NAF World Headquarters
House Rules - Fumble?
Valen - Apr 02, 2003 - 02:48 AM
Post subject: Fumble?
I would just like too ask what everyone out there uses for the fumble rule.
I know if you follow the strict ruling from the lrb then I think 
you can fumble on as high as a 4, possibly 5 not sure, but from speaking too everyone in our league we house ruled so you only fumble on a 1.
What is everyones fellings on this?
Mordredd - Apr 02, 2003 - 03:20 AM
Post subject:
In my league you fumble if your dice roll is modified to a 1 by tackle zones or range.
Doubleskulls - Apr 02, 2003 - 05:11 AM
Post subject:
We just changed. This is because you devalue passing skills (accurate & strong arm) by not having increased risk of fumbles.
Also it increases the risk of tossing the ball downfield in the hope of better field position.
skummy - Apr 02, 2003 - 07:22 AM
Post subject:
We actually changed with the release of the most recent LRB rules when they clarified the issue. It actually has much better balance, and seems to help out the lower movement teams a bit more.
SBG - Apr 02, 2003 - 08:25 AM
Post subject:
We used to play with Fumbles on 1 only, but we're changing to LRB ruling for our third season.
But when you play CD's, the passing game is not your main concern ! 
Fred
GalakStarscraper - Apr 02, 2003 - 08:45 AM
Post subject:
Not only does fumble on 1 only devalue passing skills, but it also creates a vast number of cheesy/beardy Punting plays that really make the game no fun in my opinion.
Leave Punting plays where they belong with Hail Mary Pass. The Fumble rules in the LRB are fine.
Galak
GalakStarscraper - Apr 02, 2003 - 08:51 AM
Post subject: Re: Fumble?
Valen-S wrote:
I would just like too ask what everyone out there uses for the fumble rule.
I know if you follow the strict ruling from the lrb then I think
you can fumble on as high as a 4, possibly 5 not sure, but from speaking too everyone in our league we house ruled so you only fumble on a 1.
What is everyones fellings on this?
Math for the record.
A Long Pass fumbles on 1-2
A Long Bomb pass fumbles on a 1-3
To fumble on a 4, you'd need a Long Bomb pass and one of the following: one TZ, Very Sunny, or a Foul Appearance opponent in range.
To fumble on a 5, you'd need a Long Bomb pass and two of the following: TZ on the thrower, Very Sunny, Foul Appearance opponent in range.
My take ... if your High Elf wants to make a Long Bomb pass in Very Sunny conditions with one of my guys breathing down his neck ... yah, he sure as heck should fumble on a 1-5. Cheesy freaking Elfball punting plays.
Galak
Valen - Apr 02, 2003 - 10:09 AM
Post subject:
Eh!
Leave it Galak, as you know I take those Elf comments very personnaly! 
Only joking 
, but seriously, I can see you point now from reading the posts, I bow too your superior knowledge!
Valen - Apr 02, 2003 - 10:28 AM
Post subject:
Galak,
Where is you Avatar that you have in TBB?
Martin - Apr 02, 2003 - 12:47 PM
Post subject:
We are a bit weird on this one. 
If you are passing to a player you fumble on a modified 1 but only tackle zones mods are applied. If you passing to just a square the range mods are also applied. This cuts down on the punts but doesn't give you those big fumble chances on a normal pass. It's been working for us for 2 or 3 seasons.
Valen - Apr 02, 2003 - 03:48 PM
Post subject:
I like that Martin, its kind of the best from both worlds!
pfooti - Nov 03, 2003 - 02:45 PM
Post subject:
I think it has been said before. Without the adjusted-1 rule for fumbling, I'd punt a lot more (throw a long bomb to an empty square for the sake of moving the ball really far away from the opposing TD Zone).
The only caveat I have is that an AG6 passer can throw a ball that should be accurate, but fumbles because of the adjusted-1 rule. I think the adjusted-1 rule should read "if the pass was not accurate, and the roll is adjusted-1" to take this into account.
EvilGit - Nov 03, 2003 - 03:19 PM
Post subject:
trying to find more ways of beating me valen?
what are my dice not enough for you or something?
Zombie - Nov 04, 2003 - 01:21 AM
Post subject:
Used to play with fumbles on natural ones only. Recently switched to adding tackle zone modifiers, but not range modifiers.
I've always found the official rule extremely dumb, as it means that some players can never throw an inaccurate pass and always fumble if they miss! Doesn't make any sense at all.
Mestari - Nov 05, 2003 - 05:17 AM
Post subject:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
it also creates a vast number of cheesy/beardy Punting plays
Which have never existed anywhere else except in the vivid imaginations of those who oppose the 'natural 1's rule. The cheesiness of throwing inaccurate long bombs is simply lost on me, and the extent of their use in leagues with no range modifiers has always been very small.
