The Rule of Diagonals

[IONDragonX]

The Rule of Diagonals
-The four primary directions (N,S,E,W) on the board are counted as 1 square of distance. The four diagonal directions (NE, SE, SW, NW) are counted as 1.5 squares of distance, floating the fractions until they are whole numbers. For example, a normal MA 6 could move six squares North or 4 squares NE. Perhaps NE once, North three times, then NW.

This is simple geometry. Doesn't it bother anybody else that a player can run 50% faster at a 45* angle than he can at a 90* angle. Doesn't it bother anybody else that a throw goes 66% the length of a run does at a 45* angle?! Why would the range ruler and the movement rules be in direct contradiction to each other?! One system takes triangles into account while the other has no idea what mathematics is at all...

I don't see any reason why this can't be done. I've heard the arguement that people can't keep count of the floating fraction. That sounds like a cop-out to me. It takes very little practice and I'd rather give game players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their intelligence.

I heard long ago that this has already been suggested, but I can't find it in this forum for the last two years or more...

What are the benefits? Well, playing to win becomes more important. Its harder to cover your mistakes, especially for low MA teams. Strong players are much harder to circumvent when they are in the way. Its harder to make a one turn score. A good kick is worth a lot more than ever. Overall, coaches may actually start playing something like football...

Edit a quote from a following post:

Actually, back when I started up a league when 2e came out, the first house rule we implemented was a much simpler version of this proposal and we all liked it very much. The easy version is:
* Double everybody's MA.
* Moving in a straight line costs 2.
* Moving Diagonally costs 3.
The only reason why I'm not using this as a house rule now is because there's such a great tournament circuit these days, so I want to keep the rules close to what will be used when travelling to a tourney.
Yes, it changes the game. Yes, Skaven Runners are still a lot of fun. I'd be very happy if this were official.
Cheers, Maureen

[David Bergkvist]

I don't see any reason why this can't be done. I've heard the arguement that people can't keep count of the floating fraction. That sounds like a cop-out to me. It takes very little practice and I'd rather give game players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their intelligence.

Being bad at performing simple double digit additions in ones head is not a sign of lack of intelligence, but a sign of a poor short-term memory. While one can train ones short-term memory, being good at that kind of things is not what BB is about.

What are the benefits? Well, playing to win becomes more important. Its harder to cover your mistakes, especially for low MA teams. Strong players are much harder to circumvent when they are in the way. Its harder to make a one turn score. A good kick is worth a lot more than ever. Overall, coaches may actually start playing something like football...

All those things can be achieved by simply reducing players' MA.

[GalakStarscraper]

Was going to comment ... but the poll result already speaks loudly enough for whatever I was going to add.

Galak

[antipixi]

I agree that moving diagonally at the same cost as horizontally or vertically is inaccurate, but changing the rules to accommodate this would seriously slow down the game.

I'd be interested if any one tried it just how much difference it makes. But I can see a lot more confusion occurring than beneficial reality.

[sgtspiff]

One of the best aspects of blood bowl is that you don't need to spend a lot of time to move your minis (compared to WHFB or 40k). This speeds up the games. So even though it's a good proposal it will hurt the game to much timewise.

[wesleytj]

Totally against the proposal. Sure it makes logical sense that it's a longer distance going diagonally. But BB requires a certain suspension of disbelief, and nobody wants to screw with counting squares diagonally.

And this is from an elf/skaven coach, who would presumably benefit most from this type of rule, because we'd have the movement advantages to make it work out.

[ttias]

nah. just ad some fluff about the green field's suffering from non-linear geometry due to chaos influence instead

[Lofwyr]

Why 1,5 Movement-Points?
Thats inacurate too.

Why not 1,4142135623730950488016887242097 Movementpoints

One Point in all directions is just fine.
It´s like the rest of bloodbowl: It´s not realistic but easy to remember - but it´s damn hard to master

Tobi

[Snew]

Why not 1,4142135623730950488016887242097 Movementpoints

One Point in all directions is just fine.
It´s like the rest of bloodbowl: It´s not realistic but easy to remember - but it´s damn hard to master

Tobi

I thought it but didn't want to say it. The poll is pretty clear.

[Gumbo]

Wow, we all just got a whole lot more beardy

Is this thread on a chess forum somewhere?????

[Darkson]

No, no, no and no.

Next you'll be asking for fumble and scatter rolls BEFORE interceptions.

Each square is suppposedly about 10 yards square (or something like that) - should we start marking the co-ordinates to show which part of the square they're in? And why does one snotling take up as much room on the pitch as one Ogre?

It's a game mechanic, designed for game play. It's not meant to be realistic.


(Oh, and i think you might fnd the old discussion if you search for hex pitches - I seem to recall they got brought up.)

[IONDragonX]

If no one cares about diagonals, then why not toss them out completely? Why not use squares for range?
Quick Pass = 3 squares
Short Pass = 6 squares
Long Pass = 10 squares
Long Bomb = 13 squares

Why not have it both ways, eh? Think about it. Every objection that you have to replacing the range ruler with squares is the same argument as using diagonals for movement.

[Darkson]

How do you work out interceptions?

[IONDragonX]

How do you work out interceptions?

The same way that dodges are now. Without using diagonals for movement, you actually roll a lot less dodges to get where you want to go. Every time you argue against diagonals, you are arguing against the logic of the range ruler (ie triangles).

Most of the responses have been how people feel and their thinking behind their defenses is "its a game mechanic" (ie its always been that way/I don't care). I'm not asking people to defend their hobby, they will play how ever they want. I'm asking them to open up and actually think. A genuine formation and technique would become more important than putting players all the way across the LoS (like Khemri can pull off).

The argument that says that people don't have enough short term memory to do this are greatly overestimating its difficulty. Its really very easy after practising it a few times. Plus, how many bits of information do you actually have in your mind when taking a turn. It must be over 100. Literally. There are huge amounts of info that fans of the game have committed to memory.

[Darkson]

How do you work out interceptions?

The same way that dodges are now. Without using diagonals for movement, you actually roll a lot less dodges to get where you want to go. Every time you argue against diagonals, you are arguing against the logic of the range ruler (ie triangles).

What? You've lost me now! Why does making you pay 1.5 squares to move diagonally make you roll less dodges (apart from the fact you can't move so far)? And what has that got to do with interceptions?


And what about the questions I asked in my previous post? Are you going to remove all those game mechanics as well?
If so, with what?
If not, why this one and not the others which don't make real-life sense?