Forced pick ups

[DoubleSkulls]

Babs,

Try playing a couple of games this way (friendlies so no one complains!).

Try your suggestions - it just doesn't work in practice. You either don't have enough free players or if you do then you leave yourself in a much worse position.

What you'll find out is that coaches are more interested in picking up the ball and don't play of for the free pickup - because your position is much worse if the ball is left on the ground.

Ian

[Babs]

Ian,

I have seen them in action used to devastating consequences. In person. Admittedly not undet the current ruleset, but many of the strategies used still hold.

I'd love to have the time to be able to run an online game with people to show them the scenarios firsthand - but I dont have the time right now and am unlikely to have any until January.

Happy to wait until then? I can book in the date and time now!

Putting my money where my mouth is,

[Marcus]

Played the fearsome Mike Wilkinson's Chaos Dwarves in an ECBBL league game last night. After turning the ball loose from the cage I was left with a 3 TZ pickup to try to get the ball loose. I took the risk and rucked the ball out, hoping he'd fail the 6+ catches and leave the ball in the open where my thrower could get to it. It scattered back into the ruck. I blocked a player on to the ball to try again and it landed in 1 TZ. Failed the dodge out to pick it up and he regathered.

I don't think there was any unfair advantage in this play - I took a gamble to try to gain some initiative on the drive. Could easily have gone the other way and Mike certainly wouldn't have complained as (a) I'd turned the ball loose and (b) his formation was strong enough to make it difficult for me to consolidate.

It occured to me that if his team had a couple of Stand Firm players it would have been practically impossible for me to get the ball loose from his cage, even having blocked the ball carrier. He would just need to stand around it and I'd have no chance of regathering. I'd be standing guys next to the ball to try to prevent him regathering - a costly biffing war would ensue and we'd both just sit there hammering each other until someone failed a dice roll.

By moving in to ruck the ball I took a gamble - I put my fate in the hands of nuffle and hoped for an edge I could exploit. It highlighted the contrast of team styles perfectly: Fast and loose Skaven vs slow, controlled Chaos Dwarves. Without that opportunity the only way I could have got the ball out was with an lucky pickup. Now, if I had got the ball out of the ruck and scored, I'm almost certain Mike would have praised the play as a good gamble (we're both poker players and appreciate that kind of thing). Had I just made the lucky pickup he would have been cursing my jammy dice.

I think the availability of the rucking play made for a far more exciting game.

[Babs]

Marcus wrote:

I think the availability of the rucking play made for a far more exciting game.

But from the example, you turned the 3 TZ situation into a 1 TZ pickup. You used the 'non-forced' pickups to your advantage.

Which shows that you do use it. Whether you yet use the rule to it's full advantage or not is yet to be seen, by my eyes at least. I would suspect not, given your negative comments about running after the 'bounce-pickup' - which is clearly another big benefit to the rule if it can work for you.

All plays with 'non-forced' pickups are gambles. Probability is the name of BB. The question is about game balance and 'fair' play (all intangible undefinable non-clear cut concepts)

The old 3rd Ed. fouling rules had a chance it could backfire on you - if you rolled doubles. There was the chance it would be bad for your situation. However, most people agree tha tthe old fouling rules were really cheesy and needed fixing, because the benefit far outweighed the disadvantage.

Non-forced pickups is subjective, admittedly. However I believe it is in the same box as the old fouling rules - the ability to use it to your advantage far outweigh the disadvantages. As a result I don't think it's worth having in the BB game.
Some people think fouling 3rd Ed style should be a normal part of the game - and keep the old fouling rules. They claim the old fouling rules 'make for a far more exciting game'. Let them, but it shouldn't be part of the official ruleset.

[Milo]

I found this thread as a result of a discussion about Gall The Thrall on the NAF staff mailing list. I came here expecting to simply come out in favor of forced pickups, but after reading it I'm no longer as sure.

Let me make one thing clear -- I was ALWAYS in favor of forced pickups in the past. LRB changes have made some of my arguments and concerns less overwhelming. Stand Firm, in particular, "broke" optional pickups for me. However, that's no longer a factor, since a failed dodge won't move a player onto the ball (though it does make it less risky to attempt.)

I won't say that I'm convinced the other way, either -- I'm just less certain of my stance on forced pickups. I still see ball control as a valid tactic -- if for some reason you can't get the ball, you should do whatever you can to make it harder for your opponent to do so during his turn. Allowing players to kick the ball out of a bunch of tacklezones essentially negates a lot of strategic planning on the part of the coach trying to protect the ball. Then it becomes essentially a bouncing ball lottery.

Here's a question: I've heard "cageball" as an argument against it. Essentially, this argument goes: Low AG teams who have trouble picking up the ball will surround the ball and delay the game until the last minute. Right?

If so, I have a question and a tactic.

Question: If a team does this, can't they get exactly the "free" pickup roll Babs mentioned by moving someone in and kicking the ball? If they surround it, it's virtually guaranteed to scatter to one of their players, who can try to "catch" the ball with no fear of a turnover.

Tactic: Outwait them. Stand back from the cage and wait for them to make their move. The teams that would try this tend not to be the ones who would have scored much earlier in the game, and you're always guaranteed to get at least one scoring drive of your own. Let them devote eight players to guarding the ball, while your team takes up defensive positions in front of them and hounds the other three opposing players with your advantage of numbers. They can't move without attempting a pickup, and any team that would try this tactic is clearly scared of picking up the ball normally for good reason. You may not score with this tactic, but it shouldn't be hard to prevent THEM from scoring, either. Deny them easy blocks, make them come to you, and be prepared to swarm the ballcarrier as soon as he comes out of the cage.

If you can answer my question and point out severe problems with my tactic, then you'll make more progess to changing my mind.

Milo

[DoubleSkulls]

Question: If a team does this, can't they get exactly the "free" pickup roll Babs mentioned by moving someone in and kicking the ball? If they surround it, it's virtually guaranteed to scatter to one of their players, who can try to "catch" the ball with no fear of a turnover.

I don't think I've seen anyone try this in 40+ games of no forced pickups. The practical problem is what is your opponent doing while half your team surrounds the ball.

The other side is that no one wants to leave the ball on the ground - so you can't afford to leave it on the ground for a pickup next turn. This I think answers your next question too.

Its easier for your opponent to scatter the ball somewhere more useful to them and pick it up and score than it is for you to protect a ball lying on the ground.

So by making pickups optional you actually force players to pickup the ball and do something with it, rather than standing around looking at it. Also it increases the importance of protecting your ball carrier. Lots of bodies isn't a guarantee than the ball is safe even if your ball carrier gets knocked over.

[Milo]

Ian:

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".

This was one of the arguments used IN FAVOR OF being able to kick the ball instead of picking them up. If this isn's a problem, it weakens the argument in favor of optional pickups.

Milo

[DoubleSkulls]

Ian:

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".

This was one of the arguments used IN FAVOR OF being able to kick the ball instead of picking them up. If this isn's a problem, it weakens the argument in favor of optional pickups.

Milo

I think you may have mistaken my point. When playing with optional pickups you can't afford to leave the ball on the ground so the whole stand 6 players around the ball strategy just collapses.

Nor have I seen people surround the ball in the hope of a "free" pickup. Remember that you can't hand it off if you've already moved so this play becomes really difficult to pull off.