Agility rolls

DDogwood · Post by **DDogwood** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:23 pm

Instead of using the Agility table, would it be easier for new players if we just said "To make an agility roll, roll a d6+Agility+modifiers. If your total is 7 or greater, you succeed (natural 1s always fail, natural 6s always succeed)."?

duff · Post by **duff** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:14 am

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:11 pm

wow how did i play this game for 12-ish years and never notice that on my own?

that's going to be stuck in my head all day now!

Mad Jackal · Post by **Mad Jackal** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:55 pm

Because negetive modifiers also incur fumbles when passing?

How do you word the fumbling rules then?

DesTroy · Post by **DesTroy** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:00 am

Sounds good to me! Agility rolls and Assists are probably the two toughest parts of the game to teach to newbs. Simplifying Agility would actually benefit everyone IMHO, from newbs to longtime veterans.

As for fumbling a Pass roll, well, obviously a natural "1" would mean the throwing player fumbles the ball, which would happen 1 in 6 times (statistically), so it could just be left at that. Any other result on the die would mean the play continues as normal.

Ah, you may ask, but what about Intercepting a pass??? Simple. How about allowing the Pass roll first (more logical), then putting a modifier on interceptions based on accuracy of the pass? Something like, say, a -3 modifier to intercept an accurate pass, and a -2 to intercept an inaccurate pass? If a pass is intercepted and the thrower has the Safe Throw skill, a roll of 2-6 on 1d6 negates the interception, while on a natural "1" the pass is picked off. Also, a pass would automatically be picked off on a natural "6." (This would allow pretty much anyone in the team to be a potential interceptor, even Mummies or Big Guys.)

Picking the ball off the ground? Anything but a natural "1." Simple and elegant. Stunties would obviously have more trouble with the ball (as it is nearly as large as they are

), and would fail on a 1 or 2.

Add in the idea that an inaccurate pass scatters a number of times based on distance (once for Quick Pass, twice for Short Pass, three times for Long Pass or Long Bomb), and you have a revamp worthy of testing IMHO. I only wish this thread had started a couple years ago, when there was a chance this could be added in to LRB 5...

Mad Jackal · Post by **Mad Jackal** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:11 am

Thanks troy, and I'm not trying to pour water on your idea or enthusiasm...

But the fact that passing ranges increase the odds of fumbling is a pretty key mechanic to the way passing works. Ask Galak or Jervis or Doubleskulls (or lots of other guys) and they'll back me up.

I thought the origianl proposal was to just re-word the agility mechanics to that it would be easier to teach. I would be interested in continuing that discussion. If that was not the goal, and in fact the goal was to completely simplify the game. then I'll butt out. (Much like I'm not interested in playing without asssists- even though that would make it lots easier to teach.)

Anyone have an answer to my question? "How do we make the current passing and agility rules work with this newly worded mechanic?"

Fronko · Post by **Fronko** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:05 pm

Well, you could say, that throwing the ball at longer distances requires more muscular power, which makes muscular coordination more difficult.

As a result, the ball is more likely to just "slip" from the throwers hands, which means that the modifier raises the natural 1 to a natural 2, 3 or maybe 4, depending on distance ... maybe the wording could use some modification, but that should do the trick, shouldnt it?

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:14 pm

I suppose you'd just have to have to fumble rule be something like, if the D6 + Modifiers results in a score of 1 or less, or the D6 roll is a natural 1, then a fumble occurs.

I can't think of a way to integrate it into the D6 + AG + Mods.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:20 pm

Munkey wrote:I suppose you'd just have to have to fumble rule be something like, if the D6 + Modifiers results in a score of 1 or less, or the D6 roll is a natural 1, then a fumble occurs.

I can't think of a way to integrate it into the D6 + AG + Mods.

How about if the total is a natural 1 or equal to or less than the player's agility then you fumble.

The more I think about it the more I think that an underlying problem with BB is that agility rolls are too high risk when compared to blocking (2 dice vs 1). This inherently makes blocking more reliable and therefore a more consistent way of winning. This gives neutral teams little reason to pursue a passing game - contributing to a cycle of increasing bash.

