Forced pick ups

[Marcus]

I simply don't think it's fair to our dwarvish BBowlers (amongst others) to have their carefully protected ball scattered out of their carefully crafted protection by below the belt strategies.

I was not angry since I came to France until this instant....

I wasn't going to pitch in on this thread because I have spent about 5 years arguing the forced pickups rule.

Kindly explain to me why a ball left on the ground and surrounded is a fair strategy and leaping or dodging in to scatter it loose is not. Please enlighten me as to how a coach who hasn't got the cojones to make a pickup roll and run with the ball, but rather stands around it leaning on his shovel while the clock runs down has the right to a rule whereby a tactical decision is forcibly removed from all coaches in violation of simple common sense.

If the ball is on the ground, it's anybody's Just because you stand around the goddamn thing does not mean it's "unfair" if someone scatters it loose. In fact, if you ask me you deserve it for being that cheap.

There is no reason whatsoever to fabricate a rule whereby BB players forget how to use their feet simply to allow power coaches to camp on the ball without picking it up.

Of course, having fabricated such a counterintuitive rule, we're all stuck with yet another asinine concept - forced catches - for the sake of "consistency". A rule that runs so counter to common sense that coaches have to abuse game mechanics to get around it.

The solution is not to change handoffs. The change to handoffs simply highlighted the fact that the rule was ridiculous in the first place.


I'm not going to get started on the whole forced pickups "Gall the Thrall" argument except to say this: Find me the coach who uses such "underhanded" tactics and I'll beat him. I'll play him 10 times and not drop a game. Mostly because the tactic is pants.

Every league I've had any input in has played without forced pickups or catches. Frankly, the games have been more fun because of it.

[Balrog]

Balrog,
That's fantastic that you haven't had a problem in the leagues you've been a part of. Unfortunately, there is a certain devious strategy or three which these coaches have either not seen, not stooped to, or you've been unphased by.

Which is all a good thing, but it's still not something which I'd advocate as a rule for all. I simply don't think it's fair to our dwarvish BBowlers (amongst others) to have their carefully protected ball scattered out of their carefully crafted protection by below the belt strategies.

More unphased by it, like any other change there is an adaptation period during which cageball players were howling and yammering, and elves and skaven were jumping for joy. But after a few games everyone adjusted fine and then we all realized that it made the game better.

If a team is silly enough to leave the ball lying there then they should pay the price. Of course Sure Hands becomes a more useful skill for hard hitting teams, but it was nice to see those same teams play the ball rather than the body.

Once a team has possession of the ball then they can hit all they want, but like in any ball related sport, control of it is key to winning.

-Balrog

[Balrog]

Forced pick-ups should be (and still is) "on" - wow the play could get nasty without :-/

It doesn't get nasty at all, and actually makes the game feel a little bit more realistic (yes, yes, BB can never be realistic, but you know what I mean).

-Balrog

[Casper]

I admit that nasty probably isn't the right - then beardy or whatever that has been mentioned.
But anyway, I would think it wrong for the sake of the game, that one could just keep stumping on the ball until in eventually ends up a favorable sqaure. Im still voting for forced pickups

[Balrog]

I admit that nasty probably isn't the right - then beardy or whatever that has been mentioned.
But anyway, I would think it wrong for the sake of the game, that one could just keep stumping on the ball until in eventually ends up a favorable sqaure. Im still voting for forced pickups

Or it ends up in the hands of an opposing player, or you fail a dodge and then it's turnover. It really isn't as easy as you think. Like I've mentionned, I've played this way in 3 different leagues and with a wide variety of players, and in the Oberwald it was one of the favourite rules interpretation. Really, try it for a few games and you'll see it makes the game better.

Unfortunately, as with most BB issues, the people woh have never tried it will be the people who will oppose it the most. I know this rule will never be made official, but I would really like to urge coaches to try playing a few games with no forced pickups. It takes about 3-4 games to get the hang of it.

-Balrog

[Babs]

Marcus,

Didn't mean to upset you there - innocent bystander that you were!

I don't think I'll weigh in on this - it seems like no matter what I say to present the opposing point of view, you'll be offended/not listen.

Maybe that's a completely wrong assumption (I don't know you at all) - but until I'm sure I won't get your goat again inadvertantly I'll sit it out.

If you do want to go over this rationally - happy to oblige.

[Marcus]

Sorry Babs, combination of bad day and being completely tired of 5 years of arguing this rule My apologies for the tone.

I've taken my medication today and am quite sanguine.

I'm still interested to hear a valid argument for forcing pickups. My points:

1: I disagree with forcing a player to take any given action. I reject arguments which state "this is what they would do" that is a rationalisation and not a reason. The Coach should make whatever choices he deems necessary for his players. A coach can choose to take a 1/3rd die block, can choose to run the wrong way down the pitch, he can choose not to pick up the ball.

