Blatant foul

[Thadrin]

Listening to the latest ep of 3DB, Plasmoid defending his NTBB, and having seen people complain about fouls being toothless or pointless, lacking tactics these days, I propose this rule for your consideration:
---------------------------------
Blatant Foul.

A player taking a foul action may declare that the foul is BLATANT.
With such a foul, the player gets a +2 bonus to any injury rolls resulting from the foul.
However, the player will be sent off if he does NOT roll a double on either the armour or injury roll (that is, the normal conditions for being sent off/not sent off are switched).

Sneaky git may not be applied to commiting a Blatant foul.
Bribe rolls for avoiding being sent off for a Blatant foul are at -1 (that is, become 3+ rather than 2+).
---------------------------------
haven't done any math around the idea, but I lik ethe idea of adding a little more certainty and a little more thought to not just fouling, but whether you want that guy lying down there.

[garion]

I quite like the idea. But my fear with that is it makes the skill Dirty Player even more redundant, it will also just help team that are already winning the battle of attrition as they can just blatent foul with there skilless zombie or beastmen with a 1/3 or 33.3% chance of staying on. Which are reasonable odds but not for a player without any skills imo.

It used to be 50% chance of sending off in lrb4 with the 2+ but that required a skill. I think this would be better as a skill rather than an action. Or rather than a new skill, just change dirty player to this. It is certianly better than the current toothless fouling that we have at the moment, but until something is done to nerf PO (using traits, or Galaks suggested house rule) it will just cause more problems i think.

[dode74]

Interesting concept. Blatant fouls with DPs might be a bit too much (+3 to injury = 7+ for a cas!). Perhaps a blatant foul adds +1 to armour and +1 to injury? The odds of getting the target KO'd or better with a DP blatant foul are still better than evens (6-7 to KO, 8+ to cas).

[plasmoid]

Nice idea.

I sort of had the reverse idea:
You could declare your foul a sneaky foul = don't roll for injury - it's a stun. That halves the risk of getting sent off

[Afroman]

I think we should add blatant foul to dirty player and sneaky foul to sneaky git.

Now there is a foul made into an art....

[garion]

I think that is a great idea.

So we would have 1/6 (8.3%) chance of being sent of for a Sneaky Git foul which would be auto stun if av is broken.

normal foul (which should have the +1 to av for the fouler brought back) would be 1/6 (8.3%) or 1/3 (33.3%) if av is broken

Then blatent foul which would be +1 to av from fouler then assists as usual and get +2 to injury with a 2/3 chance of getting sent off. (66.7%)

I like it. In theory it sounds good, but I'm not sure sneaky git is good enough to bother taking. Maybe if you make sneaky git this rule and add Guard assists for fouling then it would be worth the tv increase.

Also adding the argue the ref roll back in aswell would mean sneaky git only has a 6.9% chance of being sent off (if my maths is correct :S not good at maths so may be wrong), which is much more like it. It would also give you a 27% chance of sending off for normal fouls if Av is broken and 55.3% for blatent foul.

This all sounds great to me, but again without anything being done to Pilling On it will only benefit the cpomb teams at the moment.

If a player took dirty player/blatent foul (what ever you want to call it) and sneaky git what do you think should happen? Should they get to pick which skill they use after the foul rolls have been rolled. This way you could roll for av and injury then ignore the injury roll if it is a double and just take the stun and keep your player on the pitch.

edit, I think some of this maths is wrong, can someone who is good at this work it out lol

[Hitonagashi]

This does have the side effect (first post) that if you do a blatent foul and break armour, you are more likely to get stay on the pitch than if you didn't break armour!

[mattgslater]

This does have the side effect (first post) that if you do a blatent foul and break armour, you are more likely to get stay on the pitch than if you didn't break armour!

How so?

I like the idea in theory, but I'd rather just make normal fouling a little better, perhaps by allowing a player to assist his own foul (if in the clear) and perhaps buffing Sneaky Git by making it like Guard for fouls.

Another skill would be nice, allow for a fouling skillstack. Should be a G or S skill. But that starts by making Sneaky Git better, and making naked fouling better. In particular, adding the "can't be pulled off" rule to SG would create a new development track for Stunty players without breaking elves, always a good thing. Alternately, the buff to Dirty Player is also a buff to Sneaky Git, because SG rewards fouls with only "natural" assists that form out of the positioning game, and would be very nice with a toggling +2 modifier that didn't take actions.

"Fouling On" perhaps? Not suggesting that as a name, but as a mechanic. Go prone, re-roll AV or Injury, doesn't save you from ejection on original roll.

[garion]

"Fouling On" perhaps? Not suggesting that as a name, but as a mechanic. Go prone, re-roll AV or Injury, doesn't save you from ejection on original roll.

This was in one of the early versions of my rule set. I called it spearing, this is what it was called in 2nd ed. It was not a well received skill. So I instead just changed Dirty Player and Sneaky Git so they stack well and made fouling more like LRB4 except with slightly different odds of ejection.

[Ghost]

Nice idea.

I sort of had the reverse idea:
You could declare your foul a sneaky foul = don't roll for injury - it's a stun. That halves the risk of getting sent off

Great idea imho.

[Hitonagashi]

This does have the side effect (first post) that if you do a blatent foul and break armour, you are more likely to get stay on the pitch than if you didn't break armour!

How so?

Because if you break armour, you get a second chance to roll a double to keep yourself on pitch. It might be better stated as "if you do not roll a double on the armour, and on the injury roll if you break armour"

[mattgslater]

Ah, yes. I see. But if you roll a double and don't break, you don't get caught at all.

Should make it so you get caught unless you roll a double on both. Then, your chances of getting caught are much higher if you do break AV (avg 35/36) than if you don't (avg 1/6).

[Jimmy Fantastic]

If I was going to do some house ruling it would probably be to make Piling On work on fouls rather than blocks.
This makes an interesting buff to fouling at the same time as neutering the killstack.

[garion]

If I was going to do some house ruling it would probably be to make Piling On work on fouls rather than blocks.
This makes an interesting buff to fouling at the same time as neutering the killstack.

I agree it is still the best fix for that stupid combo so far and it is also in keeping with 2nd edition fluff where spearing (as it was called then) was considered a foul!

Also it should be called Pile On not Pilling On, the later is just gramatically wrong, apart from anything else.