NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - Passing Sequence

BloodBowlCommish - Feb 02, 2004 - 04:56 PM
Post subject: Passing Sequence

Has it ever occured to you all that you can intercept a pass before you even know it is catchable? In the LRB on page 22 it states that "The coach must declare that one of his players will try to intercept before the thrower rolls to see if he is on target."

Now, this may have been discussed before, but would it not be better to change this to say "The coach must declare that one of his players will try to intercept after the thrower has determined that he has not fumbled. In accurate passes can still be intercepted in this way."

My reasoning is this: you declare a pass, measure to the target, intercept, pass, then catch...it should be declare pass, measure to the target, pass, intercept, then catch. I know that skills can complicate this, but essentially a pass actions has the (5) components listed above. To re-iterate them, they are (as plated now):

(1) Declare Pass Action
(2) Measure to Target
(3) Roll to Intercept
(4) Roll to Pass
(5) Roll to Catch

I think it should be:

(1) Declare Pass Action
(2) Measure to Target
(4) Roll to Pass
(3) Roll to Intercept
(5) Roll to Catch

What are all your opinions? Let's stop the insanity of intercepting a fumble 5 squares away...

Zombie - Feb 02, 2004 - 07:02 PM
Post subject:

This is a very, very old issue. Yes, it has occured to us. It has occured to us ever since the rule was made this way 10 years ago. Some have complained about it many times (me included), some have defended it in the name of rules mechanics and game balance (even though the frequency of interceptions is basically the same either way), but one thing is for sure: it's not going to change anytime soon.

BloodBowlCommish - Feb 03, 2004 - 08:14 AM
Post subject:

Well...I will ask it again and send it to some one higher up i guess...I at least have to try, right?

Mordredd - Feb 03, 2004 - 08:29 AM
Post subject:

No, not really. The rule is fine the way it is. Zombie is wrong about the frequency of interceptions being the same before and after you work out if a fumble has happened.

Even if you house rule so that fumbles only happen on a 1 then there will only be 5/6ths of the interceptions as before. However fumbles often happen more than this so you are making something which is pretty rare anyway even rarer.

If it helps try not to think of the whole throwing mechanics as being purely stepwise. Think of it as a complex set of factors, which go into working out whether the pass is accurate, inaccurate, intercepted or fumbled. The chronology of events being less important.

mikeyc222 - Feb 03, 2004 - 08:38 AM
Post subject:

to my knowledge, even members of the bbrc have said that it happens so rarely as it is there is no reason to change it simply to please people who get too literal with rules.

Darkson - Feb 03, 2004 - 09:18 AM
Post subject:

As I said on the GW forum, leave it as it is. Interceptions aren't exactly everyday occurances now, so I don't want to see them any rarer, and it's not going to be changed.

If you don't like it, then House Rule it.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 03, 2004 - 09:44 AM
Post subject:

The rule won't change any time soon. If it did, a new set of complications would arise, led by these:

1. You'd have to determine the final target square before determining who was eligible to intercept. (After all, a player "shouldn't" be allowed to intercept an inaccurate pass that travels nowhere near him.)
2. There'd be no room for Pass Block. How would you move your players before the pass if the pass might sail elsewhere (and hence make your move illegal) if it was inaccurate?

I'm explaining this quickly, so it may not be clear. But think about it for a while and the difficulties may become apparent.

-Chet

Zombie - Feb 03, 2004 - 11:46 AM
Post subject:

These complications only exist if you want them to. In my league, we say that the pass going inaccurate might very well be because someone touched it in mid air. With this image in mind, you don't have to make any other change to accomodate this one.

Zombie - Feb 03, 2004 - 11:49 AM
Post subject:

Oh, and it's not just a question of time frame. Do you think it makes sense that a pass has less chance of being fumbled if there's a guy in front of you threatening to intercept it? Certainly not!

Tojurub - Feb 04, 2004 - 12:06 PM
Post subject:

I have a question which I'm not sure is covered in the LRB, but I might just be blind.

Do you still roll for the pass after you find out that it is intercepted?

I think that's the main point here. In my opinion the sequence should be like BloodBowlCommish wrote, but the interception roll should be done regardsless of the pass being accurate of not.

What's wrong with the following:
a) declare pass
b) measure and declare target
c) announce interception if a player is in the intended pass line (ruler width)
d) roll for pass
--> if fumbled stop here: TO
e) roll for interceptionn
--> if intercepted stop here: TO
f) roll for catch or scatter the ball.