Doubleskulls - Nov 05, 2003 - 05:57 AM
Post subject:
Mestari wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
it also creates a vast number of cheesy/beardy Punting plays
Which have never existed anywhere else except in the vivid imaginations of those who oppose the 'natural 1's rule. The cheesiness of throwing inaccurate long bombs is simply lost on me, and the extent of their use in leagues with no range modifiers has always been very small.
The ECBBL reimposed range modifiers on passing exactly because of this beardy play. Its a low risk, high reward strategy that occassionally is extremely useful.
Zombie - Nov 05, 2003 - 08:15 AM
Post subject:
I agree with Mestari. It's not cheesy, and if the situation even occurs where it's worth doing it, it's the other coach's fault for not covering his backfield.
Tutenkharnage - Nov 05, 2003 - 12:00 PM
Post subject:
Zombie69 wrote:
I've always found the official rule extremely dumb, as it means that some players can never throw an inaccurate pass and always fumble if they miss! Doesn't make any sense at all.
The same applies to AG4 players throwing Quick Passes, but I've never heard a single complaint about it. But I've lost count of the times I've heard complaints about overly agile players fumbling long bombs because of range modifiers. But they're both functions of the same rules, really.
-Chet
Mestari - Nov 05, 2003 - 12:53 PM
Post subject:
-I have the ball in my half
-I can throw it without opposing players in my tackle zone
-I decide to throw a long bomb that's most likely going to be inaccurate and thus end my turn.
Ian, please explain to me where's the cheese in that? What beardy is there in giving up your turn in exchange of putting the ball loose into the opposing side of the pitch?
Doubleskulls - Nov 05, 2003 - 01:58 PM
Post subject:
Mestari wrote:
-I have the ball in my half
-I can throw it without opposing players in my tackle zone
-I decide to throw a long bomb that's most likely going to be inaccurate and thus end my turn.
Ian, please explain to me where's the cheese in that? What beardy is there in giving up your turn in exchange of putting the ball loose into the opposing side of the pitch?
Your were saying that the punting plays "have never existed anywhere except in the vivid imaginations of those who oppose the natural 1's rule".
I was pointing out that in this instance that is not the case and a league of experienced coaches disliked natural 1's so much that the dropped it.
The risk/reward for punting the ball downfield when your opponent only has a turn or two left is just too good.
Zombie - Nov 05, 2003 - 03:45 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Your were saying that the punting plays "have never existed anywhere except in the vivid imaginations of those who oppose the natural 1's rule".
That's not what he said. He said that the beardiness never existed. By his own admission, the play was there (though very rare), but there was nothing beardy about it.
And i agree with that. Like i said, it's the other coach's fault for not covering his backfield properly.
Doubleskulls - Nov 06, 2003 - 03:35 AM
Post subject:
My misinterpretation of his post then - so I'll address the cheesy issue (
)
Imagine that there is one or two turns left at the end of the half and you've been pinned back near your own endzone. You know that your ball carrier is going to get sacked and your opponent probably score. So instead you punt the ball 12 squares downfield (plus your movement).
Covering the backfield is fine and normally I'd consider it weak play not to - but when you've only got 1-2 turns left its a very very hard to have enough players covering the backfield that you can still pick the ball up from pretty much anywhere and score. Sure if you are Skaven or Woodies its not a problem, but how about Dwarves? Out of their 4 AG3 players which ones are going to be hanging back in case the opponent punts the ball, and which ones are going to be chasing the ball carrier so they can score?
There is nothing under the current rules that stop you punting the ball downfield - its just got a 50% chance of failure. So for a 1/6 chance of failure you dramatically reduce the odds of your opponent scoring - probably a vital TD.
On top of which if you have a decent passing game - your Pass/Accurate /Strong Arm thrower will be the one punting the ball downfield and he'll still only fumble on a 1. The idea an unskilled Saurus is as good as a specialist thrower is unrealistic.
I've done it and I've had it done to me. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does its very frustrating.
For all those reasons the ECBBL overwhelming voted to abandon our "range modifiers do not affect fumbles" house rule.
Say what you like but a over a dozen experienced coaches tried it over a couple of seasons and didn't like it.
Mordredd - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:01 AM
Post subject:
Here's another situation, which has happened to me.
I've pinned the cage containing nearly all the team, including ball carrier, on one side line. However 2 guys on the opposite flank have got really lucky and stunned or KO'd their covering players about six squares from the end zone. Knowing the cage can't break through, well it's failed for the past 6 turns, he punts the ball over to the far side. It's so far the pass can't even go to one of the players, but an inaccurate pass will do because the cover is out for the next turn.
