Suggestion for a new variant

This is based on more sources (mastermoves, bgg, etc...)

Rule Changes:

- Bigger board 7x11 instead of 6x8.

- Widder goal: three fields instead of two

- Using 10 cards instead of dice. Cards with values: 2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7.

- Only one anti kill joy rule: Do not allow to have three or more connected players.

- Start game with some standard position of players

- Game has always 80 moves (4 decks).

More possible rule changes:

- offside rule

- allow diagonal moves (cost two steps)

- two players are attackers (have one point more), two players are defenders (are able to move one step diagonally)

- player have three cards in hand

- second half-time start again from start position

- multi-player move is allowed

I must say I like the game the way it is. However, if _I_ were to change the rules, I think I'd do something about the die immideately after a goal. Perhaps make this an automatic "3" or "4". Rolling "1" or "2" after your opponent scores can prove decicive. Also, rolling a "6" and scoring can turn the tide the other way. I think that of all the die-rolls in the game, the ones directly after a goal are by far the most important.

But, as I said, I like the game as it is. So I try to be prepared for low rolls after an opponent scores, while at the same time being able to score directly if I get a "6".

So, to the proposed changes:

Bigger board: Well, that ensures that one cannot score directly after being scored on, which may be good. But does it make the game more tactical? Assuming we still have the same number of players, it becomes more difficult to play "the whole board" and still be able to make some passes. At least, that's my guess.

Wider goal: Oh, it's MORE than hard enough for the goalie as it is. I think this is a bad idea.

Cards: Probably the biggest change. Not necessarily something negative, but it sure alters the game a lot. I think it might be very interresting, but it's almost an entirely different game.

Only three connected players: I see why you want this, but still think that it's unneccessary. Connected players are strong, but it also have weaknesses, and it cen take some moves to get them positioned like that. I like connecting players.

Standard opening position: Why? If there are optimal starting positions, players will discover them anyway. Also, the best opening position is very different depending on the first die roll (or first card in card version), which is shown BEFORE setup.

80 moves: Probably a good idea with a bigger board and cards. Not a good idea with the current rules.

Offside: I think not. Could cause very weird games, I think.

Diagonal moves: Maybe. Personally, I like the "blocking" effect of two diagonal players, and so prefer it the way it is, but others may feel different.

Attackers/defenders: Like with the cards; this is a major change. Don't combine it with "allow diagonal moves", I think, to make defenders stronger. Can be interresting, but again, a very different game from the existing one.

Three cards in hand: Sure, if cards are used, this may reduce randomness further. I'd probably prefer this if cards were used.

Second half from start position: I think not. Moving into tactical situations, and sacrificing an overall good position to get a temporarily higher scance to score, are to me important aspects. Resetting at half time reduces these aspects.

Multi-player moves. Like with cards, a major change. Interresting, but a very different game.

Summary: I like it the way it is. But new variants are always welcome, as long as the original version stays (original WYPS back, please!). For new variants, one or more of the "major changes" should be effectuated, to make it an entirely new variant, and not just a slight (and possibly annoying) twist to the existing rules.

That's my opinion, anyway! :-)

microscopically small rule change suggestion: If you shoot the ball into one of the two outer squares behind the goal line, rather than the two central ones, then the goalie is forced to shoot from the square on that side of the goal.

6x8? The current board is 6x10 inbounds. On a 7x11 board, drawing a 7 would allow scoring on the post-goal kickoff, if the players are placed appropriately.

Does the coach get to pick the order in which the 10 cards are played? If not, are they played in random order? If so, how far ahead does the coach get to see?

Does the coach get any lookahead for his opponent's cards?

Speaking of lookahead, if all 10 cards are used before they're reshuffled, the uncertainty drops quite a bit for the last few cards. How about reshuffling after 8, with a normal game length of 56 or 64 moves, a maximum of 72 or 80 for overtime?

I like multi-player moves. In fact, I would think limiting each player to no more than 2 or 3 steps per turn would make the game more like real soccer.

How about a temporary new game "TestSoccer" for 24 weeks, with games started during each two-week period using a different combination of changes? After six months, we'd still have a wide range of opinions, but based on experience.

Wider goal: If the width of the field becomes an odd number then to preserve mirror symmetry, the goal width also has to be an odd number.

three or more connected players: Connected orthogonally?

Diagonal moves/defenders are able to move one step diagonally: Can two or three players of one team block the progress of an opposing playing in full-scale soccer? If not, I'm for diagonal moves.

Pre-set startup position: I kinda like the idea, specially if the chosen position is not optimal!

I'll stay with the standard game. It's compact, dense, no rules overkill, and the use of die rolls over cards give it a "real" soccer feel. The sudden turning of the tide due to sheer blind luck / bad luck is one of the reasons that keep audiences coming back to watch the matches, even if "their" team is not "the best".

Imagine a world cup where South Korea couldn't have made it in the top 4! ;)

(kinda off-topic)

That 2002 Korean team was one of the most entertaining of Football's History, with a true Dutch flavour, filled of good players (Park is my favorite of 'em all). Referee's apart, they could make top 4.

definitely keep the original game, but adding a new variant would be fun!

One rule I always wished for was the option to move less than what you rolled...for example, sometimes rolling a two after the opponent scores a goal can be bad, but a one would be better for defensive purposes. There are other ways to alleviate this problem (like 3 cards in hand, or option to split a roll into two player moves, etc)