Talk Fantasy Football

It is my firm belief that the fumble rule must be rewritten so that only a natural 1 is a fumble (or a modified 1 including only tackle zones). Here are several good reasons why this change would be a good thing.

1. It is illogical that a Long Bomb will be fumbled 50% of the time (in all my years of watching football I have rarely seen a QB fumble with no one around him).
2. It is also illogical that an AG 5+ player is incapable of throwing an inaccurate long bomb, all he can do is fumble or succeed.
3. It hurts game play by limiting ball movement.
4. Many leagues use this system already.

Now, the funny thing is that BB has a success formula for agility rolls but doesn't really implement it properly. A successful AG roll results when 'die roll' + Agility >= 7. But the rule book doesn't use that, it instead uses a table:

Agility / Roll to succeed
1 / 6
2 / 5+
3 / 4+
4 / 3+
5 / 2+
6 / 1+

Now, not only is this table easily replaceable, it also creates confusion by stating that a 1 succeeds (which we know to be false). For my suggested rule to work properly we just need to provide a standard formula:

If ( 'die roll' + Agility + modifiers >= 7 ) then the roll succeeds.

For a pass, we just need to change it to this: pass will succeed when 'die roll' + Agility + modifiers >= 'pass target number'

The 'pass target number' above is a simple derivation of the current range band modifiers, but instead of substracting from the roll, they add to the required number.

This gives us:
Range / Target number
Quick / 6+
Short / 7+
Long / 8+
Bomb / 9+

The formula is nice, simple and can also be applied to see if a pass fumbles, since a fumble will occur when 'die roll' + modifiers <= 1.

Skills are simple to apply: Accurate gives a +1 modifier, and Strong Arm reduces the range (and thus the target number).

I know that this system (in one form or another) is being used by many leagues out there. It was one of the most popular optional rules from the Oberwald. The reason for this popularity is because to many people the current rule makes no sense.

Now, before you reply, chew on this: I'd say right now the field is split 50/50 on this issue. But suppose the rule had always been like this (and indeed in some leagues it has), do you think there would be many people suggesting we change to the current system? To quote Chet: I think the answer is obviously "no".

Thoughts anyone?

-Dave

I support not including the range modifiers for fumbling, I don't know if it has to be that complicated a system change. I figure just only count TZs when trying to figure out a fumble, in addition to the points that Dave made, the LRB says "This is more likely if the player has any opposing players breathing down his neck!" not "If the player tries to throw too far, he'll drop it half the time!"...

David

Good point, maybe I stretched it with the formula thing, but Chet so does love formulas...

I quite like this idea. It makes everything a little bit more obvious and none of the odd situations that can occur with very high AG.

Ian

Ever since the current edition came out, we've always played long passes do not modify the chances of fumbling - been a great house rule (especially for halfling/goblin teams who have a much higher chance of scoring TD's with this rule).

I don't think you need to worry about a complex equation - most people are intelligent enough to get it with only a few reminders!

Call me old school ... but I just do not like the ball movement potential of getting rid of the range modifiers.

I'm very competitive with my halfling team ... ask the Norse team 20 points higher in TR than me that I'm beating by 2 TDs in the MBBL right now ... I've gone this entire season without anyone being able to hold me scoreless (and for the majority of the season I only had 1 Treeman on the team).

Lose the range modifiers and I'm going to start cleaning up. One turn scoring with the Trees ... oh yeah ... HOOK ME UP BABY ... Long passed Halflings on a 2+ .... I'm one turn scoring all day ... expect to see the Halflings win the next season of the MBBL.

Oh and if anyone thinks that I don't know what I'm talking about meet me in a PBeM against my TR 118 Halfligns with those rules and we'll see what happens ... I doubt you'll still think that the no range modifier is still a good idea after that.

Also I will openly reject any proposal that suggests that Passing should have no range modifiers but TTM should ... that's the cake and eat it to situation. Either they should or they shouldn't ... and I'm still 100% behind the should since I think Halflings, Goblins, and Elfs don't need the extra help.

Galak

Hmm, from reading stuff on the boards lately I reckon I might have been going the wrong way about calcutating something...

For an AG 4 player Id have figured that was a 3+ on the die, then apply modifiers to that... so 3+ needed with an extra +1 for a dodge would mean a 2+
Now I think its meant to be an Ag 4 players need to have a 3+ to succeed at everything and modifiers apply to the dice. so I roll a 2... add +1 for dodging and get the 3.
Subtle difference which in all my years of playing hasnt been a problem since I get the same result...
Until I read the pinned FAQ and it said an AG6 player fumbles a long pass on a 2... which confused the hell outta me.

and, after realising how the modifier applies to the dice rather than just working out the result needed it still confuses me with reguard to passing.