2: The current state of rules leads to counterintuitive situations whereby coaches try to work around these "forced" actions in order to achieve what common sense dictates they should be able to. Examples from tournament play:

(a) Setting up blocks for a pushback onto the ball to scatter it, rather than just stepping onto it and rucking it out
(b) Using a reroll to try to fail a catch. (not directly related to pickups but highlights perfectly the silliness of forcing actions)

3: I disagree with the "Gall the Thrall" argument that it is a viable tactic to run over and over the ball trying to scatter it into someone's hands. The chances are remote at best, you need a large number of players and a large amount of open space and even then it's not certain. I'd rather take a rerolled pickup with an AG2 player than try this tactic. I don't think it's really a threat to the balance of the game.

4: I disagree vehemently with the assertion that a coach is disadvantaged by allowing opposing players to ruck the ball away. Standing around the ball should be a risky play. Choosing not to pick up the ball and just standing around it is a far cheaper tactic than "Gall the Thrall" any day of the week. If you don't have the guts to pick it up and run with it then you deserve the rucking wardancer coming your way. Keep pickups forced and you encourage not only a cheap tactic, but one that promotes stagnated and dull play. Keeping the ball moving by any means necessary is exciting play.

My understanding of the history of this ruling is as follows:

3rd ed rulebook said "May" pick up the ball. Some people interpreted this as saying you could stand over the ball and not pick it up (fun if you've got a treeman), others deemed it should scatter.

Discussion kicks off on the mailing list regarding people being forced to pick up the ball. Gall the Thrall sees first printing, book signings follow. Marcus beats his head against the wall as it becomes impossible to have a rational argument with anyone regarding this rule as Gall the Thrall becomes a rallying cry (Marcus was later seen to be rather rude on a Discussion forum due to latent frustration stemming from this era)

Of the above 1 and 2 state my argument for not forcing pickups. 3 and 4 are my rebuttal to the only arguments I've heard in favour of forced pickups. I would be very interested to hear any other arguments.

[Grumbledook]

Having never come across players using such tactics, I hadn't realized there was a problem. I've always taken it for granted that if i moved a player into the square that the ball is in, its because i wanted him to pick it up. If it was in lots of tackle zones then I would have to do my best to get rid of them.

I've never thought of moving a player into a square just to scatter it deliberatly, I suppose its like in rugby when players kick in front of them a bit so they can run onto it or a team mate can. Having never thought of this, forced pick ups didn't affect me in any way.

After reading macus' last post I can see the points against it and I agree with him, though i guess i would be annoyed if the ball was next to one of my players, someone ran in a player to force a scatter and it lands in the open and then another opponent player runs in for an easy pick up and score. Then again its a situation you have to guard against, maybe limit the number of times a player can do this a turn.

Also when does a player have to pick up the ball, if they are pushed back into the square with the ball form a block, do they have to pick it up, I can't see any other instance off the top of my head, other than when you volentarily move a player into the ball sqaure.

[Casper]

Marcus -> If a player is pushed into the ball, he cannot pick it up, and the ball scatters.

[Bevan]

I don't like forced pickups because it removes a choice the coach can make. We played for years with optional pickups and all the coaches preferred it. We would still use it as a house rule but we are trying to stick close to the official rules for this year.

An important reason not to make pickups compulsory is the related rule that a failed pickup is a turnover even if your team ends in possession of the ball. The two rules together encourage silly plays where both teams hope the other will try to pickup and fail, so they spend their time shoving other players around trying to move the ball without picking up.

If pickups worked the same as passes (no turnover if your team ends up holding the ball) then forced pickups would not matter quite as much.

Next season we will just house rule against forced pickups and forced catches to improve the game play.

[GalakStarscraper]

The MBBL3 played with no forced pickups and my old tabletop league did as well .... never found the problem with the ability to kick the ball.

I'm with the camp that says that if you didn't pick it up ... not their problem the ball is free game and your 5 dwarves should no better than to just admire the ball vs picking it up.

Now let's just be honest with the math. If you have two players and a ball next to one opponent of equal strength, you have a 67% of blitzing them away from the ball VS 62.5% of kicking the ball away from their TZ. Also I get to REROLL the 67% roll if I want ... I don't get to reroll the scatter of the 62.5%. Bottom line to me Babs with Stand Firm now a trait, kicking the ball around just doesn't isn't a big issue still and should be added back as a game strategy. Kicking the ball is fine in Rugby and Soccer .... doesn't make sense that BB has to be only based on American Football ..... actually to me it makes LESS sense that I cannot kick the ball as BB seems more like Rugby to me on many days than American Football.

Stand Firm was moved to a trait and Elves/Goblins/Halflings/Gutter Runners can no longer get it so the OLD abuse potential of not being forced to pick up the ball has been reduced significantly.

Gall the Thrall doesn't really exist anymore ... no reason for the rule related to it to really exist either.

Galak

[Dragoonkin]

I for one would like to try playing without forced catches or pickups...

I've seen too well the common Dwarf tactic of "stand around the ball and waste the whole half, then score on the last turn because the whole Dwarf team has Tackle and Guard".

