Interception rule improvement

[gandresch]

Hi,

I already posted in the Rules-section. Now I want to show an alternative rule for measuring interceptions, that clears up with the problems I had in the other post.
The main problem ist, that there are uncertain situations, because the range ruler has to go through the middle of the field of the thrower and the catcher. Even a slight difference in "measuring the middle" can make a difference between intercepting or not.
So the rules are clear, but the process in practice isn't.
For this new kind of measurement you only need the range ruler, so it can easily be used with a standard game and also be used with bigger (self made) boards, where you perhaps aren't sure if the (mostly) bigger range ruler is in wide exactly the proportion of the original one.

Now, the interceptions are measured from the center of the squares. So i asked myself, why not take the corners of the square? The corners are marked on each board and not like the "invisible middle" of a square in the eye of the beholder. This would make measurement a lot more clearly and leads to an easy procedure:
W is for thrower (german Werfer)
F is for catcher (german Fänger)
but it doesn't really matter, who is thwrowing and who is catching the ball.
1. Where are catcher and thower standing?
2. Choose the corners of the squares, that are at the farthest outside and connect them. In the graphics, these corners are connected with lines.
3. Each field, that is intersected by one line or touched (in 1 point as in graphic 3 or as part of a segment as in graphic 2) can intercept.



You can use everything, that looks like a matrix somehow to measure interceptions besides the board. Even with your eye, by regarding the line from one corner to the other you can easily check, if the square of the opposing player is touched or intersected.
I proposed this new method for our tabletop league and i am sure, it works a lot better than the old rule. Perhaps it is not 1:1 equal, but therefor it's clear right now and can controlled by everyone in a very easy way.

Greetz,
gan

[Grumbledook]

I like this, combined with the throwing range chart as well we can do away with the range ruler and all the ambiguity that comes with it.

Not to mention the hassle of storing it flat, we already don't use the throw in and scatter template.

Shame this is posted in the house rules section though, I rarely visit here (most stuff in here I find a waste of time tbh ;] )

I'd be behind making a push for people using this as standard.

[voyagers_uk]

Well... I agree with Grum (except about the waste of time)

this is clear and easy to understand.

[plasmoid]

Actually - this makes a lot of sense.

[GalakStarscraper]

I would propose a modification because actually I see squares in question with example #1 for sure as per his definition.

Try this instead.

When throwing a diagonal pass, draw a line between the two closest corners of the thrower and the catcher. Any square adjacent to a square crossed by this line at any point is a legal square to intercept from. If the pass is straight in terms of the row or columns of the board than any square adjacent to the squares between the thrower and catcher are legal squares to intercept from.

Note this will now allow players directly beside the thrower or catcher to now intercept ... but I'm okay with that.

Just a thought because there are several squares marked not in red on the #1 example above that I think meet his definition for being red.

Tom

[gandresch]

Hi,

i thought about the idea of one line between the two nearest corners. But I really like the idea of not thinking and a clear result. Then 2 lines are better.
But you usually use only one of them, because the interceptor can only stand on one of the sides or right between thrower and catcher. This means, that it's clear, that he can intercept (right between) or that only one of the lines is of interest. And that is exactly what you wrote. But the idea of measuring from corner to corner is a lot better than the original rule.

I kept some squares out in a thought of manner. Fields, that are only touched in a corner (so in just one point of the square) are only taken, if the point of the line, that is touched by the square is not its starting and not its ending point. This wouldn't make any sense to me and leads to strange interceptor positions. So I kept them out totally.

Greets,
gan

[GalakStarscraper]

I kept some squares out in a thought of manner. Fields, that are only touched in a corner (so in just one point of the square) are only taken, if the point of the line, that is touched by the square is not its starting and not its ending point. This wouldn't make any sense to me and leads to strange interceptor positions. So I kept them out totally.

The problem is that that text you just wrote would be very confusing to many and without it you do not get the red squares that you showed above.

Galak

[Daddy_Thorg]

I like gandresch's version because it is simple and plausible. You can decide an interception by a simple look or by drawing a line on squared paper. Plus: only the fields which are intuitively between thrower and catcher are allowed to intercept. In the original rules there are some interception positions I wouldn't have expected by looking at the board.

For the first example you can see that Galak's proposal gives you the same result as the range ruler method. It looks like both methods do nearly the same while Galak's method is easier to handle. Anyway there are some interception positions which seem odd to me, it looks like the interceptor would have to use something like diving catch from there to get a finger on the ball. gandresch's proposal omits these positions and is even easier.

[GalakStarscraper]

I know your LRB6 picture is incorrect for the red but I don't have a board with me to correct it. If someone could correct that picture that would be nice as its definitely not correct for the red squares.

