Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 22:29 |
|
C0ddlefish wrote: | Not sure I follow, and it's probably my fault to be fair.
So a PA 1+ rolls a 3 on a long bomb = 3-3 = 0 = Wildly Inaccurate?
Therefore roll of 1 = fumble, roll of 2-3 = WI, 4+ = accurate? |
Correct |
_________________
|
|
Java
Joined: Jan 27, 2018
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 22:37 |
|
IIRC it would be
1 = fumble
2-3 inaccurate (the modified results are not 1s but -1 and 0)
4 wildly inaccurate (a modified roll of 1)
5-6 accurate |
_________________ Vlad Von Carstein's door-to-door evangelist |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 22:42 |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 22:42 |
|
Java wrote: | IIRC it would be
1 = fumble
2-3 inaccurate (the modified results are not 1s but -1 and 0)
4 wildly inaccurate (a modified roll of 1)
5-6 accurate |
That is how the rules are written yes... but that does not mean how it actually works. Time will tell I guess. |
|
|
sebco
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 22:50 |
|
That's what they say in the video but that's not what is written in the book.
If wildly inaccurate passes really are on a 1- (and not only on an exact 1), in my opinion :
-passing is harder than what I've tested and that's a pity
-they need to specify that in an FAQ 'cause this video can't be used by refs in a tourney for example |
_________________ I like cheese but don't call me skaven ! |
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 22:55 |
|
sebco wrote: |
That's what they say in the video but that's not what is written in the book.
If wildly inaccurate passes really are on a 1- (and not only on an exact 1), in my opinion :
-passing is harder than what I've tested and that's a pity
-they need to specify that in an FAQ 'cause this video can't be used by refs in a tourney for example |
It also mean passing have become way more unreliable than in the current version even for dedicated throwers and I don't think that was warranted.
If this is the case it should have been on a a result lower than one but I think that as written in the book was just fine. |
|
|
Lyracian
Joined: Oct 29, 2015
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 22:56 |
|
Lets hope we get a quick errata and then we can all agree it is horrible since not even Punting got a buff! |
|
|
C0ddlefish
Joined: Sep 17, 2019
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 23:04 |
|
So on a long bomb, a good thrower is more likely to wildly inaccurate than just inaccurate, which seems like madness. It's more likely that the ball will go behind the thrower than narrowly miss the catcher |
|
|
Java
Joined: Jan 27, 2018
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 23:07 |
|
This is just brilliant. You couldn't make it up. I want a mosaic of posts and comments saying "passing is better now" around the quote from the video explaining how wildly inaccurate works.
In black Comic Sans over a white background, if possible. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 23:12 |
|
If it works like they say in the video it means a 2+ or better thrower will NEVER throw an inaccurate pass ever. Every pass thrown will either be accurate or wildly inaccurate or a Fumble on a natural "1". |
|
|
Patdragon
Joined: May 04, 2016
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 23:41 |
|
Ah good someone already posted the link. Guess we have their rules as intended now. |
|
|
det
Joined: Oct 01, 2017
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 23:43 |
|
So now wildy inaccurate is worse than a fumble.
Couple of pages ago it wasn't...well, what can you do? Opinion changes |
|
|
sebco
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
|
  Posted:
Nov 20, 2020 - 23:45 |
|
Well, I will still wait to be sure about wildly inaccurate passes rules as I already spotted some mistakes in their videos (some players pushed in the crowd while there were some eligible squares on the pitch in the blocking video and assists counted for fouls while assisting players were marked in the foul video). |
_________________ I like cheese but don't call me skaven ! |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Nov 21, 2020 - 07:49 |
|
I find it interesting that in her script she says fumble is even worse than wildly inaccurate. Which is obviously nonsense.
Tbh regardless of which way the rule ends up being; passing is really poor in this edition. Bottom line is WIP should not exist in its current form. Its a stupid rule.
If the design goal of this edition was to make passing more important but only viable on key players; then again regardless of how WIP turns out they failed. Its not tv efficient, its not tactically efficient, it requires too many skills in an edition where the vast majority of players will not get more than 2 skills. Putting a dash on too many players is just anti fun, no need to stop people creating a zombie passing team if they want. Or to stop those funny memorable moments where a TG throws a long bomb to another TG who catches it and scores. These are the stand out memories people have of playing.
So on the passing side of things yeah its a mess, and a big failure of design imo.
However its a tiny part of the game and who really passed anyway. Yes its a shame but on the whole the edition still looks fun to me and there are lots of parts I'm really looking forward to trying out |
_________________
|
|
Niessuh
Joined: Dec 11, 2009
|
  Posted:
Nov 21, 2020 - 08:39 |
|
Garion wrote: | However its a tiny part of the game and who really passed anyway. Yes its a shame but on the whole the edition still looks fun to me and there are lots of parts I'm really looking forward to trying out |
Fortunately now we have fumblerooskie! The Rugbybowl era begins! |
|
|
|