Discuss Fantasy football-style board games - GW's Blood Bowl, Impact!'s Elfball, Privateer Press' Grind, Heresy's Deathball, etc. THIS IS NOT AN NFL FANTASY FOOTBALL SITE!
Don't understand a particular rule or just need to clarify something? This is the forum for you. With 2 of the BBRC members and the main LRB5/6 writer present at TFF, you're bound to get as good an answer as possible.
neoliminal wrote:
If we didn't allow for the modifiers, then the Skaven Passer could simply throw the ball past everyone downfield with little effort. Sure, it's inaccurate, but now 5 players are all around him and not where the ball is. Compare that to what you would have here, which is most likely having the ball fumbled.
Sorry, mate, but I think you're missing the whole point on this.
In your example, it would be a sure fumble, with a whopping -5 due to TZ. Tackle Zones MUST increase chances of a fumble (never been able to throw with a 200 lbs. linebacker blitzing me, just think of what a Black Orc Blocker could do to my nervous system!), only distance should not.
Greetings.
Moonsong
Reason:''
[img]http://www.bluemax.com/animate/websitefAGIFdownloads/Flags/AllNations/G-N/italy_clr.gif[/img]NAF Italian Organiser
Well, as for an abuse of long bombs without modifier, yes I know this is done quite frequently in our league! We use this rule of only fumble on a 1, and what happens is:
If I can't protect my ball carrier, I can try to throw the ball anywhere far away. The opponent usually has to dodge to get his guy there, has to pick it up and throw and catch. Too many things can go wrong with that and I might hold my score.
can be a tactic against anyone which is better than being overrun.
I would like this intermediate system with only tackle zones counting against the throw.
Tom, you can't be serious in thinking that removing the pass range modifier from the fumble rule would make stunty teams kick ass. I am currently playing a halfling team under these rules, with no modifiers on the price of treement either, and I consider myself a good coach, and I've yet to win a game (although I tied 3 in a row).
Now, as to the "beardy" tactic of throwing the ball downfield. It's not a beardy tactic in any way shape or form, especially once you are aware that your opponent can do this. Just keep a guy in the back field and there you go. My league has been playing with this rule for ever, and we've never seen it abused, indeed I don't think it can be abused.
I can understand if you've never played with this rule that you might be wary of it, but trust me, all it does is provide one additional, seldom used option with the ball. And additionally it makes the rule more logical and consistent, which is what I thought everyone wanted anyways.
And lastly, I'll throw in one more thought: right now BB is totally geared towards cage-ball. Adding some more ball movement is good thing IMO. This last point is based entirely on my own opinion formed from my game sin the MBBL and MBBL2; it is not a fact, just my observations.
I would love to see this change implemented as it makes perfect sense. I have always felt that you are double counting the range ruler penalty against fumbles as it affected the pass roll (ie made it harder to be accurate) it shouldn't IMO affect the fumble end of it as well.
Thadrin wrote:On the whole throw team mate issue Tom raised though...why not have a negative modifier to the landing roll for guys with right stuff who are NOT accurately thrown? I'm assuming the problem you have with the whole system is that it doesn't really matter if a little guy is spot on target, and in fact sometimes it can be a blessig that he isn't, and so as long as he isn't fumbled the throw can be considered successful. Well, seeing as the idea of a fumble only occurring on a natural one seems fine for actually passing the ball, lets say a little guy who tries to land when thrown inaccurately has a -2 modifier to his landing roll (which in most cases will mean he needs a 6): in other words, lets put the penalty on the landing roll rather than the throwing roll. Lets face it, if he doesn't land well he's most likely paté anyway!
Like I said I'll reject any suggest to change the TTM sequence to allow no range modifier on passing. TTM is fine just the way it is. If you have to change TTM and Landing to allow no range mods .... well I think no range mods favors the elves to much for my taste anyway.
TTM is fine ... don't mess with it or the landing roll.