That shouldn't cause any difficulties with the two points mentioned by Chet. The only change is the order of pass and interception, but you don't have to roll for interception if you know the pass is fumbled, which would make absolutely sense!!!!! In my opinion a player should not be able to intercept a fumbled ball!

mikeyc222 - Feb 04, 2004 - 12:32 PM
Post subject:

there really just isn't any actual need for the change and i think that is the biggest point. the BBRC changes things that they feel need to be changed and don't change things that don't need to be changed. if you don't like it, house rule it.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 04, 2004 - 03:05 PM
Post subject:

Tojurub wrote:

Do you still roll for the pass after you find out that it is intercepted?

Absolutely not. Hence, it's impossible to "intercept a fumbled pass" - either the pass is intercepted, in which case you never roll to fumble, or the pass is not intercepted, in which case you can fumble it. But it's never both.

There's a singular exception, but it's a mechanical issue: Safe Throw. It's possible to make an INT roll, have it negated by Safe Throw, and then watch the thrower fumble the pass. But there's still no logical contradiction: either the pass is intercepted, or it's fumbled, but (again) it's never both.

My tabletop league just finished its 3rd season. In 96 games - that's 192 team-games - we've witnessed only 12 INTs. That means that the typical team intercepts one pass every 16 games. And this is a league with 9 active pass blockers, and only one player with Safe Throw (a skill he's never used).

Interceptions do not need to be made rarer. Fumbles do not need to increase in frequency.

-Chet

mikeyc222 - Feb 04, 2004 - 03:30 PM
Post subject:

amen

Zombie - Feb 04, 2004 - 06:57 PM
Post subject:

Chet, you're not listening.

1. Interceptions would not be made significantly rarer, if at all.

2. It doesn't make any sense for a pass to have less chance of being fumbled when there's a guy trying to intercept. If anything, there should be more chance of fumble, not less. This has nothing to do with timing, the pass not having been throw yet, or any such exotic argument. It's just a question of probability. You don't fumble less often when there are people trying to intercept!

Zombie - Feb 04, 2004 - 06:58 PM
Post subject:

mikeyc222 wrote:

there really just isn't any actual need for the change and i think that is the biggest point.

How about this for a reason? So that the hundreds of leagues (i'm sure there are just that many worldwide) who currently have to house rule it just to have a rule that makes sense, don't have to house rule it anymore!

mikeyc222 - Feb 05, 2004 - 07:27 AM
Post subject:

i'm sure there are many more who think it's fine the way it is. on these boards i generally find far more people saying it's ok the way it is then those who say it needs to change "to make more sense."
sorry, your reasons just don't hold up for me.
and yes, zombie, interceptions would be more rare if you rolled the pass first. let's just say that you have an AG3 thrower in 3 tackle zones trying to make a short pass to get rid of the ball. currently, the opposing coach would have a 1/6 chance of making an interception. if you change the rules to make the pass roll first, the thrower has a 1/3 chance to acually not fumble the ball. this translates to something like a 1/9 chance of an interception...in what way would that not make them even more rare?

mikeyc222 - Feb 05, 2004 - 07:29 AM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

and you can say this all you want, just like i can say that i believe those leagues/people are in the minority, but the simple fact is that there is no way to actually verify this, therefore in my opinion no reason to change the rule because a few people feel that the rest of the world doesn't like the way the rule is written.

Tojurub - Feb 05, 2004 - 10:23 AM
Post subject:

Last comment from me on that topic:
What does the word INTERCEPTION mean:
it comes from the Latin root: Inter (in between) and capere (catch)

meaning capturing something which is in between something. How can you capture something, which is not even on it's way (due to a fumble)?

Tutenkharnage - Feb 05, 2004 - 10:42 AM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

Maybe I'm not understanding. But I'm certain INTs would drop off by at least 17% - more if you count all the occasions on which the thrower fumbles on a roll higher than 1. That's a sizable chunk of deep throws, so I'll conservatively call it a 20% drop. That's significant to me.

I don't understand your second point. "Less chance" than what? Is this player standing in the thrower's tackle zone, or isn't he? I can't tell from your statement.

-Chet

mikeyc222 - Feb 05, 2004 - 10:54 AM
Post subject:

Tojurub wrote:

your just taking things too literally. once again, it's a game mechanic that is fine the way it is. if you don't like it, house rule it.

