Receiving Team Should Setup First

MadLordAnarchy · Post by **MadLordAnarchy** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:35 am

It occurred to me recently that the kicking team should not be the ones setting up first and that getting the ball, moving first, and setting up second is such an advantage as to drastically reduce the tactical element of the game from where it could be.

I appreciate realism doesn't play a part in BB logic but defence is a response to the offence in most sports yet BB reverses this. The offence still has the advantage as deciding how to attack and having the initiative is still significant enough to make attack easier than defence.

Having blindly accepted the standard format for years, it'd probably be too much of a shock but given I've ignored loads of the other rules for a while now I'm considering whether to make this change round my way.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 am

This would basically mean you always got Perfect Defence. Think about how killer that can be some of the time, A lot of the time. It would effectively remove ST3 + AG3 teams from the game, since they could never cope with a strong or bashy team lining up against them on the LoS.

Maybe there is room for a skill that allows a player to alter his positioning on defence once the opposing team have set up though?

Leipziger · Post by **Leipziger** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:45 am

I think it works fine as it tbh. It is not really out of kilter with real life sports . The receiving team has to respond to what the kicking team is doing, so it makes sense that the kicking team set up first.

Also, as joe points out - it is just like always getting perfect 'd', which is a real pain in the ass for the receiving side.

Cheers

Leip

MadLordAnarchy · Post by **MadLordAnarchy** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:54 am

Leipziger wrote:I think it works fine as it tbh. It is not really out of kilter with real life sports . The receiving team has to respond to what the kicking team is doing, so it makes sense that the kicking team set up first.

I'm not sure what sport that it is in kilter with. Playing BB and then seeing settling in for some NFL is what cause this to occur to me. That and the fact that most offences by a player of reasonable standard are unstoppable even to my defensive-focussed approach.

Post by **voyagers_uk** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:57 am

I think MLA is onto something and would go one further. both teams should start back from halfway (say 5 squares). This would eliminate OTS and also restrict stalling as the cage will have to move quicker to get down that end.

tactically this would make a lot of sense.

The whole LOS face off thing to start a match is unrealistic on so many levels. Sort of like GW used to insist all armies on a battlefield were the same points value and blah blah other restrictions that allowed Space Marines to win and reinforce the franchise.

We could get back to classic moves like the Bright Crusaders "Left Hook"

and a whole new wave of strategy could be formed, different tactics - the "whole 9 yards" instead of just 1.......

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:05 am

Very interesting. Sort of like BB 7s?

Defending would be a whole heap easier of course. Once I'm off the LoS with a full team I'd always back my chances to prevent the score, even for a whole half. It is only by tying people up around the LoS that the receiving coach creates the gaps.

Maybe give the receiving coach three Blitz actions on his first turn to replace those LoS blocks?

Rab · Post by **Rab** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:06 am

@voyagers_uk

Hmmm - while I can see the appeal of this, it would effectively bring full BB into a BB7s but with further to run. I run a BB7s league for my school and we've found that this gives a disproportionate advantage to AG4 teams as they get a free start to the drive without getting punched. Accordingly we've seen pro-elves win each season (roughly ten games) with the bashy teams unable to catch up by the time they have developed.

I would not like to see this implemented.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:08 am

@voyagers - like 2nd edition.

Post by **voyagers_uk** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:14 am

I will be honest up front... I have never played 7's

however I though that part of the appeal of 7's was that 7 players could less effectively cover the pitch (despite the reduction in size).

with both teams starting at LOS -5

As an AG side
you will need to probably go three turns to score even if you are an agility team. so that is 2 turns with your receivers in the crumple zone I would not be best pleased to have to do that, hence the tactical challenge

As a Bashy side
you will no doubt cage up at LOS -2/3 and then drive forward, it will give the opponent time to get a defensive wall up and make the play harder.

Less Blow-outs (doubtful you'd ever see more than 5 -0 again) and more blood. proper bloodbowl again

Post by **voyagers_uk** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:15 am

Darkson wrote:@voyagers - like 2nd edition.

never played that either, seems like a good idea though.

Keep LRB 5 teams and skills
Use 2ed pitch and set-ups

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:07 pm

voyagers_uk wrote:I will be honest up front... I have never played 7's

I can confirm what Rab said.

BB7's massively favours AG 4 teams.

Galak

Post by **voyagers_uk** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:12 pm

Did 2ed favour AG4 teams?

Rab · Post by **Rab** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:30 pm

To go off topic slightly, but still on alternative kick-offs, how about a more rugby style restart. By which I mean (and to rip off antipixi's recent elfball skill suggestion) that the ball doesn't land until the end of the next turn i.e. at the end of the kicking player's first turn. This would encourage (I think) a more conservative ball guarding start and a more reckless dash for the ball from the kicking team.

I'm typing as I think here, so it might be complete tosh what I've just written.

Post by **voyagers_uk** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:54 pm

Having teams set back 5 squares back would allow tactical kicking. i.e. short or long with short giving you the opportunity to try and get the ball should a blitz kick off result.

or long to try and pin the receiving team back further for their starting point.

Kick as a skill would have even more impact, with kick off return as a counter

IF I was actually playing at the moment, I would be very keen to playtest this.

MadLordAnarchy · Post by **MadLordAnarchy** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:47 pm

Rab wrote:To go off topic slightly, but still on alternative kick-offs, how about a more rugby style restart. By which I mean (and to rip off antipixi's recent elfball skill suggestion) that the ball doesn't land until the end of the next turn i.e. at the end of the kicking player's first turn. This would encourage (I think) a more conservative ball guarding start and a more reckless dash for the ball from the kicking team.

I'm typing as I think here, so it might be complete tosh what I've just written.

I'm going to be adding a new kicking element to my league next year and I was thinking about kick off variants. This might be a little powerful (reminiscent of High Punt) but is the sort of thing I'm thinking about.

I've not yet worked out whether I'm in favour of setting up away from one another. I'm still in favour of receiving team setting up first though I doubt I'll be bringing it in during the next year because it's such a change.

v_uk if you're still in the same BB lacking position come spring, we should talk.