AG6 pointless?

[Smurf]

The BB game requires target numbers that are maxed out at 2+ or '1' is always a failure.

As we know AG5 target number is 2+ and AG6 is 1+ defaulted to the above note.

The modifiers affect the dice roll and not the stat.

Therefore 2+ is the maxium.

Have I got this right?

[Jani74]

If there are minus modifiers, it will become useful. Let's say you got two minuses from somewhere, therefore AG5-> 4+. With AG6 that is 3+.

One calculates the odds before the roll, so it affects the possibility!

[Dzerards]

Not quite. An unmodified 1 is always a failure, so an AG 6 player attempting to dodge into 3 tackle zones succeeds on a modified 1, i.e. a roll of 3, +1 for the dodge, -3 for the tackle zones, gives you your modified 1. You need a modified 0 or an unmodified 1 to fail. Same with picking up or catching. AG 5 requires a +4 for the same manoeuvre.

It's only passing where you fumble on either a modified or unmodified 1 that it doesn't help.

[Jani74]

I think Gerard is answering to the original question. (?)

[Dzerards]

I think Gerard is answering to the original question. (?)

Aye, you had replied as I was typing, but the bit about only an unmodified 1 being an automatic failure was still a valid point so I just posted it anyway.

[Smurf]

Again it depends what is modified.

IIRC the mods go on the dice.

Dodge into 3 TZs net dice modifier of -2 (-3TZ and +1 dodge)
Picking up the ball in 3 TZs net dice modifier -2 (-3TZ and + for picking up)

You roll a die and if the score is equal or greater than (AGy)-n you succeed.

So if an AG 5 rolls a 4+ you can succeed because -2 to 4 = 2 the target of AG5
So if an AG6 rolls a 3+ you cannot succeed because -2 =1 the target of AG6 which is also a failure, hence AG6 also needs a 4+.

[Dzerards]

So if an AG6 rolls a 3+ you cannot succeed because -2 =1 the target of AG6 which is also a failure, hence AG6 also needs a 4+.

No, read the rule book. Only for passing is a modified 1 a failure. With AG 6 you need a modified zero or an unmodified 1 (i.e. a natural 1) to fail.

You roll a 3, +1, -3 = 1 pass for AG 6
You roll a 2, +1, -3 = 0 fail for AG 6

So it's not worthless. But I don't know if it is worth 80k in TV

[Jani74]

IIRC the mods go on the dice.

Think of the target number instead of dice.

[Dzerards]

No, read the rule book.

And I don't mean that in a flippant way that a lot of people use as a put down. I always thought AG6 was pointless too until I went back and reread the rule book.

If you ever play one of the java clients you notice it a lot more. Like when you see in the log your Slann catcher rolled an 8 (6 +1 for an accurate pass +1 for diving catch) or that time you rolled -3 trying to pick up the ball! Well it's the result rather than the roll, but it makes you think.

[B SIDE]

Since the AG table includes "1+" for AG6 or higher, an AG6 is not useless, but (since there is no 0+ for AG7 listed) an AG7 would be. Of course, we might wonder how a player got an AG7...

[Ulthuan_Express]

Of course, we might wonder how a player got an AG7...

By breaking the 'you can't increase a stat by more than 2' rule, as there's no-one with starting AG5 who can actually earn SPPs.

[Dzerards]

Since the AG table includes "1+" for AG6 or higher, an AG6 is not useless, but (since there is no 0+ for AG7 listed) an AG7 would be. Of course, we might wonder how a player got an AG7...

A Break Tackle Deathroller is effectively AG 7!

[B SIDE]

Thank you Gerard.

[Smurf]

I thought I made a comment last night, but it did not show up.

Thanks, some times it's nice to scream a bit and people say, whoa look dude.

So thanks.

But I agree for 80k the wow factor of AG6 is too much. Not sure you can exploit it that much to make it worth it. Sure you can breeze through 2 TZs or 3 at a relative push. A good chance of annoying 4 and a slim hope of annoying 5!

[Corvidius]

Under previous versions Ag6 was pretty pointless but now it seems to be useful. I look forward to getting an Ag6 Wardancer now.