Fumble On a '1'

Amon242 · Post by **Amon242** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:58 am

I've noticed a few posts that talk about fumbling a pass on a roll other than '1'. In the house leauge I play in we use natural '1' as a fumble, anything else is only inaccurate. How does this rule work and should we be adopting it?

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:15 am

The official rule is that you fumble on a 1 before or after modification. However, this doesn't make sense as it means for example that an AG5 player throwing a long bomb is never inaccurate.

Therefore many leagues have adopted the same house rule as you. Others have adopted a rule that says that fumbles are modified by tackle zones but not range (why would you fumble more often when you throw further?)

I suggest that you stick to your rule or use the other one i mentioned, because the official rule is pretty bad.

grotemuis · Post by **grotemuis** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:49 am

I disagree, the more difficult the throw, the more likely you are to fail. With longer passes you concentrate more on your strength to complete the distance, and less on the pass itself.

The rule isn't as bad as you think

As for the AG5 player, if he throws a natural one he will fumble as badly as a halfling thrower would.

Joaquim · Post by **Joaquim** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:45 am

Sorry, but the rules make sense as they are...
Some "game mechanics" can look as no logic, but they work very well in the game.
For example, if you are playing dwarfs and closing on the player with the ball the objective of that player won't be making an acurate pass, but getting the ball out of that zone. In this situation doesn't make much sense let the player have the same possibility of getting the ball out in a Long Bomb as in a Quick Pass. I think...
And think about team mate throwers... ok, a Short Pass ussualy do the trick, but should he have the same possibility of getting the stunty flying be it a Short or a Long Pass?
I think there are many times when it doesn't matter much the acuracy of the pass, only putting it (be it the ball or a stunty) in "the zone" that the rules make perfect sense!!

On the other hand... if you really don't want to use the range modifiers you can "drop the agility table"... and use instead "target numbers". As the table only says that AG+D6 = 7, them modifies it for the task, and then for... well.... modifiers...

But, anyway, the point is, if you dicide that for a Quick Pass you need 6, and for a Long Bomb you need 9, then the range won't modify the roll...

grotemuis · Post by **grotemuis** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:03 pm

what are you talking about?

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:06 pm

Try running a search..there's plenty of good discussion on the merits of fumbling with range modifiers and without. I won't repeat my thoughts here in depth, but we play 'vanilla' and are happy doing so. The online leagues I play in and the tournaments I play also use the official rule.
As Zombie says though, it seems to be quite a popular thing to house rule, although I personally feel there's good arguments against doing so.
The effect on TTM is probably the biggest, the viability of the 'punt' tactic is another...

Joaquim · Post by **Joaquim** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:22 pm

what are you talking about?

Are you talking to me?!?! There isn't nobody else here... actually there is... but, if you talking about "target numbers" it's something like this...
You pick the agility table and instead of applying all modifiers to the roll you split them in 2 categories, one affects the roll, the other the number you'll need.... so, you rool a d6 and add your AG then consult the table:
Dodge 6+
Quick Pass 6+
Short Pass 7+
Long Pass 8+
Long Bomb 9+

That way range won't modify the fumble possibility.
On the other hand Dodges will be harder for high AG players... now one AG5 player dodges at a roll of 2 even if to a tackle zone square, with these "target numbers" he will fail, as the roll will become a modified 1...
Well... perhaps things even out using this rules, I don't know!

grotemuis · Post by **grotemuis** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:56 pm

I was with you all the way on your first message(I think), but the wording was a bit off. I couldn't understand what you meant.

In responds to the thread: there's nothing wrong, why change it!

Joaquim · Post by **Joaquim** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:08 pm

I was with you all the way on your first message(I think), but the wording was a bit off. I couldn't understand what you meant.

Well... English isn't my language....

And thanks God here I have that excuse.... sometimes in portuguese my thinking goes confusing also....

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:11 pm

Specifically,

http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB/view ... highlight=

Can get you started on the old threads. I was once a proponent of the "natural 1" rule, but have since changed my mind after playing it both ways. The current rules make for a better balanced game, and players with 3 agility just shouldn't try to throw long bombs too often.

Amon242 · Post by **Amon242** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:34 pm

Thanks, seems this whole thing has been hashed out before. I see the arguments on both sides, but I think our league will just use the natural '1' for now, as we don't allow you to pass to a square(except HM) and it would be a whole new thing to try and remeber and figure out. Its good to be aware of if we ever do decided to play in a tourney.

Amon

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:07 am

grotemuis wrote:As for the AG5 player, if he throws a natural one he will fumble as badly as a halfling thrower would.

You didn't read my post correctly. I said that an AG5 player throwing a long bomb under the official rules will never make an inaccurate pass, meaning he will either fumble or be accurate.

Throwing further should increase your chance of being inaccurate, not of fumbling.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:09 am

Joaquim wrote:For example, if you are playing dwarfs and closing on the player with the ball the objective of that player won't be making an acurate pass, but getting the ball out of that zone.

That's why we play that tackle zones affect chances of fumble, but range doesn't.

nouge · Post by **nouge** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:13 am

Another solution to the whole fubling-at-long-range problem could be to have two stages of innacurate passing:
- your regular innacurate pass, which scatters 3 times.
- a badly innacurate pass on a modified 1, which scatters either more (maybe 6) times, or scatters like the kick off.

Its just another suggested house rule, really, but it would solve the problem of teams just lobbing the ball into the empty backfield, since it could easily go somewhere you dont want it to.

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:15 am

Don't anyone ever forget! If you use the rule that range doesn't affect the chance of a fumble but TZs do, it's very possible that you can have one number for the fumble and one for the pass' accuracy. This is the one real reason I have for not changing the rule from the way it's written now.