it adds unnecessary complexity.

Well, I've actually played with that rule for two season. As I said, complexity inreased by approximately zero.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:50 pm

Well, if you enjoy it as a house rule, fine, but chances of getting it excepted by the powers that be are approximately zero

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:56 pm

Geeze, of course not. Not in ten thousand years.
But I'd been there! I'd seen it! Worked smoothly.
Now, measuring with tape, THAT would be complicated.

zeroalpha · Post by **zeroalpha** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:37 am

simplicity is key to this game, while your suggestion is a valid one, basing logic on reality and then applying it to this particular game will quickly leave you in the nut haouse!

Which would be why so many of us love the game

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:32 am

zeroalpha wrote:simplicity is key to this game, while your suggestion is a valid one, basing logic on reality and then applying it to this particular game will quickly leave you in the nut haouse!

Which would be why so many of us love the game

"Simplicity"?

We played with that for 2 seasons, and from the first drive on it was not even the least bit more complicated, neither for rookies nor for pros.
Anybody posting that this would be more difficult in any way simply has not played one single turn with that rule. That's a fact. Anyhow, this forum's called "new concepts", so if anybody outwhere should ever have wondered if this concept might work: Yes, it does. Much better than you'd expect. Most people will totally reject such an idea without a second thought, of course, we belong to the human race, after all.

Well, that's the way it is, as Zephoid might comment.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:58 am

Sorry about us sounding so negative here. It's not really because of your idea (i think), but has more to do with the fact that the exact same rule has been proposed on another thread not long ago. You should try using the search function.

Cervidal · Post by **Cervidal** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 6:49 am

A bit off topic, but... I don't think playing Blood Bowl using inches would be that difficult to work out. I've played a fair bit of Mechwarrior stuff converting the measurements out to an inches scale, and it worked pretty well.

We had to use the inch scale, by the way, because of a lack of variety in terrain.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:33 pm

Personally, I don't like the implications that suggestion would have on player maneuverability. My gut-feeling would be that given the lower MA of lower teams their mobility would be hurt proportionally more than teams with high MA - after all they often do not move their entire allowance, while dwarves and the like are constantly moving as much as they can.