It was a desperate play, and it should have desperate play odds too.
Also only fumbling on a 1 makes a mockery of putting pressure on the thrower.
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:32 AM
Post subject:
Edited by Indigo cos I was daft 
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:34 AM
Post subject:
hmm I've actually re-read that and it will need tweaking.... we WANT a pressured thrower to fumble.
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:40 AM
Post subject:
what about this.
Consider the total negative modifier on a throwing player from opposing tackle zones, then from range modifiers. Apply the highest score that applies.
For example (using an AG3 unskilled player)
A long bomb punt is a -2 modifier. A LB punt in a tacklezone WOULD make -3 but because we want it to be possible to fumble AND be inaccurate we only apply the -2 mod. Fumbles on a 3, inaccurate on a 4/5 accurate on 6.
A pressured thrower - 1 TZ on the thrower, who is throwing upto short pass would mean a -1 modifiier - fumbles on a 2, inaccurate on 3, accurate on 4+
A really pressured thrower trying to punt it - 3 TZs on the player, long bombing it. -3 from TZs, -2 from LB but we only use the -3. Fumbles on a 4, inaccurate on a 5, accurate on a 6.
This is better - ignore my other idea 
Considering a player with Accurate:
1) LB punt, no TZs. -2 range mod, +1 accurate
Will fumble on a 2, inaccurate on a 3/4, accurate on 5+
2) Pressured. 1 TZ, upto short pass. -1 TZ, +1 accurate
Will fumble on 1, inaccurate on 2/3, accurate 4+
3) Pressured punt. -3 TZs, -2 range, +1 accurate
Fumble on a 3, inaccurate on a 4/5, accurate on 6
Mordredd - Nov 06, 2003 - 06:02 AM
Post subject:
Not bad. Definitely worth considering. I'm glad you withdrew the first one in favour of the second. It would have taken a lot away from nerves of steel.
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 06:31 AM
Post subject:
yer, screwed that first one up a bit 
might edit it out so I don't look like a total n00b
Mestari - Nov 06, 2003 - 07:22 AM
Post subject:
Matter of opinion, I guess, but I still see nothing cheesy in that. Mind you, the league I'm in uses only the official+officially experimental rules, but I never experienced any problems. Sure, it can be frustrating if the opponent manages to get the ball and lob it out of your reach, but that happens as a result of you neglecting certain parts of your gameplan.
Why is the opponent about to be sacked, near his own end zone? Most likely he got the ball from you. Why isn't he covered in TZ to prevent him from moving his MA downfield and throw the ball? Because you aren't in a sufficiently certain position to sack him.
But anyhow, I've done this discussion quite a few times and the entrenchment lines are not likely to move. I just consider that for this play to be succesful, the other coach must've overcommitted his team to certain direction, and should be frustrated - not because of the opponent, but because he went into a trap.
Zombie - Nov 06, 2003 - 03:12 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Covering the backfield is fine and normally I'd consider it weak play not to - but when you've only got 1-2 turns left its a very very hard to have enough players covering the backfield that you can still pick the ball up from pretty much anywhere and score. Sure if you are Skaven or Woodies its not a problem, but how about Dwarves? Out of their 4 AG3 players which ones are going to be hanging back in case the opponent punts the ball, and which ones are going to be chasing the ball carrier so they can score?
A single dwarf runner can cover more than half of the field with a single go for it. And he's got access to passing skills to send it upfield after he pickes it up.
Besides, how is it that you allowed that one player to get away and move his full MA before throwing the ball? That means there must have been something very wrong in your position.
Zombie - Nov 06, 2003 - 03:14 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Say what you like but a over a dozen experienced coaches tried it over a couple of seasons and didn't like it.
I tried all 3 methods for at least a few years each. I think i'm qualified to give an informed opinion here.
Zombie - Nov 06, 2003 - 03:17 PM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
Also only fumbling on a 1 makes a mockery of putting pressure on the thrower.
Which is why we apply modifiers from tackle zones. But modifiers from range shouldn't make you fumble more often. Just because you're throwing the ball a bit further than usual doesn't mean you'll fumble half the time! And orc breathing down your neck, i understand. But fumbling because you're throwing far, no way!
Zombie - Nov 06, 2003 - 03:21 PM
Post subject:
Mestari wrote:
But anyhow, I've done this discussion quite a few times and the entrenchment lines are not likely to move. I just consider that for this play to be succesful, the other coach must've overcommitted his team to certain direction, and should be frustrated - not because of the opponent, but because he went into a trap.
Well said. Not counting range modifiers for fumbles actually increases the strategic element of the game.
Mordredd - Nov 07, 2003 - 06:49 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
Besides, how is it that you allowed that one player to get away and move his full MA before throwing the ball?