BTW, i constantly find it amusing when people compare real life to a game with elves, dwarves, vampires...
come on guys, it's a game, there are lots of more important things in life to worry about then passing/intercept sequence.

Bevan - Feb 05, 2004 - 02:13 PM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

Zombie wrote:

1. Interceptions would not be made significantly rarer, if at all.

When the issue of increasing the number of interceptions was discussed a year or two ago it was generally concluded that all efforts to increase the chance of interceptions just decreases the number of times that coaches will risk a pass over an opponent. The rule that you roll for interceptions before rolling for the pass will have this effect (i.e reduce high risk passes).

So I agree with Zombie that the current rule will decrease risky passing rather than increase the total number of interceptions. Conversely if we put the pass roll before the interception roll (where it should be) I would expect that the number of risky passes would increase and the interceptions would stay about the same.

BloodBowlCommish - Feb 05, 2004 - 02:43 PM
Post subject:

I agree...you will either take teh chance and throw no matter what the odds are or you will not. Basically I think the issue is that fumbles occur takign away interceptions, but on the contracry, I do not want to take that into consideration becasue that is teh game mechanic that is broken, dont you think?

Zombie - Feb 05, 2004 - 03:44 PM
Post subject:

mikeyc222 wrote:

Most passes are made in situations where you only fumble on a 1. This only decreases the chance of interception by 1/6. But as was argued many times before, the less probable an interception is, the more people will be prepared to throw over an opponent. Because of that, the number of interceptions might not change at all!

Zombie - Feb 05, 2004 - 03:46 PM
Post subject:

mikeyc222 wrote:

Zombie wrote:

I agree that the majority plays by the official rule. That's true for any rule in the book, even the most absurd (e.g. foul appearance working when prone). But i believe that the vast majority of people who play by the official rule in this case wouldn't care either way, so that there are more people who would want it my way than there are who want it the way it is now.

Zombie - Feb 05, 2004 - 03:52 PM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

[Maybe I'm not understanding. But I'm certain INTs would drop off by at least 17% - more if you count all the occasions on which the thrower fumbles on a roll higher than 1. That's a sizable chunk of deep throws, so I'll conservatively call it a 20% drop. That's significant to me.

I disagree. It can easily be argued (and it was argued in the past) that the less likely interceptions are, the more likely a coach is to try and pass the ball over an opponent. Because of this, there might not be any decrease at all.

Tutenkharnage wrote:

I don't understand your second point. "Less chance" than what? Is this player standing in the thrower's tackle zone, or isn't he? I can't tell from your statement.

Take any one situation you want - any range, any number of tackle zones. With the official rule, there is a higher chance of fumbling if there's nobody who can intercept, since interceptions cut down on possible fumbles. It doesn't make any sense at all for a thrower to have lower chances of fumbling the ball when someone is threatening to intercept. If anything, the chance should be higher, but at the very least it should be the same.

Darkson - Feb 06, 2004 - 01:42 AM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

But i believe that the vast majority of people who play by the official rule in this case wouldn't care either way, so that there are more people who would want it my way than there are who want it the way it is now.

Well, I can only speak for the people I've gamed with, and the people I've met at tournaments, but the majority of them are happy with it as it is now, and don't want it changed.

Zombie - Feb 06, 2004 - 01:48 AM
Post subject:

Exactly my point. They're happy with it as it is now. They don't want change for the sake of change. But if the official rule were currently the other way around, they wouldn't want that changed either. So those people are actually more neutral about the rule than anything. They may have a strong opinion about not changing things (as do i), but they don't have a strong opinion about this rule in particular, taken out of context.

Mordredd - Feb 06, 2004 - 05:01 AM
Post subject:

This argument is getting absurd.

The idea that an interception is less likely if you roll for fumbles first is wrong. You have not changed the chance, 1/6 for most, but the number of times the opportunity will arise. People will be just as reluctant to pass over opposition players as before, as they see it as an unnecessary risk. In any case a fumble is only marginally preferable to an interception in most cases.

This is not the only 'anomaly' in the rules regarding interceptions, and passes generally. Why is only 1 player allowed to try to intercept? If a player in the tackle zone of the passer, or receiver, tries to intercept surely they are concentrating on catching the ball too much to be any real distraction to the passer or receiver? Why is there no mechanic for allowing the thrower to put way too much, or far too little, power on the throw? I.e. throwing a hard quick pass that misses the receiver and ends up as closer to a long bomb. Should it really be possible for a throw to be either accurate or fumbled, but not inaccurate?

