i wanna long bomb it

[Black Hawk down]

we worked it out that if you try a long bomb its harder it miss the pass than it is to fumble it.

lets hope they change this in the RR 2005

[slup]

Don't bet the farm on it.

It is the way it is for balance reasons, not logical reasons.

[Nathaniel]

Agility 5 elf throwing the ball:

Needs a 2, -2 for long bomb. Needs a 4 with 1-3 being a fumble.

1-3 Fumble, 4-6 accurate. He'll never wobble the ball and will drop it beside him as often as an AG1 mummy throwing the ball. The mechanic as it stands doesn't allow this player to throw an inaccurate pass ever. If it's a quick pass, it's a fumble on a 1, 2+ accurate. Short, same thing. Long: fumble on a 1,2 and accurate on a 3+

If you eliminate the penalty for fumbling for range, it's fumble on a 1, inaccruate on a 2,3 and accurate on a 4+ for the long bomb. It is true though, that he'll never wobble a quick or short pass-- but I'd rather have the long ones go off target than none at all.

Fumbles are enough of a annoyance during a game happening only on 1s. And inaccurate passes are a good thing to have on longer passes.

[Darkson]

Agility 5 elf throwing the ball:

Needs a 2, -2 for long bomb. Needs a 4 with 1-3 being a fumble.

AG3 Thrower with Accurate and Strong Arm Fumbles on a 1, Innaccurate on a 2-3, sucessful on a 4+. Which is why it's there, to make dedicated throwers better than "plain" high AG players.

Do they make sense in "real-life"? No.

Do they make game balance sense? Yes.

So I'm happy to keep them. Blame it on the fact that GW has an unhealthy obsesssion with d6, when a d12, d10 or even d8 would give a much better spread of results.

Do you also ignore the "interception before the Pass" rule?

[Gus]

yeo, and here we roll again ^^

[DoubleSkulls]

If you eliminate the penalty for fumbling for range, it's fumble on a 1, inaccruate on a 2,3 and accurate on a 4+ for the long bomb. It is true though, that he'll never wobble a quick or short pass-- but I'd rather have the long ones go off target than none at all.

The real problem is that inaccurate passes aren't that inaccuate. Roughly half the time they'll end up either in the intended square or next to it.

So come up with a workable mechanic for making passes scatter more on more inaccurate throws and you will find more people willing to talk about it.

One other point - this topic is discussed probably every 3-6 months. People get tired of going over the same arguments. Don't take it too personally.

[Black Hawk down]

if they made it a fumble on a rolled 1 only, then the thrower still has to roll the same die score to make a compleated pass. so how will this make passing more powerful. it only means the other team will try to pick up the ball, prob in their own half.

[Black Hawk down]

One other point - this topic is discussed probably every 3-6 months. People get tired of going over the same arguments.

so why do they look at the rules for this then?

[Gus]

you are a handful of guys who don't understand the rules and put the "real life" over the "game balance".
it is indeed discussed every now and then. that you would know if you'd have made a research before posting

[Darkson]

if they made it a fumble on a rolled 1 only, then the thrower still has to roll the same die score to make a compleated pass. so how will this make passing more powerful.

Because it makes throwing the ball downfield when in a disadvanteageous position to easy and degrades the Hail Mary skill.

[Darkson]

One other point - this topic is discussed probably every 3-6 months. People get tired of going over the same arguments.

so why do they look at the rules for this then?

Because the Game Balance (not real life) dictates that it needs to be this way, the same as the whole "intercept before the pass roll".

[DoubleSkulls]

One other point - this topic is discussed probably every 3-6 months. People get tired of going over the same arguments.

so why do they look at the rules for this then?

because no one has come up with anything better.

I've played both ways. IMO its a worse mechanic than the fumble on a modified 1.

So, like it said in the post you decided to quote, come up with a mechanic that makes passes more inaccurate and I'll listen.

[Gertwise]

I know that only fumbling on a natural 1 makes TTM really really broken.
I play in a league that they do this and the gobbo team has an AG 5 gobbo. So who cares if the pass is accurate or not, he gets thrown on anything but a 1 and lands on anything but a 1.

[Nathaniel]

I understand that this is a perennial subject and that nothing really new will be said. I don't accept "realism" as an argument of much strength for bloodbowl unless it also is accompanied by a in game reason to make the change. It certainly is a trade off. If you play as per the rules, high AG players fumble as often as an AG1 player and the skilled players get benefits. If you fumble only on a 1, the skill players get the shaft and the AG players benefit. I suppose it's a matter of which of those seems worse to you.

It is, however, not a handful of people. I've played in roughly five leagues in a few different cities and everyone has always played "fumble only on 1s" That's 30-40 people in different leagues who are all unanimous in their support of fumbling only on 1s. Playing as per LRB on this may be the rules and may be the majority online, but they're the minority in any in-person game I've ever played (a minority so small as to be non-existant).

My main reason for dislilking this is that it's annoying. In the last two seasons I played in, 1 inaccurate pass scatted back onto a friendly player and was caught. That may be the result of outside circumstance (poor catcher placement), but generally when I see an inaccurate pass, I know the balls's likely going to end up in the dirt. Fumbling is the same sort of annoyance as failing go-for-its. I'd just rather have more inaccurate passes than fumbles.

I know one thing would change my mind on this-- if a player started passing to an empty square at long bomb range at every possibly opportunity just to move the ball down the field despite the turnover. I've never seen that come up though.

I know that only fumbling on a natural 1 makes TTM really really broken.
I play in a league that they do this and the gobbo team has an AG 5 gobbo. So who cares if the pass is accurate or not, he gets thrown on anything but a 1 and lands on anything but a 1.

This is certainly a valid argument. I've personally never played with an AG5 goblin. AG4 Goblins are quite annoying in that regard. Even with the fumble only on a 1, TTM generally feels pretty unreliable. I guess we just need someone to roll +AG twice and show us how reliable it can be. What does anyone think about applying the range penalty to the gobbo's landing roll to represent the difficulty in cussioning the greater force used in longer passes?

Nathaniel

[Gus]

you don't have to have an AG5 gob to have TTM as a too reliable option.