Well, I imagine the most likely 'offender' in these situations are Elf teams. You'd probably have to use your entire team to pin the bugger down anyway.
Equally common is blitzing a hole in the line to run through.
Combined, and it could take as little as 2 players to put the ball beyond reach.
Yes, Dwarf runners can be built up as throwers, but it will be a long time until they're any good at it. In any case the punting player only needs to not fumble. The return pass to get the ball back down the pitch has to be accurate, i.e. the chance of success is most probably reversed.
And the teams most likely to suffer from this 'trap' are those least likely to be able to deal with it. Dwarf, Undead, Khemri (whose so-called thrower is MA5 AG2), Goblins, 'flings. Leaving players back isn't going to do them much good.
Zombie - Nov 07, 2003 - 12:30 PM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
Yes, Dwarf runners can be built up as throwers, but it will be a long time until they're any good at it.
Not true. All they need is two skills: pass and accurate. At the rate dwarf runners earn SPPs, it should only take a few games.
Mordredd - Nov 10, 2003 - 05:11 AM
Post subject:
A few games? I think not. That requires 16 SPP, or 6 TDs (assuming no MVP). It's quite a successful Dwarf team that notches up 6 TDs on one player in a few games. I've never seen it happen.
It also assumes that the Dwarf player wants a thrower, rather than a runner. All the Dwarf teams I have been in leagues with have always gone for the runners, taking skills that make them less likely to get knocked down. Usually starting with block.
cataphract - Nov 10, 2003 - 05:57 AM
Post subject:
The big problem i see with only fumbling on a 1 is not with throwing the ball but with throwing a team mate!
If you only fumbbl on a 1 an ogre can do a long pass (counts as long bomb) and be inaccurate on a 2+ accurate on a 6... this makes those one turn flying gobbo plays a helluva lot easier!
Deathwing - Nov 10, 2003 - 10:57 AM
Post subject:
This is an old old chestnut. IIRC, the ECBBL weren't using range mods for fumbles when we discussed this ages back on TBB. Ian's point that it devalued passing skills and specialist throwers is entirely right IMO, and I believe was my argument at the time.
I believe that a team should need a specialist thrower to throw the ball a long distance with minimal inherent risk. Skaven/Elf etc arguments are less relevent IMO than teams who don't have normal access to skills. Lizards in particular would play differently if skinks could hurl the ball up to Long Pass range relatively easily, also Hobbos or indeed CD Blockers.
To reiterate, it does devalue specialist Passing Skills, and as a consequence of that has greater impact on teams without access to said skills than those with access.
Of course this comes down to preference really, but it's definately one to 'house rule' IMO. I think that the fact that it doesn't make sense to some is a natural consequence of using AG as the base for many things rather than having seperate stat lines for throwing and catching etc a la 2e.
Zombie - Nov 10, 2003 - 02:38 PM
Post subject:
Deathwing wrote:
This is an old old chestnut. IIRC, the ECBBL weren't using range mods for fumbles when we discussed this ages back on TBB.
Ages back on TBB? This was discussed years before TBB was even a concept in someone's mind. Heck, it was probably discussed before BBC was born in what, 1994? It must have appeared at least once or twice on the mailing list before that time.
But then, this is true of almost any subject in Blood Bowl. Or at least, any subject that applied to 3rd ed.
In any case, the fact that this particular rule has been a subject of discussion for about 10 years now, even though it was never officially changed, should tell you how contentious it is...
Deathwing - Nov 10, 2003 - 04:32 PM
Post subject:
Heh. Maybe I wasn't clear. Everything you said I agree completely with, hence my point about this being an old old chestnut. I wasn't intentionally trying to link the age of this of the discussion on this with a thread on TBB. And 'ages' was a throwaway word, and was intended as a relative term.
Try this:
'This is an old old chestnut.*
IIRC, the ECBBL weren't using range mods for fumbles when we discussed this a year or two back on TBB.'
The intended point was that doubleskulls' League were playing it house ruled at the time of that discussion, not that this is an old subject because of that particular discussion on TBB.
*Meaning many years, see Zombie's points above.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 10, 2003 - 08:11 PM
Post subject:
Zombie69 wrote:
even though it was never officially changed, should tell you how contentious it is...
Contentious<>Correct
Galak
Zombie - Nov 10, 2003 - 09:03 PM
Post subject:
Maybe, but it also points to the original version being incorrect as well.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 11, 2003 - 07:23 AM
Post subject:
Zombie69 wrote:
Maybe, but it also points to the original version being incorrect as well.
Bumblebees cannot fly also ... but they do it anyway and it works correctly. Does mean that the fact that folks keep saying they cannot fly makes it true. ie your comment is that commentary indicates error ... not necessarily true.
