Kick scatter idea

[tenwit]

The d6/d8 scatter for kicks has always bothered me. Too many spaces that the ball can never end up in, there's exactly the same chance of the ball ending up 6 squares from the target as 1 square from the target, and worst of all, the ball can never end up in the target square (unless you have Kick).

So I'm going suggest to my league that we play with the normal scatter rules instead of the kick scatter rules. Either the ball scatters six times (three if you use the Kick skill), or it scatters three times, moving two squares each time (one square if you use the Kick skill). This will cause the ball to have to same range of possible squares, but a much tighter group of probable squares.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Maybe a different way of covering the entire 13x13 area, including the centre square?

[Leilond]

Well... This rules will help the kicking team, making the possibility to land far from the intended square very low, thus it will become more rare to have and hand-off, thus the kicking team can put the ball in more difficult places with very few fear to see the ball out of the pitch

I don't know if it is good or not, nor I know if it will unbalance the game or not... but it is sure that it is a not marginal change and have to be tested intensively

[Igor Tahavanale]

I don't agree that all 169 possible squares aren't currently open to be kicked to, it all depends on the ball placement. Assuming that you kick the middle of the pitch the current method allows you to kick to the ball to any part of the pitch. The idea of changing the scatter direction three times decreases the likely deviation from the target of the kick by law of averages and so means that whilst every square has a chance of receiving the ball every area of the pitch other than the one you kicked to has far less chance than before.

At the end of the day there is a better way to get a wider range of kicking area options already - the "kick" skill. The skill is also devalued by this scatter idea by. I understand what you were trying the acheive, but in all honesty I don't see the need for it.

[Warpstone]

At the end of the day there is a better way to get a wider range of kicking area options already - the "kick" skill. The skill is also devalued by this scatter idea by. I understand what you were trying the acheive, but in all honesty I don't see the need for it.

Completely agree. In fact, you could even make a case that a normal kickoff needs to be made even less reliable in order to stress the importance of kick. Basically, if you care about ball placement, you really should spend a skill on it.

[tenwit]

I don't agree that all 169 possible squares aren't currently open to be kicked to, it all depends on the ball placement.

I meant that for a given placement, only 48 squares can possibly be landed on, not all 169. Sure you can get to the other 121 squares by choosing a different placement, but then you're missing out on a different 121 squares.

Still, I see what you and Warpstone say. I don't think that kicking needs to be quite as random as it currently is, but I agree that it needs to be much more random without the Kick skill than it is with it. I can come up with alternative ways of radomizing the scatter that are "fairer", but most of them are significantly more complicated.

I might try this compromise:
- Without Kick, the ball statters 1d6-1 squares (0-5). This makes the centre square 6x as likely as outer squares, and all other squares are equally likely. The possible number of squares is reduced from 48 to 41. Not perfect, but simple.
- With Kick, use the 3d8 scatter idea. Much more accurate than without Kick.

Seem like a more reasonable compromise? I really want to make the centre square a possibility in any case, and I'm ok with making it the most likely square. If nothing else, it means that there's a little more headology involved when the receiving team places its backfield receivers.

Edit: aww, can't edit the poll to add this option. Ah well, please comment instead.
Double-edit: I had to redo the scatter maths 5 times for the 48 -> 41 thing. I need another coffee.

[DoubleSkulls]

Scatting 6 times is very likely to end up within a couple of squares of the target square - so if you want "randomness" you need to reduce the number of dice rolled.

[tenwit]

Yep, I knew that and was originally OK with it. But Warpstone and He Who Must Have Beer have persuaded me to try the 1d6-1 thing from the previous post.

Kick-off is in under three hours. I'll let you know how it goes on Monday. Tootle-pip!