Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
 Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 09:54 |
 
|
So Bombardier has changed a little in the new edition.
So some thoughts -
If the bomb lands on an occupied square and they fail to catch it it automatically hits that player, and if the bomb is fumbled then it automatically hits that player
This means if you throw to a player with a Pa of "-" then you automatically hit them every time (as long as your pass is accurate).
Bomb - you may apply mighty Blow to the roll
This means when you hit your own player you do not add mighty blow, when you hit an opposing player you do add mighty blow
Only a single player may perform a bomb action in a turn
This means there is very little point in having 2 bombers on the pitch at 1 time.
Any skills that can be used for a Pass Action work for throwing a bomb
Accurate: +1 to quick or short pass bombs
Cannonner: +1 to Long pass, or long bomb
Cloud Burster: force rr for a successful opposing interference of the bomb
Dump off: It says they need to be in possession of the ball to use this skill? I would assume this is incompatible with Bomb
Fumblerooskie: says they need to be in possession of the ball. I would assume this skill is incompatible with bomb
HMP: passing test needed, and can't be used in a blizzard. but still compatible with bombs. albeit much worse than it used to be.
Leader: irrelevant to bombs
NoS: ignore TZ when throwing a Bomb
on the ball: The former pass block functionality works now, as bombs can be intercepted, also you can use this in your own turn. If the bomb is intercepted and thrown back if you have on the ball you can move your player 3 squares to interfere. [EDIT, I am wrong here. Bombardier specifically says you can't use On the ball]
Pass: rr bomb throw
Running pass: this would allow the bomber to pass then move the remainder of their Ma. But they cannot move then pass, as the bomb rules state the player may (wrong wording here in the rules, it should say can not, not "may", as this can now be rule lawyered) not move before throwing a bomb.
Safe pass: Fumble is cancelled, and the bomb is not thrown.
Interference
if the bomb is not fumbled, any player under the ruler may attempt to pass interfere. If unsuccessful the bomb continues on its way. If successful then they attempt to intercept (catch it). if they catch it they can then throw it back. if they fail to catch it, the bomb scatters 1 square.
This means it is not classed as a fumble when the interception (catch) is failed so there is no auto explode here, it scatters from the player that successfully interfered but unsuccessfully caught the ball.
Edit: Even a caught bomb has a 50% chance of exploding.
If you interfere with a ball (ooo err) succesfuly, the player MUST try to intercept (catch).
Any other observations? |
_________________
Last edited by Garion on %b %17, %2020 - %19:%Dec; edited 4 times in total |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
It specifically says On The Ball cannot be used.
The wording is of course terrible and implies it cannot be used by the player throwing the ball leaving any interceptor unmentioned, but as it doesnt apply to throwing they must mean it cant be used to intercept.
Also worth mentioning any caught bomb explodes 50% of the time. Of course intercepting is a thing of the past but people will still want to interfere with the pass to prevent the auto hit.
Almost certainly better to interfere and not try to intercept. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 10:56 |
|
thank's for the pointing that out.
deffo a good thing for the coders that On the ball can't be used, that'd be a nightmare to deal with. 
| PurpleChest wrote: |
Almost certainly better to interfere and not try to intercept. |
You have to intercept if you have successfully interfered. |
_________________
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
But you dont have to reroll the intercept if you have catch. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 15:11 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | But you dont have to reroll the intercept if you have catch. |
Yes true. |
_________________
|
|
razmus
Joined: Jun 23, 2017
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 16:58 |
|
| Garion wrote: | Bomb - you may apply mighty Blow to the roll
This means when you hit your own player you do not add mighty blow, when you hit an opposing player you do add mighty blow |
Except Armor rolls and Injury rolls are listed on page 60 as being made by the coach of the opposing team. (And I interpret that to be the coach of the opposing team of the player for whom the roll(s) are being made.) Presumably they'd get to chose whether and when mighty blow is applied.  |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 19:18 |
|
| razmus wrote: | | Garion wrote: | Bomb - you may apply mighty Blow to the roll
This means when you hit your own player you do not add mighty blow, when you hit an opposing player you do add mighty blow |
Except Armor rolls and Injury rolls are listed on page 60 as being made by the coach of the opposing team. (And I interpret that to be the coach of the opposing team of the player for whom the roll(s) are being made.) Presumably they'd get to chose whether and when mighty blow is applied. |
Ah good point. Well played sir
edit: actually I went back and re-read the rules I think I am correct in my reading, as it specifies armour and injury roll is made, then "you may decide to add +1 the result". You being the person throwing the bomb surely? |
_________________
|
|
Grasshugger17
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 20:39 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | razmus wrote: | | Garion wrote: | Bomb - you may apply mighty Blow to the roll
This means when you hit your own player you do not add mighty blow, when you hit an opposing player you do add mighty blow |
Except Armor rolls and Injury rolls are listed on page 60 as being made by the coach of the opposing team. (And I interpret that to be the coach of the opposing team of the player for whom the roll(s) are being made.) Presumably they'd get to chose whether and when mighty blow is applied. |
Ah good point. Well played sir
edit: actually I went back and re-read the rules I think I am correct in my reading, as it specifies armour and injury roll is made, then "you may decide to add +1 the result". You being the person throwing the bomb surely? |
If bomb MB application is chosen by the opponent then there's no point in even having it. |
|
|
razmus
Joined: Jun 23, 2017
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 21:33 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
Ah good point. Well played sir
edit: actually I went back and re-read the rules I think I am correct in my reading, as it specifies armour and injury roll is made, then "you may decide to add +1 the result". You being the person throwing the bomb surely? |
I still interpret the "you" in this case as the person rolling the armor and injury dice. "You may apply a +1 modifier to either the Armor roll or Injury roll." The may being that you get to choose one or the other, and you may decide which gets the +1 after the dice are cast.
| Grasshugger17 wrote: | | If bomb MB application is chosen by the opponent then there's no point in even having it. |
??