(ive never had or played against a player with AG 6... so I havent had to make decisions on these in games)
Example:
Ag 6 Player throws a Long Pass.
Needs a 1+ to succeed. So with a -1 I'd say he now needed a 2+... so rolling a 2 would have been all good... however theres a -1 modifier on the dice instead
Rolls a 2.. apply the -1 to make 1... and a 1 or less result on a pass is a fumble. (even tho its the 1+ the player needed)
OK... that makes sense now... Kinda
If this dude was dodging... he would need a 1+. Hes going into 2 Tackle zones.. so -2... and for dodging... +1... net modifier on the dice is -1.
NOW... doing things the way I would have calculated things Id look up the 1+... +1 for dodging... makes a 0... then -2 for tackle zones makes a 2+. So rolling a 2+ would succeed and a natural 1 would fail anyway.
Applying the modifier to the dice... I roll a 2... modify to a 1... which is the 1+ this player needed.. RIGHT? does he make this dodge on a 2+
if not... then clarify why he doesnt for me.

back to passing:
I have an AG 5 Player... with Accurate. Doing this how I would have this guy needs a 2+... +1 for accurate makes 1+ then -1 for a long pass = a 2+... so on a 2+ Id have ruled the pass accurate.
doing it the 'proper' way... the guy needs a 2+... modifier to the dice on +1 for accurate then -1 for the long pass make +0 modifier... so he throws accuratly on a 2+ on the dice.
This means a AG5 player with Accurate throws better than an AG 6 player?!
I'd thought they were the same.

To take this further...
AG 6 Player goes for the Long Bomb... (my way) would have needed a +1... -2 makes a 3+... so dice of 1 he fumbles... dice of 2 its in accurate and dice of 3 or better its accurate.
but, instead its needing a 1+... with -2 on the dice.... so throwing a 2 makes 0... which is a fumble... and throwing a 3 is a fumble again... then throwing a 4 is accurate... so theres no room to be inaccurate.

NOW AG 4 dude with accurate and strong arm throwing the long bomb.
Id have said 3+... accurate 2+... strong arm makes the long bomb a -1 instead of -2... so needing a 3+.
dice of 1 fumble... dice of 2 inaccurate... dice of 3 its good.
but that should be +1 modifier for accurate and long bomb made a long pass is -1... so no modifier. so a 1 fumbles... a 2 with no modifier is inaccurate and a 3 is good (OK, thats all the same... prolly a good thing I dont get players with AG greater than 4 much and have to think about this).

Back to AG 5 with accurate... for a long bomb.
I'd have said 2+... +1 makes 1+... long bomb -2 makes 3+ on the dice. so 1 fumbles... 2 inaccurate and 3 accurate.
properly done... net modifier of -1 so 1 fumbles... 2 becomes 1 and fumbles and a 3 is accurate.

Thats what trips me:
AG 4 with Accurate & Strong Arm throwing a Long Bomb:
Throw a 1 Fumble
Throw a 2 Inaccurate
Throw a 3+ Accurate

AG 5 Player with Accurate (or Strong Arm) throwing a Long Bomb:
Throw a 1 Fumble
Throw a 2 Fumble
Throw a 3+ Accurate

AG 6 Player throwing a Long Bomb:
Throw a 1 Fumble
Throw a 2 Fumble
Throw a 3 Fumble
Throw a 4+ Accurate

I reckon thats all pretty messed up... going how I calculated the Roll all of these players would have been accurate on a 3+... inaccurate on a 2 and Fumble only on a 1.

HELP!!!

-Korhil

The reason for the fumble rule is to keep people from simply throwing the ball away when they get into touble. If you could simply toss the ball to another part of the field whenever you opponent put a couple of tackle zones on your ball carrier, then that's all you would see.
Here we see out Skaven Passer (X) getting the attention of some Orcs (O)

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.

Even the range modifiers are helping, you can't throw the ball too far down the field without the possibility of fumbling. This rule is there to keep that kind of beardy behaviour under wraps.

Cheers

John -

neoliminal wrote:This rule is there to keep that kind of beardy behaviour under wraps.

I've no strong opinions on this one. I've played it both ways but haven't seen any abuse. Not having the range modifiers effect the fumbling is not a beardy rule in my opinion. Maybe my friends just weren't bright enough to do something like that.
Still... TZ's certainly must affect fumbling as justified by neoliminals example. But I wouldn't necessarily see a reason for penalising the throwing player further by making the range modifiers affect it too.

Still... we currently play with the official rules for simplicitys sake: without a really good reason we don't introduce any house rules.


Anyhow, my question is:
The theory of the 'no'-people is that this rule would be abused.
Do the 'no'-people have any evidence for their theory? Are the long bombs to get rid of the ball really an effective beardy system?

It certainly is not against fast and agile teams - Woodies at least would simply say thank you, fetch the ball and score.
Agile teams wouldn't need it much either: one can always do the same by running the ball and passing shorter distances. Not once during my WE carieer have I felt a need for such a tactic.
So that leaves slow and inagile teams playing each other as the most probable place that this could be used in. Even then, where's the big cheese? If the other team has no players in the backfield to get the ball that was thrown there, then surely it was the teams own tactical mistake?

