Fumble On a '1'

Joaquim · Post by **Joaquim** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:42 pm

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.

hum... I like that... perhaps..

So, with that target numbers you know your AG+d6 needs to be:

Quick 6+
Short 7+
Long 8+
Bomb 9+

Now, if you throw a pass wich isn't fumble, but isn't accurate either you scater it 3 times for each number bellow the target number...
For example a AG3 player making a Long Pass needs a 5 (no tackle zones), he rolls a 2 - since there aren't any minus modifiers the pass goes inaccurate. As he rolled 5 and needed a 8 he missed by 3, so the ball scaters 9 squares (as they are individual scaters teh ball can still end in the target square)... and even the minus modifier can come along too, so cattching this pass would have a -3 modifier - even for landing you can use this (in this example the stunty would land with a modifier of -2, as there isn't a modifier in a "normal" inaccurate pass.... but if you know any TTM player with AG3 tell me!!

)...

I think this could work...

Joaquim · Post by **Joaquim** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:17 pm

Sorry for the 2 posts... something went wrong...

Zombie wrote:

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.

The problem is that without the range affecting fumbles that player would have the same probabilities of throwing the ball to a near player, still near the dwarfs, or a far away player... far from dwarfs!!... sure, if he throws to the far one he would have less probabilities of catching it, but being far from dwarfs that won't be a big problem...

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:53 pm

snotsngrots wrote: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.

You already have one number for fumble and one for accuracy. What are you talking about?

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:55 pm

Joaquim wrote:The problem is that without the range affecting fumbles that player would have the same probabilities of throwing the ball to a near player, still near the dwarfs, or a far away player... far from dwarfs!!... sure, if he throws to the far one he would have less probabilities of catching it, but being far from dwarfs that won't be a big problem...

Is that a problem or a solution? I view it as a solution. It shouldn't make any difference realistically how far you're trying to throw the ball when calculating the chance of a fumble.

Joaquim · Post by **Joaquim** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:16 pm

I'm not talking about reality here... I'm talking about the game...
I'm not very sure of the effect on the game, I know it would be bad for that dwarfs....

About reality I would have to talk with somebody who plays american football or rugby... anyone out there?!?

slackman · Post by **slackman** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:55 pm

as far as the real world is considered, it is MUCH more likely to throw an inaccurate pass than it is to simply drop the ball, no matter what the range. if you're looking to the real world for justification, you're not going to find it. its a game mechanic, and that's all. however, it is much more likely to throw the ball farther from its target the harder you have to throw it. throwing a football 20 yards downfield isnt too hard, but throwing it 50 is. you're much more likely to fall short or go quite long on a 50 yard pass than a 20 yard pass. the point im getting at here, is that if you're going to only use natural ones for a fumble, you should adjust the scatter for the longer passes. i have seen this proposed a few times, and although i havent tested it (we use the "offical" rules on throwing) it does seem resonable to accept.

quick: 2
short: 3
long: 4
bomb: 5

also, not allowing someone to throw to an empty square would also be a reasonable solution to the "punting" problem.

of course, if you're already playing w/ this house rule, and it works fine for you, there is no reason to adopt either of the suggestions above.

slackman 42

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:30 am

Zombie wrote:You already have one number for fumble and one for accuracy. What are you talking about?

Nothing really changes till you start adding TZs.

If you have an AG3 and throw a quick, you need a 3+ Easy. Only a 1 will fumble.

Add a TZ in there and the modifiers cancel each other out, 4+, only a natural 1 will fumble the ball (the way the official rule is written). The big "but", for me anyway, is that, if you exclude range modifiers, this die roll, as it pertains to the fumble is at a -1 so the thrower will fumble it on a 1 or a 2. The modifiers for one aspect of the roll are +0, they are a -1 for the other.

Instead of figuring the modifiers and looking for one number, +0, 4 or better is accurate, only a 1 fumbles. You have to see it as a 4 or better is accurate, and remember to account for the fact that some modifiers pertain to both things and some only pertain to one aspect of it. I think this is bad. There have been many times that we called something inaccurate or even accurate for those players that have AG4 or better and then realized a little later that it should have been a fumble because the +1 for quick didn't count. No one's fault, really, this just make things a little more complicated for the sake of "realism".

