Page 1 of 4

Can you Fumble a pass when you roll a 6?

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:32 pm
by Xeterog
I think the fumble rule overrides the auto success on a 6 rule...but I could be wrong. So, answer this question for me:

throwing a pass with a total of -5 to the roll (distance, TZ's, stunty, whatever, the total mod to the roll is -5), if you roll a 6, would it be a fumble or an accurate pass? why or why not?

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:48 pm
by Andrew from Cheadle
1 is always a failure, 6 is always sucessful....for any 1D6 role I can think of, so I assume that is the same on a pass....I'm sure it says so in the rules, off to look it up.

Andrew

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:53 pm
by Andrew from Cheadle
OK...I checked, page 11, right hand column, top paragraph...

'Look up the player’s Agility on the Agility table to find the score
required to successfully pass the ball. Roll a D6, and add or
subtract any of the modifiers that apply to the D6 roll. A roll of 1
before modification always fails and a roll of 6 before
modification always succeeds.'


Andrew

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:56 pm
by Andrew from Cheadle
Think I'm having a conversation with my self BUT

page 22...

'Sometimes a player attempting to throw the ball will drop it in
their own square. This is more likely if the player has any
opposing players breathing down his neck! To represent this, if
the D6 roll for a pass is 1 or less before or after modification,
then the thrower has fumbled and dropped the ball. The ball will
bounce once from the thrower’s square, and the moving team
will suffer a turnover and their turn ends immediately.'

So I've changed by mind, if you have a -5 for your modifiers then any dice roll is a fumble.....

...now I'm going to try and work out how you get to -5...

...or maybe I'll stop thinking about it before I change my mind again!!!

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:01 pm
by Grumbledook
rolling the 6 automatically succeeds and doesn't get modified

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:05 pm
by Xeterog
Stunty (-1) throwing a long bomb (-2) in 2 TZ (-2) = -5...

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:14 pm
by Grumbledook
...8 tackle zones -8

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:14 pm
by Grumbledook
...16 disturbing presence -16

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:15 pm
by Grumbledook
...very sunny -1

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:18 pm
by Jural
The word always, as in " roll of 6 before modification always succeeds" implies there are never any exceptions. The passing rules don't use the word always... although they don't leave a lot of wiggle room either.

Still, always trumps everything else in my book! a 6 is a successful pass.

But I wonder as to the intention of the rule...

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:10 am
by Grumbledook
well its good for the game if there is always that slim (¹/6) chance of success

the rules intend that this is possible even if all those negative modifiers apply

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:51 am
by khudzlin
i mean, a mummy in 8 TZ's can still intercept that pass if it rolls a 6... so the pass should have a chance of success too

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:12 am
by plasmoid
But it's not quite the same thing.
The fumble rule seems to override the normal rules for succes.

For instance, we know for a fact that when passing with an AG6 player, an accurate pass can still be fumbled instead.
(AG6 throws a long bomb. Needs a 3+. However, a 3 -2 for range = 1, and that's a fumble).

Cheers
Martin

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:05 pm
by Smeborg
Interesting rules question, but I believe it a false problem.

Page 8 of the rulebook states in bold: "A roll of 1 before modification always fails and a roll of 6 before modification always succeeds for any Agility roll made during a game." I believe this sentence overrides any other rules situation relating to Agility rolls (such as passing).

As is usual with GW rulebooks, this statement is in the wrong place (it is under "Picking up the Ball"), but it is a clear rule. It is the only sentence in the entire rulebook that is in bold typeface, just in case you missed the overriding nature of the rule.

Hope this helps.

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:55 am
by Jural
Official ruling would be nice... this one comes up on occasion!