The Fumble mod works as a game mechanic and removing it screws up a lot of stuff (I know you disagree but the "get rid of the range mod Fumbles" is a minority group (an old minority group ... but a minority group no matter how you slice it). The reason it keeps coming up is that its a game mechanic that isn't intuitive as "real life" does work that way, but once most players understand the effects of removing it they understand (again you aren't in the group ... got that).
So like the bumblebee flying ... the range mod fumble rule just works regardless of certain folks looking at it from time to time and saying "that doesn't make sense"
Galak
Zombie - Nov 11, 2003 - 09:15 AM
Post subject:
Notice i said "points to", not "proves that". There's more chance for the rule being bad if people complain about it than if they don't. That's all i'm saying.
Darkson - Nov 11, 2003 - 11:29 AM
Post subject:
Zombie69 wrote:
There's more chance for the rule being bad if people complain about it than if they don't. That's all i'm saying.
Hope that's true. I'm going to start a "Norse should have AV9 thread"
Mestari - Nov 17, 2003 - 05:53 AM
Post subject:
I remember this being the first issue I raised when I joined the mailing list sometimes in -98 or so...
Nevertheless, I would suspect that both the pro and con sides of this issue are pretty much in the minority, while the majority of players do not have a solid opinion on the issue.
The only argument that I readily admit has some solid ground under it is the one about TTM, but otherwise I fail to see the "game mechanic"-point on this issue.
bigallium - Mar 15, 2004 - 05:25 AM
Post subject:
same as Zombie and Martin.
Only tackle zones modify fumble, range/weather modify accuacy.
to avoid "cheesy punting plays" in general, not just with the adapted passing modifiers, we always played that you had to have a target player (even with hail mary) if you want to pass.
This was one of the big problems with the kicking rules in the last edidtion.
Once a play had broken down, the game turned into kick tennis, with your team split into two groups, one upfield trying to catch it and one back field, trying to field to opposition kick and boot it up field again.
I'm sure in 2nd edidtion (polystyrene pitch) you had to have a target player. Tho I could be wrong.
The changing of this to 'any square' I never did like.
so there..
right.
Squig87 - May 19, 2004 - 05:04 PM
Post subject:
The thing that worrys me about this is that I honestly can't see where in the LRB it says that "fumbled throws are modified by the range of the pass..." And I've been trying to convince my league of this, yet without the solid proof I cant change this.
We've always played only 1s for fumble. I just hope that nobody latches onto the diving catch cheese tactic. A misthrown longbomb rolls a 2 but the diving catch player catches on 3's with re roll. Its like hail mary on every player... good thing only I have thought of this, and have no intention of playing it.
Could anyone "quote me happy", I really wanna prove 'em wrong.
Cheers
Squig
Zombie - May 19, 2004 - 07:00 PM
Post subject:
Diving catch is worthless even with this house rule. The chance an accurate pass falling in range is less than 50%, and you get no reroll on this. Not something i'd put my hopes in, especially with something so crucial and game deciding as a long pass. It's better to try and be accurate!
Doubleskulls - May 20, 2004 - 02:50 AM
Post subject:
LRB pp22 "if the D6 roll for a pass is 1 or less before or after modification, then the thrower has fumbled and dropped the ball."
BenArd - May 20, 2004 - 08:06 AM
Post subject:
IMO both the range and the tackle zones would affect the pass.
Anyone who has ever tried anything sporting will know that the difficulty in performing an accurate throw/kick is directly proportional to the distance that you are trying to move the ball. A quick pass consists of just tossing the ball a short distance which is not too difficult and will not carry too high a risk of fumbling. However, throwing the football half the length of the field is much harder as you have to put much more effort into generating ball speed to cover the distance. Therefore you have less control over the pass and because of the higher effort you have more chance of dropping the ball.
Also, try the following exercise. Go out and try jogging a few steps, setting yourself and throwing a ball to a friend 50yrds away. Only the distance would cause any problem. Now try doing the same with another friend chasing you a couple of steps behind. You have much less time to set yourself (if you even get the chance) and more than likely would have to throw on the run. Obviously this adds a much higher chance of fumbling the ball as you have to concentrate on trying to throw the football a long distance, avoiding the attentions of your pursuer and trying to be accurate with the throw.
Therefore, the difficulty in throwing a pass and the possibility of fumbling is directly proportional to the distance of the throw and the time you have/pressure you are under.
What I’m trying to say is that, IMO, the LRB rules adequately cover this element of the game. I also think that by reducing the chances of fumbling you unfairly weight the game in favour of agile teams. Yes stronger teams also have less chance of fumbling the ball but they still have just as bad a chance of throwing inaccurate passes whilst agile teams now have a slightly bigger advantage because they will drop the ball less often and even if they don’t throw accurately the ball will still be up around the receiver.