Vero · Post by **Vero** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:33 pm

Munkey wrote:The more I think about it the more I think that an underlying problem with BB is that agility rolls are too high risk when compared to blocking (2 dice vs 1). This inherently makes blocking more reliable and therefore a more consistent way of winning. This gives neutral teams little reason to pursue a passing game - contributing to a cycle of increasing bash.

Going to off-topic:
A house rule to make agility vs blocking somewhat more even is to allow team rerolling any roll, even a skill rerolled one. This of course leads to problems of 1/216 failed dodges... The rule also adds a clear distinction between a rookie thrower/catcher/dodger and a rookie lineman with trr to back up the roll.

For the topic, that would be easier but I've learned to count 7 - agility is what I need to beat

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:16 am

ianwilliams wrote:The more I think about it the more I think that an underlying problem with BB is that agility rolls are too high risk when compared to blocking (2 dice vs 1). This inherently makes blocking more reliable and therefore a more consistent way of winning. This gives neutral teams little reason to pursue a passing game - contributing to a cycle of increasing bash.

Absolutely, but that's getting into total rewrite of the rules from scratch.

Back on topic, the suggested rule might be easier to calculate but I prefer to work back and know what I need to roll to be successful.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:52 pm

Actually an easier solution would have been to have you roll your agility or less on one dice then you wouldn't need the table. The main reasons this wasn't done was they wanted BB to match the rest of the GW games (on a d6, 6's good, 1's bad), and the fact most people like to think "+" mods as good and "-" mods as bad, whereas it would be the opposite way around if you needed low rolls to succeed.
Still, this would work exactly the same as it does now (just the opposite way around) and no need of the chart so easier to teach. Now an AG 4 elf only fails a dodge on a 1 (gets a +1 for dodging), so a 1 in 6 chance, rolling AG or less would be 4 or less but with -1 for making a dodge you would make it on a 5 or less, only 6 would fail (ie a one in six chance of failing). Like I mentioned above, easier but most people would probably not like th neg mods being good and the pos mods being bad, goes against most people's way of thinking.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:19 pm

Fairly easy to make positive modifiers be good and negative be bad under that system - have them apply to the players AG not the dice roll.

This is still messed up by the fumble rules though.

DDogwood · Post by **DDogwood** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:03 am

Mad Jackal wrote:I thought the origianl proposal was to just re-word the agility mechanics to that it would be easier to teach. I would be interested in continuing that discussion. If that was not the goal, and in fact the goal was to completely simplify the game. then I'll butt out. (Much like I'm not interested in playing without asssists- even though that would make it lots easier to teach.)

Anyone have an answer to my question? "How do we make the current passing and agility rules work with this newly worded mechanic?"

My idea was, indeed, to make the rules easier to teach, without changing the underlying mechanics. The fumble rules throw a wrench in this - I can't think of a way to do this without adding complexity.

On the other hand, you could just say that a natural 1, or modified roll that is equal to or less than a player's Agility, is a fumble. I believe that this should provide the same results. I think it is still simpler than the Agility table.

DesTroy · Post by **DesTroy** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:07 am

I think we can thank MJ, Munkey and Ian for their thoughts on this.

HOWEVER...I am not convinced that there *should* be more chance to fumble a pass depending on how long the attempt will be. I don't know of too many NFL or CFL quarterbacks who would drop a long bomb before the pass was even thrown, frankly, unless forced to by getting hit by a rabid linebacker. (Are we thus implying that Blood Bowl throwers don't know how to properly throw a football???)

Sure, doing it differently would give high AG teams too much of an edge, but giving everybody the same chance to succeed or fail would encourage more staid (read: boring) teams (read: dwarves) to maybe huck the pigskin a few more times, yes? Leaving the current fumble rules out and rewriting the throwing rules as D6+AG+modifiers (with either a natural "1" or a modified "1" or less being a fumble) should be enough IMHO.