Ag 6 Player throws a Long Pass.
Needs a 1+ to succeed. So with a -1 I'd say he now needed a 2+... so rolling a 2 would have been all good... however theres a -1 modifier on the dice instead
Rolls a 2.. apply the -1 to make 1... and a 1 or less result on a pass is a fumble. (even tho its the 1+ the player needed)
OK... that makes sense now... Kinda
If this dude was dodging... he would need a 1+. Hes going into 2 Tackle zones.. so -2... and for dodging... +1... net modifier on the dice is -1.
NOW... doing things the way I would have calculated things Id look up the 1+... +1 for dodging... makes a 0... then -2 for tackle zones makes a 2+. So rolling a 2+ would succeed and a natural 1 would fail anyway.
Applying the modifier to the dice... I roll a 2... modify to a 1... which is the 1+ this player needed.. RIGHT? does he make this dodge on a 2+
if not... then clarify why he doesnt for me.

Yes the player makes the dodge. And yes there is a simple reason behind this.
When dodging you only fail if you roll a 1.
When passing you fail if you the result is a natural 1 OR a modified 1 or less.

Furelli.

Oy forgot sumfin:

1.The thing in passing that really needs fixing is the interception timing.
I have shown in an another thread that the current system screws up the fumble rates when somebody is intercepting. Because intercepting happens (against common sense) before the pass roll is made.

2.Galak: do you suggest that stunties would suddenly take over the universe if range wouldn't affect fumbling?
If you're simply saying that they'd get better, then I wouldn't mind.

3.The agility roll
I feel so stupid I haven't thought of that myself (or haven't even noticed that in the OBERWALD ).

Changing the agility roll concept to
d6 + agility + modifiers against a target number is a brilliant idea.
As some people would like to remove exceptions and stuff - we could in fact get rid of all modifiers except those caused by skills and those caused by TZ's (assuming we get rid of range modifiers affecting fumbling...):

roll.....target....modifiers
Dodge..6+....(-1per TZ on the 'to' square)
Pickup..6+....(-1per TZ)
C.acc...6+....(-1 per TZ)
C.inac..7+....(-1 per TZ)
Interc...9+....(-1 per TZ)
Q.Pass..6+....(-1 per TZ)
S.Pass..7+....(-1 per TZ)
L.Pass...8+....(-1 per TZ)
L.Bomb.9+....(1- per TZ)
'1' always fails and '6' always succeeds.

I like this. I don't mind introducing the possibility to dump the ball more easily.

I suggest a 2nd D6 roll

1st roll (fumble)
IF there are any enemy tackle zones on the player, make a "Fumble roll"
Add -1 to the scoure for every enemy tackle zone. On a modified or onmodified roll of 1 the throw is fumbled and the ball bounces one square.
2nd roll (pass)
Range Modifier... accurate... missed...

I'm still not understanding why an AG6 player throws WORSE than an AG4 player with Strong Arm & Accurate...
whats the point in rolling 11's for skills --- I can see the reason behind wanting to be able to take normal skills on the roll now... AG4 is all you need to do actions on a 2+ Die roll with no Tackle Zones.
Im confused... the system doesnt seam right.

---Korhil

Because the AG 6 player doesn't have any skills perhaps?

Sorry, that's life. AG6 doesn't affect your passing. Its pretty darned useful for Dodges, Interceptions, pick ups in the rain, doing anything when you have a load of tackle zones on you, and so on though.

(Deleted rest of post because he realised it was a load of crap.)

Mestari wrote: 2.Galak: do you suggest that stunties would suddenly take over the universe if range wouldn't affect fumbling?
If you're simply saying that they'd get better, then I wouldn't mind.

I'm saying you are handing them a one turn scoring machine. The problem is that everyone thinks stunty teams are a joke. Marytn's Dark Elves were the only team that really put it to me and I had really bad dice that game. Give a good stunty coach which folks like Neo and I are this option and we'll clean up.

If you remove range modifiers from Throw TeamMate then a Halfling team with a Treeman with Pro and a Halfling with Catch will be able to pick up the ball .. hand-off to the Catch Halfling ... TTM downfield for a walk-in score ..... 41.6% of the time. To be fair I only used normal skills ... however at 41.6% .... you are going to hear the screams of abuse throughout the BB world as Halfling teams will start to win MORE than they lose.

Now go one step forward ... if no range mods then I wait for a Halfling to get AG 4 as his first skill ... that player I'll quickly use to get to the 2nd skill for a simple Catch skill. Let's also say I get lucky and one of the treemen doubles his 1st skill ... I'd take pass. .... the odds of a one turn score for me are now 53.8%. At those odds ... I'll go for the one turn score everytime ... it has a lot better chance of success than running the ball.

So yes, in my opinion lossing the range mods to passing would mean Stunties would start to rule which would just be wrong. You all can disagree as you see fit, but anyone whose ever seen a good stunty coach can be amazed at what they can do in the right hands already ... give them this secret weapon and well .... I'm sure within a year someone will be screaming to fix that broken skill TTM.

Galak