Passing revisited

[wesleytj]

I think it looks as though the majority of the people here are against the elimination of the mods to fumbling (which is what this thread was originally created to suggest)

But just in case, let me add my weight to their side as well...never mind halflings...this would make wood elves and skaven and the like virtually unbeatable. Just lure the opposition to one end of the field, throw it to the other, and then outrun them to the ball in such numbers that you can't help but score. Or on defense, just get the ball and throw it at maximum range just to get the ball away and run after it. Who cares if it's inaccurate as long as it's FAR.

I know it's doesn't make sense that an AG5 guy is all or nothing with a bomb, it's either accurate or a fumble. But that's a relatively minor flaw compared to what this idea would do to game balance.

[Acerak]

The arguments against this (this should not be allowed to happen etc) strike me as similar to the arguments against no forced pickups. The idea that people should not be able to get out of a situation just because you've taken steps against it to me is frankly ludicrous. Unless you have the ball in your hands it's all up to the other player. If they want to throw (or punt) the ball away, that's their gamble to take. Just saying "but I forced him to make a long bomb and he managed to get it away anyway" draws the answer "well you should have sacked him then, tough luck" from me.

Marcus -

Like you, I don't buy the argument that the opponent "should not be able to get out of a situation just because you've taken steps against it." Hey, if you didn't mark the receiver or keep a player back, you can be snaked!

The real issue, I think, is that you can be snaked right now, today, without any modification to the rules. Simply wind up and throw that Long Bomb to an empty square. Nothing stops you from doing this...

...except the -2 modifier, of course, because you're 50/50 to fumble the ball.

In today's game, there are three ways around that increased chance to fumble:

1. Strong Arm
2. Accurate
3. Pass/TRR

The current rules add value to those skills and make the "long dump off" a much riskier play. To paraphrase:

Just saying "but I want to throw it downfield and I fumbled the long bomb" draws the answer "well you should have invested in some passing skills" from me.

Cheers!

-Chet

[Balrog]

Chet, you also missed the point. The point was that the current rule has a flaw in it, in that Range modifiers should not add to the fumble roll. It's implied in the rules, and it creates bizarre situations where high AG players cannot throw an innaccurate Long Bomb.

The argument is: does removing the range modifier on the fumble roll create an imbalance? The answer is no. Therefore, since we are trying to streamline the rules and make them more logical, the rule should be changed.

-Dave

[Acerak]

The point was that the current rule has a flaw in it, in that Range modifiers should not add to the fumble roll.

I don't worry about AG5 and AG6 players throwing inaccurate passes, so I don't consider this a flaw.

I might use this rule in my upcoming season to get a better feel for it, but I know for fact it would lessen the value of those passing skills and give to non-passing teams an advantage that they do not currently enjoy.

-Chet

[Balrog]

I might use this rule in my upcoming season to get a better feel for it, but I know for fact it would lessen the value of those passing skills and give to non-passing teams an advantage that they do not currently enjoy.

-Chet

You know for a fact? So then, you've played with this rule before?

All it does is give the same advantage to every team, and that is more choices with the ball. I've been playing with this rule for 3 years, and with some extremely competitive and cheesy players (me included); and it has never been abused.

-Balrog

[Thetian]

What about keeping the range modifers for the pass roll (accurate or inaccurate), but only consider the tackle zones for checking to see if the ball fumbled.
Of course this in no way discourages a player from dumping the ball downfield. As it stands you have a 50% chance of dumping a ball LONG down the field without fumbling (given no tackle zones). This would reduce it to 16.7%.
Damn. Talked myself out of a rules compromise. I guess keep the rule as it stands. I now understand the reason it's there.

/Hangs head in shame for trying the dumping tactic with wood elves even at 50%

-Mike

[Acerak]

You know for a fact? So then, you've played with this rule before?

No. I know that this will give the non-passing teams the following advantage: they can throw inaccurate long bombs on a roll of 2 or 3 instead of fumbling them. Yes, this will give the same advantage to a Line-elf, but it will give a small advantage to a Dark Elf Thrower with Accurate:

Old roll:

1-2 = Fumble
3 = Inaccurate
4-6 = Accurate

New roll:

1 = Fumble
2-3 = Inaccurate
4-6 = Accurate

So passers get better, but their skills are devalued relative to "not having passing skills." That's a fact whether I've used the rule or not

-Chet

[Mestari]

... what the heck are you talking about here:

Defense gets to set up last, so you can anticipate where the bugger's going to be thrown.

