Neoliminal's Incremental Go For Its

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 9:14 pm

Acerak I like your idea.
And combinated with the Mc Beth's "two players in the move" it could be really cool. It requires some test.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 8:06 am

Chet is getting really close already. I'm going to test the following version. I changed the 6 to 5 in the second tweak - 5+ is random enough, 6 is simply too much, IMO.

"After the half ends, roll a D6. On a roll of 1-3, the game ends as normal. On a roll of 4 or more, however, the game is in "extra time." Each side takes one more turn, after which you should roll the D6 again, with the effects described above.
In addition:
1. The half ends immediately as soon as one side scores.
2. For any D6 roll after the first, the game continues only on a roll of 5."

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 11:37 am

Hi guys,
I like where this is going, but I'm a bit concerned about the length of the matches. I think I've got a pretty good alternative solution.

What we're really trying to do is make sure that no half ends with a 1 turn drive. The fact that this makes the "grind and refuse to score" tactic less appealing is just a fortunate side effect.

As long as end drives are 2-turn, then everybody should have a fair shot at a TD. Sure, slow teams like dwarfs may be hard pressed - but it isn't impossible.

So here's my idea:
Ever wonder why so much seems to happen in the dying seconds of the match?

*Whenever a team scores, and the opposing teams turn marker is exactly on turn 7, extra time kicks in. This means that the half has 9 turns.

*Once extra time has kicked in for the half, the match ends either at the end of the 9th turn (for both teams), or when a touchdown is scored - unless that touchdown would also cause extra time to kick in. (Which is only possible if the team has a 1-turn-scorer).

That's it

In case you are concerned that this will make matches longer, I suggest 2 ways of dealing with this:
1) Extra time is always frantic. For any 9th turn, the timer should be set to just 2 minutes.

or (more radical)
2) BB halfs are reduced to 7 turns. Extra time kicks in with a turn marker on 6th turn. In effect, this will make the 8th "square" on the turn track the "extra time square".

Martin

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 11:50 am

We should discuss Extra Time in a seperate topic and see how far the rule is developed.

I am 100% for the Maximum of only 1 Extra Turn;
Turn 8 should be the Extra Turn !

Extra Time = Turn 8

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:08 pm

plasmoid wrote:*Whenever a team scores, and the opposing teams turn marker is exactly on turn 7, extra time kicks in. This means that the half has 9 turns.

Why not change this so that if you receive a kick-off immediately prior to your 8th turn you play an extra turn?

This guarantees 2 turns to score, but ensures there is only 1 chance to do so per half.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:33 pm

Too much with the moving the goalposts. It's 16 turns each. That's where the line is drawn. Yes this will have in-game effects like loose turns at the end. Most sports do anyway.

You could chase the needle on this forever but I don't think it'd get you very far.

For the record I like 1 turn TD chances, gfis and loose turns exactly how they are.

Marcus

Post by **Thadrin** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:03 am

I'm with the muppet.
Whats wrong with the 16 turns as is?
I can't see any ideas I would want to use here.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:33 pm

If it was more like on a roll of 3-6 turn 8 is NOT played it would slightly speed up the game and be extra time as well....

Furelli · Post by **Furelli** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:37 pm

Back to the incremental gfi's. If we don't like 2+, 3+, ... as this makes the second gfi harder then how about 2+, 2+, 4+, 4+, 6+, 6+, 6+, ... with sprint giving +2 to any one gfi roll.

Furelli.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:39 pm

Actually when you look at the propabilities i posted above, Neo's rule is absolutely ok.

Is just a matter of "feeling".

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:44 pm

Furelli wrote:Back to the incremental gfi's. If we don't like 2+, 3+, ... as this makes the second gfi harder then how about 2+, 2+, 4+, 4+, 6+, 6+, 6+, ... with sprint giving +2 to any one gfi roll.

Furelli.

Yeah, let's keep this thread focused on the pGFI.

That's an interesting idea Furelli. We haven't seen a significant problem with the second GFI. Either you need to make it or you don't.

Ask the people who have actually played with the rule how it feels and I think you'll get a clear view that 2+, 3+, 4+... is fine. The speculations on the effect of this rule have run the full spectrum, from making Dwarves too powerful to destroying the Skaven's advantage. After playing this rule for almost a full year I can say that the rule is better and that it isn't the drastic change that it's detractors would have you believe.

Try a game of it and you'll see for yourself.

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Sat Aug 17, 2002 1:42 am

Well, neo, I played only half an e-mail game against you and the rule gave you a bad turnover because of a 3+ GFI and a casualty because of one of those endzone sprints that somehow make the last turn worthwhile for you (I think those sprints are as worthless as extra blocks). Granted, that's not a lot of playtesting, but I'm one of the people who have actually played with the rule and I didn't like how it felt.

PGFI is one of things that some people know they won't like without trying. For example, I've never tried homosexual sex, and I don't think I have to. Sure, most of the people who tried it probably enjoyed it, but that doesn't mean it should be the standard way to have sex.

Pink Horror

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 17, 2002 1:58 am

Pink Horror wrote:Well, neo, I played only half an e-mail game against you and the rule gave you a bad turnover because of a 3+ GFI and a casualty because of one of those endzone sprints that somehow make the last turn worthwhile for you (I think those sprints are as worthless as extra blocks). Granted, that's not a lot of playtesting, but I'm one of the people who have actually played with the rule and I didn't like how it felt.

I don't remember, did you even try to pGFI? Or did you just watch me do it twice?

One thing I did notice is that PBEM doesn't convey the same feeling as Face to Face does. There's a great tension when someone is pGFI'ing that doesn't translate when you get the whole turn as a lump sum. (which I mentioned to you.)

As for the homosexual sex... I think that has less to do with pGFI than it does your own perverted mind.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Fri Oct 18, 2002 10:20 pm

Has this idea gone any futher? Has it been playtested futher? I'd be interested to know as I am starting a PBeM team and working out the conversions for a TT skaven team.

Cervidal · Post by **Cervidal** » Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:20 am

We've used it in the OBL since the moment JKL came up with it.

I've only ever seen it lead to one touchdown that shouldn't've normally happened. I scored it with a skink to end a half, at 3 3+ dodges (he had Tacklers, too), 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, and I failed the 2+ and had to use my Sure Feet reroll then.

Aside from that one moment where JKL, my poor opponent at the time, nearly throttled me, there has not been a dramatic increase in scoring because or the rule (as far as I've seen) and one coach, a rather successful Skaven player, even noted that it actually makes it MORE difficult to one turn score, forcing MA10 Gutter runners to usually to 2+, 3+, 4+ on the GFI's, rather than 2+, 2+, 2+.

Personally, I actually use fewer GFIs because the second one is a 3+, a much bigger risk. I've had to play more conservatively on defense because I don't want to have to start depending on 3+ rolls.

Talk Fantasy Football

Neoliminal's Incremental Go For Its

It has been tested