Having said all this I don’t think that throwing a long bomb would result in a fumble 50% of the time and think that maybe a –1 modifier on long pass and long bomb throws would be more realistic. Just to give that added risk to throwing the ball distances. Also there needs to be some allowance for higher agility players to throw long bombs inaccurately as currently it stands at an AG5 player can either throw a long bomb accurately or fumble. Of course, this is just my humble opinion and what suits our league may not suit another.
Zombie - May 20, 2004 - 08:32 AM
Post subject:
In our house rule, range does affect your chance of being accurate, it just doesn't affect your chance of fumbling. When you think about it, that makes sense. Fumbling occurs when people are grabing at you, not when you're all alone and safe trying to throw far!
BenArd - May 20, 2004 - 08:36 AM
Post subject:
I can see you point. I just think that sometimes when your trying to chuck it a long way you get caught up trying to hard to get the distance and don't concentrate too much on the technique and that's when bad things happen. But like I said, it's just my opinion and it would make a pretty boring forum if everyone agreed on everything.
Zombie - May 20, 2004 - 09:10 AM
Post subject:
Well, show me an instance where a professional quarterback ever fumbled a long throw with no pressure whatsoever and i'll be impressed. If this happens more than once every million throws, i'd be surprised. Fumbling with pressure, now that's common.
Xtreme - May 20, 2004 - 09:15 AM
Post subject:
Definatly doesn't happen 50% of the time.
I agree with Zombie.
slup - May 20, 2004 - 11:01 AM
Post subject:
Squig87 wrote:
The thing that worrys me about this is that I honestly can't see where in the LRB it says that "fumbled throws are modified by the range of the pass..." And I've been trying to convince my league of this, yet without the solid proof I cant change this.
We've always played only 1s for fumble. I just hope that nobody latches onto the diving catch cheese tactic. A misthrown longbomb rolls a 2 but the diving catch player catches on 3's with re roll. Its like hail mary on every player... good thing only I have thought of this, and have no intention of playing it.
Could anyone "quote me happy", I really wanna prove 'em wrong.
Cheers
Squig
Quote:
Fumbles
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 team turn ends immediately.
LRB page 22
Modification means all modifiers: very sunny, foul app, TZ, accurate and range modifiers.
slup - May 20, 2004 - 11:22 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Well, show me an instance where a professional quarterback ever fumbled a long throw with no pressure whatsoever and i'll be impressed. If this happens more than once every million throws, i'd be surprised. Fumbling with pressure, now that's common.
A professionel Blood Bowl thrower (accurate and strong arm) also only fumbles at any range on a pure 1 (with no other modifiers than range).
There you have your quarterback.
Now give the ball to one of those 325 lbs steorid-pumped players in the middle and make him do the same thing.
You will most certainly see a fumble at roughly 50% of his passes.
Squig87 - May 20, 2004 - 12:43 PM
Post subject:
Thanks for the quote sup. Although this is quite a major aspect of the passing game it never came up in Nottingham in any games, with 6 people. 36 games and no fumbled passes, man nuffle looked down on use that day...
Then again, my necros only attempted hand offs...
Thanks
Squig
slup - May 20, 2004 - 01:16 PM
Post subject:
Squig87 wrote:
Thanks for the quote sup. Although this is quite a major aspect of the passing game it never came up in Nottingham in any games, with 6 people. 36 games and no fumbled passes, man nuffle looked down on use that day...
Then again, my necros only attempted hand offs...
Thanks
Squig
In games with teams at low level and without the need to earn SPP you generally don't pass a lot if at all.
It is too risky.
As you said, handoffs goes a long way
Doubleskulls - May 20, 2004 - 03:06 PM
Post subject:
Although the range doesn't effect fumbles is a more realistic rule it is, in my opinion and our leagues an unbalancing one.
1) Specialist throwers ought to be better than "naturally" talented players (e.g. a human with accurate & strong arm ought to have a lower chance of fumbling than an AG5 player).
2) Punting the ball up the field is annoying as hell and gives too good a reward (at the end of a half) for the associated risk.
Zombie - May 20, 2004 - 03:20 PM
Post subject:
slup wrote:
Modification means all modifiers: very sunny, foul app, TZ, accurate and range modifiers.
We know that. We know that ours is a house rule, and has been ever since we started playing that way 10 years ago.
Zombie - May 20, 2004 - 03:23 PM
Post subject:
slup wrote:
A professionel Blood Bowl thrower (accurate and strong arm) also only fumbles at any range on a pure 1 (with no other modifiers than range).