If the pass is one die roll, it's better to have one set of modifiers affect everything that it stands for, accuracy and fumble in this case, than to have 2 different sets of modifiers for the 2 different aspects of the roll. It's uneeded complexity.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:32 am

slackman wrote:the point im getting at here, is that if you're going to only use natural ones for a fumble, you should adjust the scatter for the longer passes. i have seen this proposed a few times, and although i havent tested it (we use the "offical" rules on throwing) it does seem resonable to accept.

quick: 2
short: 3
long: 4
bomb: 5

Yeah, i've thought about doing something like this many times, but never actually tried it. I might suggest it for next season.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:37 am

My league used exactly that system. Natural 1 fumbles, scatters QP = 1, SP = 2, LP = 3, LB = 4, HMP = 3.

It worked great! We had no complaints and no problems.
It eliminates those silly situations where a 2 square inaccurate pass ends up 2 squares behind the passer or way out to the side. It also makes tossing up long bombs for the 'punt' a little bit risky.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:42 am

Snotsgrot, i'm sorry but i think it's your way that's more complex. Over here, we never screwed up when deciding what the needed roll was. I'm pretty sure it's because our way is easier.

Basically, when i teach the game to newbies, i tell them to ignore everything in the rules about getting +1 (you get it for almost everything anyway). Instead, they should assume that AG3 means 3+ for everything, AG2 means 4+ and AG4 means 2+. For the tough rolls (e.g. catching a scattering ball, or inaccurate pass or a kick), we add in a -1. For ints, we add -3.

This IMO makes the game much easier to learn. With this approach, a basic pass (i.e. a quick pass) is the same basic AG roll as a dodge and most other things. Then you add 1 for each range.

This system is so simple that i've never seen anyone refer to any chart when making an AG roll, nor anyone screw up. And i've taught the game to at least 20 newbies over the years.

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:13 pm

Nah, we do the same thing. For some reason I'm having a hard time describing this.

When you start adding TZs into the mix, you're going to have 2 different sets of modifiers for the same roll. 2s are a problem then. After being stung a few times (the guys I play, like you, with are dead set against playing with the official rules) I now see it as 1 TZ fumbles on a 2, 2 fumbles on a 3... but it is one additional thing to remember that wasn't designed into the rules.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 9:14 pm

True, it's an additional thing, i can't argue against that. But i still think that the two are easier to remember than the official rule by itself. When i used to play with the official rule (years ago), that's when i had trouble working out fumbles. Now with this rule i find it much easier.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 9:38 pm

Amon:
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, as a part time Skaven player this is something I am very much against. Some teams really need the option of throwing the ball behind the defence to an empty square, if only to force slower moving teams to play the whole field. It may not be a high percentage play, but it can be a better move than throwing to the Gutter runner who *is* in range and will get smacked. Better to have the two of them go long and throw where nobody on the poorly set up defence can get the ball. Movement is just about all the Skaven have, and this house rule limits the advantage.

Amon242 · Post by **Amon242** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:25 pm

Skummy wrote: Amon, as a part time Skaven player this is something I am very much against. Some teams really need the option of throwing the ball behind the defence to an empty square, if only to force slower moving teams to play the whole field. It may not be a high percentage play, but it can be a better move than throwing to the Gutter runner who *is* in range and will get smacked. Better to have the two of them go long and throw where nobody on the poorly set up defence can get the ball. Movement is just about all the Skaven have, and this house rule limits the advantage.

We've made the exception for Hail Mary, so its still a viable tactic, but it's not one you can use out of the box. I still would rather have possession of the ball than have it loose on the pitch. Even if your opponent has 2 dice on you, it’s not a sure thing that you will be knocked over. If you are knocked over and you have some people around your ball carrier, then the ball will most likely scatter into one of your tackle zones. Of course that is always up for debate.

Indigo · Post by **Indigo** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:31 am

hmm - I didn't know that you could throw the ball into empty space. I guess it isn't made clear in the rules, but then again it isn't prevented by them.

Could do with some fanatic advice here....
will mail 'em