I still remember the look on the Dwarf coaches' face when my Amazon Catcher Leapt into the big ring, picked up the ball, Blitzed a Dwarf, KNOCKED HIM OVER, and ran out to hand off the ball.

He nearly came over the table at me.

[Casper]

I have been converted (no not a miniature cenversion, hehe)

I started out thinking badly of optional pickups, arguing for forced pick ups, but after reading this thread I must admit, that the idea kind of sounds fair and interesting. Thanks guys for the inspiration (no not the handicap roll)

[Babs]

Marcus,

Thanks for coming to the party on this - and it's paid dividends - you can see that logical arguments win the day and that that your arguments have been clear and won people to your cause.

Being a very strong advocate of forced pickups I suppose I better weigh in and cop some slack.

For a start I don't advocate the 'this is what a player' line. Frankly, some of the players on the BB pitch don't have a brain (skeletons come to mind) and are merely minions of their lich priest or whatever. Clearly it's not about 'realism' but about avoiding beardy tactics.

While a pile of dwarves standing around looking at a ball in their midst is not truly exciting, you yourself have already pointed out the clear method to solve the situation: push one of _their_ players into the square with the ball - boomba - free scatter.

This is the crux of the issue - how easy should it be to get the ball to scatter as often as we like? Wouldn't we all love the opportunity to bounce the ball as often as we want until the ball finally comes to rest with a player on our own team? Well with optional pickups you can! All you need is a player (preferably with high movement, a bull centaur is a great example) who runs around and scatters the ball until you get a _free_ pickup roll - oh why? It's called a 'catch of a bouncing ball'. If that fails, hey presto it's not a turnover because it's a bouncing ball.

So you can sit around, moving your players and getting 'free' pickups when the ball scatters your way. Which is great! No longer worrying about low AG and failing that pickup on a 1 or 2 (or 3 if you're AG2).


Now it's not super easy to do - and scatters are random. But it's better than a turnover - and with enough movement it happens, or the ball has moved away from players. In such a case you just attempt the pickup and all that it lost is your player's movement.

I don't have any problems with a player stepping onto the ball and 'rucking' it out. I just think it should cause a turnover. Which is the way the current rules work.

Marcus wrote:

Choosing not to pick up the ball and just standing around it is a far cheaper tactic than "Gall the Thrall" any day of the week.

I actually agree with the sentiment behind this, as there is nothing worse than that 'unexciting' kind of game. But this tactic, if it can be called that, is far more prevalent as the kind of cage which has a player (preferably with block and high ST) standing in the middle of it with the ball. Elves even employ it sitting quietly by the end zone well away from anyone else with the ball.
Changing pickups won't solve that particualr problem. It's a far nastier monster. The fool who sits around with the ball on the ground doesn't play bloodbowl in my local area, because at worst there's a 1 in 6 chance to get the ball each attempt!

Free 'scatters' of the ball opens up the ball game, that is undeniable, howver it also opens up room for potential abuse. Having hosted major tournaments with large prizes and pride up for grabs, many coaches will stoop to any level to see the win in their column. The worst offender I have seen was actually, of all people, a wood elf coach who used the optional scatter rule brutally, to isolate the ball away from tackle zones and increase chances of pickups. The coach was a devastatingly good coach, and exploited every loop hole he could to advantage his team. This particular rule, combined with the poor fouling rules for this particular tournament, saw many coaches disgusted and never return to the tournament which I now run.

For your info, Gall the Thrall was a cool rallying cry for me because I loved the poetry behond the point. It made the point with style. I refer to it for it's humour value above the soundness of it's argument.

Admittedly, the Gall situation has been rectified thanks to a changing of Stand Firm. This has lessened greatly the reasons why forced pickups should be the rule in my mind, such to the poit where I could easily live with a team in a league of optional pickups.

When it comes to rules, the fundamental issue has to be about avoiding cheesy/beardy behaviour. You are correct in that optional pickups may help to prevent the 'cage', however that phenomenon will survive with equal force the other side. Optional pickups does, however, open up the scneario for a whole new set of dodgy tactics which uses player movement, not player agility, to get to the ball.

This is why I mentioned the dwarves - they are not only lacking in height, but agility _and_ movement!

Now I don't cast assertions too often, but I do notice that you are a skaven coach! Hence this advantage may be lost on you a little

To close, you do have good arguments. I don't want to belittle them, but there are counter arguemtns to most of them.

[Grumbledook]

This is unusual, a proper discussion with well thought out and vaild points on both sides. As I mentioned before I havn't been affected by this, its never crossed my mind to move a player into the ball square to deliberatly scattering it. I've always just tried to clear the space around the ball, guess I don't think enough ;]

Either way I am happy with forced pick ups and on the other side I was happy without them, guess it would be annoying for a player to keep on deliberatly scattering. Admittedly I have often blocked opponents to push them onto the ball, but thats a different matter.

Final thought, any coach that abuses rules to such an underhand degree, might just have to get fouled off the pitch, if you catch my drift ;]