He will fumble on a 3 with two tackle zones, while a short pass with the same two tackle zones would only have him fumble on a 1. Doesn't make sense at all.
slup - May 21, 2004 - 12:02 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
slup wrote:
Modification means all modifiers: very sunny, foul app, TZ, accurate and range modifiers.
We know that. We know that ours is a house rule, and has been ever since we started playing that way 10 years ago.
I was explaining the rule to Squig87 who asked for it, hence the quote.
slup - May 21, 2004 - 12:12 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
slup wrote:
A professionel Blood Bowl thrower (accurate and strong arm) also only fumbles at any range on a pure 1 (with no other modifiers than range).
He will fumble on a 3 with two tackle zones, while a short pass with the same two tackle zones would only have him fumble on a 1. Doesn't make sense at all.
Defenders trying to sack a quarterback are doing their best to knock the ball out of the hand of him increasing the risk of a fumble.
If you are going to make a pass 2/3 down the field you are going to have the ball in a very vulnerable position, whereas a quick pass can be made with a flick of your hand under your belly.
BenArd - May 21, 2004 - 04:40 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Well, show me an instance where a professional quarterback ever fumbled a long throw with no pressure whatsoever and i'll be impressed. If this happens more than once every million throws, i'd be surprised. Fumbling with pressure, now that's common.
My view of it wasn't so much for the specialist throwers who have the skills to ensure that they don't drop the ball very often, if ever. but the differnce between a high elf thrower with accurate/strong arm and an unskilled halfling is huge. The halfling trying to go for a long throw would stand a much higher chance of fumbling (especially when you consider that the size of the ball doesn't change but a halflings hand is much smaller than that of a normal sized player). so a 50% fumble chance would seem reasonable.
Mordredd - May 21, 2004 - 05:18 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Well, show me an instance where a professional quarterback ever fumbled a long throw with no pressure whatsoever and i'll be impressed. If this happens more than once every million throws, i'd be surprised. Fumbling with pressure, now that's common.
Professional quarterbacks don't have to throw balls with spikes on. Blood Bowl throwers do. I reckon that would pretty much account for the increased fumble rate.
Doubleskulls - May 21, 2004 - 05:47 AM
Post subject:
And this isn't real - its a game - and doesn't have to be realistic
Zombie - May 21, 2004 - 07:49 AM
Post subject:
slup wrote:
Defenders trying to sack a quarterback are doing their best to knock the ball out of the hand of him increasing the risk of a fumble.
If you are going to make a pass 2/3 down the field you are going to have the ball in a very vulnerable position, whereas a quick pass can be made with a flick of your hand under your belly.
If there's nobody around you (no tackle zones), then the ball is not in a vulnerable position.
Zombie - May 21, 2004 - 07:50 AM
Post subject:
BenArd wrote:
My view of it wasn't so much for the specialist throwers who have the skills to ensure that they don't drop the ball very often, if ever. but the differnce between a high elf thrower with accurate/strong arm and an unskilled halfling is huge. The halfling trying to go for a long throw would stand a much higher chance of fumbling (especially when you consider that the size of the ball doesn't change but a halflings hand is much smaller than that of a normal sized player). so a 50% fumble chance would seem reasonable.
Then an ogre throwing the ball should never fumble at all.
Keep the player's size out of this.
BenArd - May 21, 2004 - 09:00 AM
Post subject:
This is just getting ridiculous. I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a forum where people were able to express their views and opinions and discuss them in a mature and sensible manner.
As i have said in almost all my posts on this subject, these are my opinions. I'm not suggesting that because you have house ruled it a different way that you are wrong and should change it. That is the whole point of huose rules, they allow you to modify the generic rule set to suit your leagues.
My previous comment was merely supposed to be an indicative example and I am not saying that the size of a player is 'the' deciding factor for throwing a ball.
In effect what your saying is that a Halfling/Goblin/Saurus throwing a longpass/long bomb would have no more chance of fumbling the football than an Elf thrower with Strong Arm and Accurate and an AG of 6. I just happen to disagee with this.
Zombie wrote:
If there's nobody around you (no tackle zones), then the ball is not in a vulnerable position.
I would agree that 99% of the time there is not a vulnerability when performing this play but surely you must concede that in some situations there would be a chance that the ball may be fumbled. i.e. wet ball slipping out of your hands, sweaty hands (could be a last ditch play trying to avoid defeat in a final) and in the above examples then the distance would you are trying to throw would increase the chances of dropping the ball as a little dolly holding a wet ball is far easier than launching it miles upfield.
slup - May 21, 2004 - 09:24 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
slup wrote:
Defenders trying to sack a quarterback are doing their best to knock the ball out of the hand of him increasing the risk of a fumble.