Reminder: Armor rolls and injury rolls, are always made by the opposing coach. I'm not certain why there'd be no point to the MB application? I roll armor and injury damage against your players, and you roll armor and injury damage against my players.
Unless these bombs are shape charges, I can't think of a reason they'd be able to selectively target players within the area of effect. |
|
|
Grasshugger17
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 22:10 |
|
| razmus wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
Ah good point. Well played sir
edit: actually I went back and re-read the rules I think I am correct in my reading, as it specifies armour and injury roll is made, then "you may decide to add +1 the result". You being the person throwing the bomb surely? |
I still interpret the "you" in this case as the person rolling the armor and injury dice. "You may apply a +1 modifier to either the Armor roll or Injury roll." The may being that you get to choose one or the other, and you may decide which gets the +1 after the dice are cast.
| Grasshugger17 wrote: | | If bomb MB application is chosen by the opponent then there's no point in even having it. |
??
Reminder: Armor rolls and injury rolls, are always made by the opposing coach. I'm not certain why there'd be no point to the MB application? I roll armor and injury damage against your players, and you roll armor and injury damage against my players.
Unless these bombs are shape charges, I can't think of a reason they'd be able to selectively target players within the area of effect. |
Yes, sorry, I possibly misunderstood what you were saying. From your message above I took it that you meant when I roll armour on your player, you choose if MB is applied or not, which would obviously be pointless.
I agree with Garion the player that throws the bomb adds the MB.
However, I can totally see what you're saying now and this is one of those situations that has been cropping up an awful lot lately. where people are reading the same rule in various different ways because they are not totally clear.
Therefore, I'll just leave this one or it might get silly like that other thread.
Edit: I will just add though that when using MB on a block or blitz the opponent rolls the armour dice, but the block thrower adds MB on armour or injury. Therefore I'm assuming that with bomb it is the same. |
Last edited by Grasshugger17 on %b %17, %2020 - %22:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 22:14 |
|
Classic example of GW making a mess of the rules for no reason. Adding ‘may’ to the rules is pointless and causes these needless discussions. Bomb goes boom, roll and add MB on the AV if needed to break, on the injury if not on the AV.
I remember discussing rules years ago, and for skills the best thing GW could have done imo, would be to say explicitly which skills are optional use and which were not. |
_________________
 |
|
Grasshugger17
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 22:23 |
|
| WhatBall wrote: | Classic example of GW making a mess of the rules for no reason. Adding ‘may’ to the rules is pointless and causes these needless discussions. Bomb goes boom, roll and add MB on the AV if needed to break, on the injury if not on the AV.
I remember discussing rules years ago, and for skills the best thing GW could have done imo, would be to say explicitly which skills are optional use and which were not. |
They have. The rules with a * are compulsory. Table page 74. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
There is now precedent in the Animal Savagery errata that when it triggers and hits a player on their own team the opposing coach decides if it uses its kill skills. it would be odd if bombs did not end up being ruled the same. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
razmus
Joined: Jun 23, 2017
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 23:22 |
|
| Grasshugger17 wrote: | | They have. The rules with a * are compulsory. Table page 74. |
Yes. But. Chainsaw, for example is marked as compulsory. The old skill said, "A player armed with a chainsaw must attack with it instead of making a block as part of a Block or Blitz Action." The new skill says, "Instead of performing a Block action (on its own or as part of a Blitz action), this player may perform a 'Chainsaw Attack' Special action." So now the chainsaw action is a "may make" instead of "must attack with"... but the compulsory part is that if the chainsaw wielding character gets knocked down, they still have a +3 against their armor because they're still running around with a bloody lumberjack tool?
Think it was intentional change or accidental? |
|
|
razmus
Joined: Jun 23, 2017
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2020 - 23:32 |
|
Ooh! And another change which might just impact Bombardier!
Foul Appearance once said it takes effect on "any opposing player that wants to block the player (or use a special attack that takes the place of a block)[...]"
The new Foul Appearance says "When an opposing player declares a Block action targeting this player (on its own or as part of a Blitz action) or any Special action that targets this player,[...]"
The definition for Special action uses Hypnotic Gaze as an example, and Bombardier specifically says it is a Special action as well. So now you have to overcome your horror of the appearance of the target to be able to attempt to kill it with fire. (Or to attempt to get it to stare deeply into your eyes!)
edit: It was pointed out to me in Facebook that passes no longer target players. Apparently ever. They always target squares instead... so bombardier doesn't target the player... it targets the square they are standing in, failing to trigger Foul Appearance. |
|
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