If you really want to accurately describe a pass then the whole thing is going to get very complicated.

Zombie, foul appearance working when prone is not absurd. I made the argument in the thread about FA earlier. I notice you had no come back then, so just drop it already.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 06, 2004 - 06:14 AM
Post subject:

I was set to raise the "only one player may attempt an interception" clause, but I see I've been beaten to the punch.

-Chet

mikeyc222 - Feb 06, 2004 - 07:52 AM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

this is just plain wrong(and dumb). coaches who don't make "risky" passes will not make more just because all of a sudden they have more of a chance to fumble. and while most passes may be made "in situations where you only fumble on a 1" that's not the only time they are made. as a matter of fact i REGULARLY make long passes. that's because i actually use my throwers as throwers and build their skills as PURE passers and make even AG3 passers deep threats. i have no worries about throwing over opponents because i believe in safe throw.

Zombie wrote:

once again, sorry but...no. from all of the people i have talked to most like the way it is because they believe interceptions will greatly decrease if you change the sequence and they don't want to see that happen because interceptions are rare and fun. if you would like to play test your proposed rule changes then by all means do so and i will look at any VERIFIABLE data you have the proves your point.

Zombie wrote:

granted when i'm doing the throwing, in many, but not all, cases i would probably prefer a fumble to an interception, i would rather have an interception if i'm on defense so i'll take things how they are now.
thank you for calling...

Zombie - Feb 06, 2004 - 03:12 PM
Post subject:

mikeyc222 wrote:

and while most passes may be made "in situations where you only fumble on a 1" that's not the only time they are made. as a matter of fact i REGULARLY make long passes. that's because i actually use my throwers as throwers and build their skills as PURE passers and make even AG3 passers deep threats.

So what's your point? A thrower with accurate making a long pass still only fumbles on a 1.

mikeyc222 wrote:

if you would like to play test your proposed rule changes then by all means do so and i will look at any VERIFIABLE data you have the proves your point.

I've been "playtesting" this for about 10 years now. Never played differently. Unfortunately, as my leagues where always table top and never had records kept on computers, i'm afraid that i can't provide any numbers.

Zombie - Feb 06, 2004 - 03:14 PM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

Zombie, foul appearance working when prone is not absurd. I made the argument in the thread about FA earlier. I notice you had no come back then, so just drop it already.

I'm afraid i've lost track of that thread and can't find it anymore. Point it out to me and i'll be sure to give you a satisfactory answer.

Mordredd - Feb 06, 2004 - 04:52 PM
Post subject:

How about the one entitled "Does Foul appearrance works all the time?"

Zombie - Feb 06, 2004 - 06:46 PM
Post subject:

I didn't even know which forum to look in! It appears it's in this one. Thanks for pointing it out and i'll get right to it.

smeborg - Feb 23, 2004 - 05:24 PM
Post subject:

I would favour a change enabling interceptions to be made AFTER inaccurate passes are scattered.

I understand there would be a few complications, but they don't look difficult to resolve in a simple way.

I agree with Bevan's earlier comments (risky passes are discouraged).

I would add that the current rule favours AG sides and sides that come with Throwers. If you play a low AG side, or one that comes without throwers or catchers, most of your pass attempts could be deemed "risky". It's frustrating to see a pass which has a 1 in 6 chance of going to the target square land neatly in the interceptor's hands every time.

Just my tuppence worth.

Cheers

Smeborg the Fleshless

Apedog - Feb 26, 2004 - 05:58 AM
Post subject:

This whole argument always seems to come down on the 'it's not realistic' point.

Have you considered that you are playing a game of american football with Orcs and Elves where one team moves while the other waits for them?

And what about the Turnover rule... one player drops the ball and the rest of the team can't move. I think we should get rid of that next Wink

smeborg - Feb 27, 2004 - 01:19 PM
Post subject:

I wasn't making a proposal on the basis of "realism".

I suggest the rule (or sequence) could be made better from the following points of view (among others):

- Easier to assimilate for newbies (because more in line with common sense). Fewer rules questions.

- Greater variety (and hence more character or colour).

- Some potential for more skilfull coaching (without a corresponding increase in complexity).

I also find the way interception works at the moment (especially with a good interceptor) somewhat mechanistic and automated. Maybe that's just a matter of taste.

Cheers

Smeborg the Fleshless