:oops::oops::oops:

I was practically sleeping in my chair when I sent that... well, I guess everyone makes those mistakes from time to time...

But about the halflings:
I wouldn't terribly mind if you could win a game or two with them every now and then. Even though I agree that they're not supposed to win tournaments, I think they could be given this leg up without making them anywhere near 'good'.

[GalakStarscraper]

Balrog/Dave has really thrown a gaunlet now for me ... (by the way I really like and respect Balrog/Dave)... he and Dangerous Dave have done a lot to keep the MBBL2 "honest" and "balanced".

That said .. just because of what you said Dave I'm GOING to win 3 games next season ... if I get 50% without a leg up ... then I can easily argue that I'd win more than 50% with the leg up...

I'm also sorry this turned into halflings and TTM discussion. I'll go back to what I said ... I'm adding it the PBeM tool ... convince a BBRC member that its needs to be an experimental rule and it will be in the MBBL for use to see.

Galak

[Dangerous Dave]

Galak / Balrog


Passing / Fumble Rules

Locally we play that TZs and Range modifiers affect fumbles... however, we also play that if you roll a (natural) 4 or higher, then you cannot fumble it. Ie if you roll a 4 on a Long pass with 2 TZs (net 1) that is inaccurate not a fumble.

Just an FYI.


Halflings - stopping the Trees passing.


Come on this is pretty simple. If there is Fling next to the Tree at the start of your turn then make sure you put at least 1 TZ on the Tree and 1 on the Fling. If there is no Fling next to the Tree stay away from the Tree unless of course he can throw him to the end zone (but even then its fun watching him scatter into the crowd!). If the Fling has to move to get next to the Tree he can't move afterwards.

OK... that leaves Kick Offs. Well I tend to find putting a line of 7 players across the pitch with 1 square gap between them tends to keep a TZ most of the time. OK a Tree could block a player out leaving the other free.. but then you are putting both Trees next to each other which if you don't make the TTM means that all the muscle can be easily avoided and any flings in the back field surrounded. Sure this may mean a TD... but it certainly won't be all the time... and when it fails there is either:-

1 A fling in your half with / without the ball.... on his own [or just a ball!]

2 The ball is somewhere around the line - and you have several players nearby.... the odds are that the only oppo next to the ball are the Trees. So moving them is tough.... but they aren't going to pick the ball up either!


As for winning games with Flings.... well the secret when playing against them is to remember that they are Flings not normal players. I've seen a player (playing against BB2k1 Gobbos) GFI with the ball to get "safe" to fall over and lose the ball..... come on.... you don't need to do that - 2 players next to the ball carrier (with ST 3) will mean that the Flings cannot get it (unless they are very lucky or you are standing too close to a Tree!) - OK the ST3 Flings may have a chance..... but deal with them first!



Dave

[Balrog]

That said .. just because of what you said Dave I'm GOING to win 3 games next season ... if I get 50% without a leg up ... then I can easily argue that I'd win more than 50% with the leg up...

Galak

I'll take you on that challenge! Although I doubt our two teams will ever meet...

The Bet: If you win 3 games with Halflings next season then I will drive down to Indiana and buy you a drink (doesn't have to be alcoholic).

-Dave

[christer]

Ok, I think I qualify for a say in this..

In FUMBBL, we're playing with SkiJunkie's client which, at this point, doesn't increase fumbles on long or long bomb passes.. My gobbo team is doing _very_ well under these rules (9 wins, 4 ties and 2 losses).

But sure.. I don't mind if the gobbos and halfling are improved in this respect.. I wouldn't say they'd be totally overpowered by this change though.. It still requires a good coach to play these teams.. Strong positional skills is a must...

-- Christer

[Darkson]

Why doesn't someone play a fixed number of games with the rule as written, using starting teams and progressing them as normal. Then, repeat the process using the rule as suggested.

i know the vaguries of dice rolls comes into it, but it might give an indication one why of the other

[Scott King]

Balrog, sott of completely off topic.

If I win 3 games with Gobbos, does this mean you will fly to New Zealand and buy me a drink?

[Marcus]

The current rules add value to those skills and make the "long dump off" a much riskier play. To paraphrase:

Just saying "but I want to throw it downfield and I fumbled the long bomb" draws the answer "well you should have invested in some passing skills" from me.

OK, good point well made. I hadn't heard the "devalues passing skills" argument before. The only case I'd heard made against it was that you shouldn't allow people to get the ball down the pitch so easily, which I'm not buying.

I'll have a think about the whole accurate/strongarm aspect when I've woken up and had a cup of coffee.

Marcus