My method said adjacent to any square the line passed through (adjecent includes diagonals) so I fixed mine.

Also underneath the currently stated method for Gandresch you need to include the green squares unless he wants to expand on it further. I only point this out because I spent so many years watching rules I wrote get misinterpreted and as he wrote in the first post the green includes squares that I would say can intercept based on his text. I know a couple posts back he expanded but that was not in lanague that could be used in a rulebook. So I need him to restate his entire rule and we'll see if it works. But using the definition he used in his first post of this is the interception layout (include the green squares).

I'd like to see the fixed LRB 6.0 red squares so that I could compare the results.

I know the method I threw out gives a few more interception squares ... I was okay with that for the simplicity of the method I was offering.

Tom/Galak

[gandresch]

Hi,

I like both ideas and both are much better than the original one. I am not quite sure, if your image is correct, too
When regarding the two squares in the middle, that are only touched by the line, they have a square next to them, that is not marked red. And i am not sure, if this is intended.

But one thing more: If a square is touched or intersected by the line, then only neighbour-squares with an edge to the original one are used for interception, right? If diagonals count, too, then you have to go through the graphics again, because there are some mistakes in it. Perhaps at this point, we should make some rules for that and then rebuild our graphics the way, that is right.
So let's think about this one-line-idea:
1. Draw a line between the two nearest edges of the thrower's and the catcher's square.
2. Each square, that is hit or touched by this line is marked red.
3.1 Each neighbour of a square marked red in step 2 is marked red, no matter if it is connected to a red marked square by an edge or diagonal to it.
3.2 Each neighbour of a square marked red in step 2 is marked red, if it is connected to a red marked square by an edge.

I have drawn that with and w/o diagonals. Look here:



What do you think? Ok ... the area for interceptions is growing , but the rule is easy.
In my idea, we have the slight problem with the squares right at the beginning or ending of the lines. Here we have the problem, that the area for interceptions is a lot bigger than intended. But not it's really getting really equal to the idea i had.

For my images, i don't promise any completeness. There might be mistakes in it. I just wanted to show the principle of the idea. The images in this post are checked at least 2 times.

Greets,
gan

[Darkson]

I dunno - I never had an issues with the "official" method (in those cases where we weren't sure, we always allow the interception attempt, wheter it works in our favour or against). Without a spreadsheet (or similar) handy, I can see something as arbitury as "draw a line between" causing similar aguements.

And (I think I'm recalling correctly here) part of the reason that the interception rules were changed/reworded was because some people found it unrealistic ( ) that people behind the thrower and/or catcher could have an interception attempt, which this will allow, so that might go against it.

[gandresch]

Hi,

ok, i rethought that. I think the one-line-rule is better than the original, but the 2 line-rule makes it easier and more plausible. I'll draw one more and then i'll explain it.



What have i done here. The two lines from the corners still remain and I added a line from the center of the thrower's square to the center of the catcher's one. Now it is easy to see, that every player, that is in a red marked square is nearer than 1 square to the path of the ball. So every player, who's square is nearer than 1 movement to the ball, can intercept. If the square isn't hit by one of those two lines, the player is simply to far away ... it's out of his tackle zones. So he can't intercept.
I left out the squares right at the beginning of each line, that only have the starting or ending point with one of the two lines in common. Those squares disturb the catcher or thrower but are not able to intercept. So the first square, that can intercept the ball for each line, is the one, that is intersected or has a common edge with one of the lines. In intuition this is easy to handle.

Another problem we have is easy to explain:
Everyone knows, that BB players can walk straight or diagonal - have usually 8 squares they can move to. Every move costs 1, although the diagonal movement is not equal to 1 but equal to sqrt(2). When you see the picture above, you have to imagine, that all distances, no matter if diagonal or right ahead always have the distance of 1 movement, because the movement is measured like that. Then the center of each square is further away than one movement and therefor the player can't intercept. We can talk hours here. Mathematics won't work, because BB itself makes some of the problems. I hope this makes sense to you

Greets,
gan

[GalakStarscraper]

Gan ... how would you actually word the rule for your last example. Its one thing to show it ... its another to show the wording you would actually propose should go in a rulebook to see if it can be understood.

Galak

[Daddy_Thorg]

"Draw two lines from the leftmost corner of the throwers square to the leftmost corner of the target square and from the rightmost corner of the throwers square to the rightmost corner of the target square. Every field between these squares which is intersected by one of these lines is eligible for an interception. Borders and corners belong to all adjacent fields."

But there are situations with this system that don't look plausible to me:

[gandresch]

Hi,

yes, that's true. The situations you have shown here are right ... and? In the first case all of the squares left and right from the direct line are exactly 1 movement away from the path the ball will take. In the other case, they aren't. So this is ok.

Greets,
gan