My point is that ball movement without range mod fumbles for Elves and Stunties is in IMO not the way to have the game. Changing TTM to get no range mods on passing is screwing ME (ie Stunty coach) ... to help teams that don't need help (ie Elves)
As a fellow Halfling player, I have to agree with Galak. Just by looking at the two most important rolls in OTT, you can see it would vastly increase.
Assume a rookie halfling team. AG3 halflings, AG2 treemen
With range mods
Treeman throws - chance of result
quick pass - inaccurate 3/6 (50%) accurate 2/6 (33%) fumble 1/6 (17%)
short pass - inaccurate 3/6 (50%) accurate 1/6 (17%) fumble 2/6 (33%)
long pass - inaccurate 2/6 (33%) accurate 1/6 (17%) fumble 3/6 (50%)
By multiplying the pass result by the landing result we get the chance of success.
I've done the math for you. If you add the chance of a successful accurate landing & inaccurate landing, you get the chance of having a halfling still standing in the backfield ready to run his little legs off getting to the end zone.
quick pass 47%
short pass 36%
long pass 28%
Without the range modifiers affecting fumbles...(math in progress)
quick pass 47%
short pass 44%
long pass 44% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Note that for a rookie team, a long pass is the only option that will probably result in a score if thrown inaccurately. Also, these number do not take into account the rerolls that 'flings always have in abundance. Once the team gets a few skills, it only gets better for the halfling player.
With those increased numbers, I'll play my 'flings in any league you want. Of course the little guys will still get pounded because my treemen like to not show up for the first half. But I'll have a good showing the second half!
No I haven't, the link between the two pages has gone tits up and I can't figure out how to get the two pages back together. I'm working on it, but it may take sometime.
I'm going to lock the topic for now until I fix it.
JohnnyP
Reason:''
*******************************
Snotling Championship League Commisioner
[url]http://www.bloodbowl.co.uk[/url]
We have played with this rule for several seasons. Range modifiers don't increase the fumble chance but everything else does (TZs, FA, Sunshine etc).
Players that hoik the ball downfield because they're under pressure lose the ball. If they had someone downfield who could capitalise - good luck to them. Your fault for leaving them unmarked.
We have seen no evil unbeatable tactics arise from the use of this rule and, frankly, we'll try anything for an advantage because the league is so goddamn competitive.
The arguments against this (this should not be allowed to happen etc) strike me as similar to the arguments against no forced pickups. The idea that people should not be able to get out of a situation just because you've taken steps against it to me is frankly ludicrous. Unless you have the ball in your hands it's all up to the other player. If they want to throw (or punt) the ball away, that's their gamble to take. Just saying "but I forced him to make a long bomb and he managed to get it away anyway" draws the answer "well you should have sacked him then, tough luck" from me.
We'll continue playing with this rule as it makes a damn sight more sense and encourages a far higher standard of play.
OK, so the Halflings could now get a one-turn score at 46.7785632% chance. Now I ask you this, what happens when the attempt fails? Well, you have a prone hafling deep in the defenders territory with a loose ball. Basically not only are you losing possession, but most likely the other team will score as well, so ends your drive. I'm willing to live with that.
In any case, my belief is that most people are opposed to it just because its a change. Many many leagues have been using this optional rule ever since BB 3rd edition, and no one has ever cried foul or found abuse.
-Dave
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Sir Winston Churchill
Galak, I can see why you feel that changing the fumble rule would unbalance things. It seams however that alot of people have been playing with the rule of a fumble only being based on TZ - either because they thought it made more sense, or through a misunderstanding of the rules.
I was orignally taught to play with it just being on a natural '1' and problems with people just dumping the ball upfield didnt happen. Sometimes people would do it out of desperation but being the case they didnt usually have a follow up play, and the opponent could just throw the ball back down field themselves since they also only fumbled on a '1'.
I guess it changes dynamics a bit, but alot of people are use to it.
Can't say I've seen a really good stunty coach take advantage of this system even tho they play in it, I think they are dealing with enough problems as it is.
