2020 passing questions

[Meradanis]

I think passing is very confusing. If a player rolls a 2 on a long bomb(-3), what is the result?
From rules as written, I'd say Inaccurate since 2-3= -1 which does not satisfy the condition for Wildly Inaccurate (1 after modifiers).

Another topic: if a player with PA 1+ throws a short pass (-1) and rolls a 2, the conditions for an accurate pass and an wildly inaccurate pass are both fullfilled at the same time. Which one is it?

[lunchmoney]

If a player rolls a 2 on a long bomb(-3), what is the result?
From rules as written, I'd say Inaccurate since 2-3= -1 which does not satisfy the condition for Wildly Inaccurate (1 after modifiers).

That's Wildly Inaccurate.

Another topic: if a player with PA 1+ throws a short pass (-1) and rolls a 2, the conditions for an accurate pass and an wildly inaccurate pass are both fullfilled at the same time. Which one is it?

That's also Widely Inaccurate.

[rmunn]

Disagree with the last example; a player with a 1+ who rolls a 2 with a -1 modifier has succeeded at his passing check, so the pass should be Accurate. A similar case is listed for Agility tests on page 29, where a player with AG 1+ has a -2 modifier and needs a 3+ to succeed. Agility tests don't have a "Wildly Inaccurate" rule, but it's clear that the way the rule should be played is "If it's a natural 1, it's a fumble. Otherwise if it succeeds it's accurate, otherwise it's either inaccurate or wildly inaccurate depending on how badly it was failed."

Yes, the rules as written are unclear and would also support the idea that a 1+ rolling a 2 with -1 modifier would be Wildly Inaccurate, but I'd bet serious money that once GW publishes a FAQ, it will go the way I said it (that Wildly Inaccurate only comes into play if the passing test is failed). So you should play it that way from the beginning.

[lunchmoney]

That's the point, isn't it rmunn? A roll of 2-1=1 but still passing the target number satisfies both Accurate and Wildly Inaccurate, as noted by the OP.

So you should play it that way from the beginning.

We'll know when an FAQ appears but until then I'll play it my way as I see that as correct and you should play it that way from the beginning.


(Though, to be fair, I probably won't be playing at all for several months giving plenty of time for GW to issue FAQ and errata.)

[Loki]

I'd guess the other way, when things are refined we'll end up with...

Natural 1 (or '-') - Fumble
Modified 1 or less - Widely Inaccurate
Failed Test (2 or more) - Inaccurate
Passed Test (or natural 6) - Accurate

i.e. '1+' level on passing is effectively redundant. Despite the 'What can possibly go wrong box!' suggesting otherwise.

[rmunn]

i.e. '1+' level on passing is effectively redundant. Despite the 'What can possibly go wrong box!' suggesting otherwise.

The "What can possibly go wrong!" box on page 29 is precisely why it's obvious that a 2-1=1 result with PA 1+ should be considered a success. Furthermore, the order of the passing rules suggests it too. First, you have page 29 where it reminds you that a natural 1 is a failure on a passing test. Then there are the rules on page 49, presented in the order of passed test, failed test, badly failed test, and natural 1. Note that a natural 1 is also a "1 after modifiers have been applied" on a Quick Pass. So if you roll a 1 on a Quick Pass, that qualifies for both the Fumble and the Wildly Inaccurate rules. So would you rule that that's a Fumble, or a Wildly Inaccurate pass?

It's obvious to me that on a Quick Pass with a +0 modifier, a natural 1 should be a Fumble, not a Wildly Inaccurate pass. I thought it was obvious to everybody, but now I'm not sure. So do you think that on a Quick Pass where a natural 1 is rolled, that should be Wildly Inaccurate? And if you don't, what is the difference between that situation and a natural 2 on a Short Pass with PA 1+? And what is the difference between that and a natural 2 on a Short Pass with PA 2+ and the Accurate skill?

The only way to reconcile these so that they all make sense is to say "Natural 1 trumps everything. Then success trumps both of the Inaccurate results. Then Wildly Inaccurate trumps Inaccurate, and finally Inaccurate is the result that happens if no other result's rules apply."

P.S. And one more hypothetical to chew on. Natural 6 is always a success, right? It says so on page 49 in the "Accurate Passes" section. So what about a Long Bomb (-3 modifier) while being marked by two opposing players (additional -2)? Net modifier of -5, so that natural 6 is also a 1 after modifiers are rolled. So is that one Wildly Inaccurate, or Accurate?

[Loki]

I don't disagree in a huge way but I'm not willing to vest much confidence in the order of writing in the book being an accurate guide.

I'm obviously reading with one eye on 2016 mechanics and my bias says...

Natural number trumps everything i.e. '1' = Fumble, '6' = Success
Modified 1 (or less) result is given a special classification = Wildly Inaccurate (this is where current bias comes in as this is a Fumble in 2016 rules).
All other modified results, 2+ or more, are either inaccurate or accurate depending on what the passers Passing Stat is.

As I said, I recognize the 'Wcpgw!' is a strong argument BUT it is specifically only exampling Ag rather than Pa and in Passing we have the Wildly Inaccurate text say specifically a modified 1 is what triggers that.

Not going to continue arguing as GW will resolve at some point and I wouldn't be overly surprised either way

[Darkson]

Going from past editions, and other GW games I'd say that a natural 1, even with lots of modifiers, is a Fumble.
In most GW games I've played a 'natural X' always overrides modifiers.

[rolo]

Natural 1's and 6's are pretty clearly always failure/success.

The original post is about a modified 1 for a player with 1+ passing.

Another topic: if a player with PA 1+ throws a short pass (-1) and rolls a 2, the conditions for an accurate pass and an wildly inaccurate pass are both fullfilled at the same time. Which one is it?

Is that pass accurate or wildly inaccurate? Ambiguous with the rules as written. We'll have to decide on these things individually until there's a ruling one way or another in a future errata.

I would call it success based on precedent; this is the equivalent of an AG5 player throwing a short pass, which until the 2020 rules unambiguously succeeded on a 2+ roll. It looks (subjectively, to me) like the designers tried to keep most of the very basic core numbers the same, so if I were on a rules committee for a league (and I am!), I'd say that the 2 in this case is an accurate pass and not wildly inaccurate. Your league may vary.

[lunchmoney]

I would call it success based on precedent; this is the equivalent of an AG5 player throwing a short pass, which until the 2020 rules unambiguously succeeded on a 2+ roll.

Using the old rules as a precedent shows the throw in question is a fumble. A short pass in the previous edition carried no penalty, so yes a 2+ roll, with AG5, would succeed. However the CRP/2016 was very clear that a modified 1 was a fumble, if just one -1 were applied (from tackle zone or long pass for example) then a roll of 2 would fumble.

[rolo]

... and this is why we need an Errata!

[lunchmoney]

Oh, yes! FAQ and errata!

[besters]

always!

[lunchmoney]

Screenshot_20201208_164757_com.android.chrome.png

FAQ

[lunchmoney]

And

IMG-20201208-WA0009.jpg