If you are going to make a pass 2/3 down the field you are going to have the ball in a very vulnerable position, whereas a quick pass can be made with a flick of your hand under your belly.
If there's nobody around you (no tackle zones), then the ball is not in a vulnerable position.
Then we are back at square 1 in which a professionel Blood Bowl thrower (accurate and strong arm, similar to a qarterback) is passing at any range with fumbles at only natural ones which was my initial post.
I am beginning to suspect that you only read things outside the quote box 
Doubleskulls - May 21, 2004 - 10:44 AM
Post subject:
slup - don't argue with Zombie. He never surrenders!
Zombie - May 21, 2004 - 10:56 AM
Post subject:
BenArd wrote:
In effect what your saying is that a Halfling/Goblin/Saurus throwing a longpass/long bomb would have no more chance of fumbling the football than an Elf thrower with Strong Arm and Accurate and an AG of 6. I just happen to disagee with this.
This about it. Those players know they're not as good at throwing the ball. Their primary objective will probably be to get it down field, and they won't be too serious about their accuracy. In the same vein, in real football, non-quarterbacks attempting a pass rarely if ever fumble the ball, but they're rarely accurate either.
BenArd wrote:
I would agree that 99% of the time there is not a vulnerability when performing this play but surely you must concede that in some situations there would be a chance that the ball may be fumbled. i.e. wet ball slipping out of your hands, sweaty hands (could be a last ditch play trying to avoid defeat in a final) and in the above examples then the distance would you are trying to throw would increase the chances of dropping the ball as a little dolly holding a wet ball is far easier than launching it miles upfield.
Maybe we should add in our house rules that under "pouring rain", there's a -1 to fumbles. Other than that, i really can't think of another situation where you're likely to fumble without an opponent near you. But if you could name more, i'd like to hear them.
Zombie - May 21, 2004 - 10:57 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
slup - don't argue with Zombie. He never surrenders!
I've been known to surrender when presented with an irrefutable argument!
Zombie - May 21, 2004 - 11:00 AM
Post subject:
slup wrote:
Zombie wrote:
If there's nobody around you (no tackle zones), then the ball is not in a vulnerable position.
Then we are back at square 1 in which a professionel Blood Bowl thrower (accurate and strong arm, similar to a qarterback) is passing at any range with fumbles at only natural ones which was my initial post.
Then we're back to my argument that non-quarterbacks should only fumble at a 1 in the same circumstance.
slup - May 21, 2004 - 11:45 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Well, show me an instance where a professional quarterback ever fumbled a long throw with no pressure whatsoever and i'll be impressed. If this happens more than once every million throws, i'd be surprised. Fumbling with pressure, now that's common.
is the post i answered.
Nothing about a non-quarterback in this.
Zombie wrote:
Then we're back to my argument that non-quarterbacks should only fumble at a 1 in the same circumstance.
You certainly maid it clear that this is your oppinion, but it wasn't your argument.
Zombie - May 21, 2004 - 12:15 PM
Post subject:
It was one of my arguments. There's more than one here.
Do you watch Canadian football? In that, passes are much more common than in American football, due mostly to the 3 downs instead of 4 but because of other rule differences as well. Rushing yards are usually only 10-30% of a team's offensive yards in this game. So we get to see lots of passing attempts, and even a few by non-quarterbacks (about once a game on average). I've rarely, if ever, seen anyone, quarterback or not, fumble a ball as he was throwing it when the ball was not wet and no pressure was applied to him.
slup - May 21, 2004 - 12:44 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Do you watch Canadian football?
I am sorry to say no.
Most TV-networks over here does not know if there exist other kinds of sport than soccer.
And the few NLF games that made it here were transmitted live meaning from 10 pm sunday to 1 am monday (Superbowl from midnight to 4 am monday).
My opinion is that passing game should belong to those teams which can field a thrower, not those with a lucky AG5 player, hence the difference in fumbling rates.
On the other hand if you got AG5 you know for sure that your pass never will be inaccurate.
You either fumble the ball or make the pass which gives you way more ball control than a normal thrower.
BenArd - May 23, 2004 - 01:59 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Maybe we should add in our house rules that under "pouring rain", there's a -1 to fumbles. Other than that, i really can't think of another situation where you're likely to fumble without an opponent near you. But if you could name more, i'd like to hear them.
How about putting your foot into a divot on the uneven turf? most bloodbowl stadia aren't going to be in the best possible repair and the pitches would be of a similar state, and such an incident would lead to more fumbles as you would have your concentration distracted. Or the fact that the ball may vary in shape from the perfect egg-shaped ball used in real football.
Zombie wrote:
I've been known to surrender when presented with an irrefutable argument!
I won't pretend that my arguement is irrefutable, it is merely my own opinion.