Possible BB2k1 Fouling changes

[Acerak]

I guess my point was that I'd take more DPs and use them more often, and I think an awful lot of coaches would do the same.

My question is, why don't you do this now? The likely answer, as I can decipher it, is that you've stopped fouling, choosing instead to sit on the IGMEOY counter.

I'm not sure I'd use my DPs "more often" in this system, if only because of that extra +1 to the Ref Roll. That would make it more difficult to slip in the DP boot when the ref isn't watching, which (to me) counters nicely the lesser attention paid to the unmodified boot.

See, that's my point in a nutshell. The unmodified boots ought to be given more leeway; the modified boots ought to be more closely monitored.

Would fouling then become over prevelant in the game? I guess this is a 'point of view' call, personally I'm happy enough with fouling as it stands. It's a tricky balance to make it a more effective tactic without going back to making it game strategy, which sucked big time.

I'm not happy with fouling as it stands, because I think "fouling as it stands," for many people, involves 4 fouls a game at predictable points on both side.

I agree 100% that the old "gotta foul because it's too effective" rules made fouling a game-winning strategy every time. But it seems to me that if we're going to replace that strategy with a new "I don't wanna foul at all because it's so ineffective but I'll sit on the counter and screw my opponent" strategy...

...well, meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. I'd rather see strategic fouling make an appearance, and I don't think it's there yet. Either you have a DP now or you don't foul. And if you don't foul, you sit on the marker. This isn't working, IMO. That Elf team with the eye on it ought to be able to lend an extra DP-less kick to that Norse Blitzer without a 50/50 chance of getting caught. Similarly, the DP who opens the game with a kick to the jimmies of some Skink ought to be at a slightly greater risk to be sent off. Those options don't exist right now, but they should. Unfortunately, the game doesn't link risk and reward, which are the only factors that should go into balancing fouls now that the SPPs are gone.

-Chet

[Dangerous Dave]

Overall I prefer the new version that Acerak is proposing to that supported by Galak. However, that doesn't mean I support Acerak's version either!


Acerak said:


That Elf team with the eye on it ought to be able to lend an extra DP-less kick to that Norse Blitzer without a 50/50 chance of getting caught.


Why? If the ref is watching the Elves, then I don't see that using a player who is "not dirty" should make a difference. Personally a Dirty Player is more likely to get away with it since he is skilled at doing it.


Acerak said:-


Similarly, the DP who opens the game with a kick to the jimmies of some Skink ought to be at a slightly greater risk to be sent off.


OK this assumes that all refs are biased and are watching all the Dirty Players like a hawk from the beginning. While this might be so, any Governing Body of any sport would not admit to it.


I ask this question: Why is there a push to try and make fouling a strategic option again? Even Acerak has admitted that he doesn't want to go back to old 3E. Fouling is a tactic that can be used at certain times during the match. At the moment, the critical decision is when to foul? If you foul a non critical player without an assist, the chances of success are not great. So wait.... wait for that War Dancer to fail his leap and nail him...... That's why I like fouling as it is at the moment. The decision is a tough one... but you will know when to stick the boot in. Both of the 2 proposed changes are less selective, so if you did boot the non critical player and that War Dancer lands amongst you... you will still boot him.


I feel fouling is a cheap tactic and takes away from the finer points of the game. With the additional niggles on SIs plus aging and not forgetting the lower winnings, if we make fouling more powerful again, this could easily mean that teams with TRs in excess of 200 are very difficult to develop. I for one don't think that this is right - I don't feel that teams with TRs of 200 are excessive - after all one of the points of the change to the skill table was to try and give Coaches the chance of devloping Super Stars to rival Griff with 7 skill rolls - if fouling gets enhanced, getting anyone to 100 SPPs will be a miracle.


Finally, from a wider point of view. If a rookie Coach starts playing Bood Bowl and enjoys it. Even if he loses his first 3 games, he will have learnt something and his team may have developed some decent players. If he plays an experienced "Dirty Player" coach next, I can see that Blood Bowl will lose that rookie Coach along with the team he was lovingly developing. Even an experienced Coach can easily suffer against Dirty Players if his rolls don't go well... double skulls first up... or dodge 1 reroll 1 etc. IMO rolling double skulls is bad enough... losing your turn to take the blocking damage that is coming is enough without 3 or 4 Dirty Players running in with boot raised. After all, Fouling is one of the few things against the rules - so why try and make it more legal by reducing the chances of players being sent off? Even with the current rules it is possible to foul each turn with a 1 in 6 chance of being sent off - yes this assumes that both Coaches foul - I think that is right - the ref should leave them to it and retreat to the bunker..........



Dave

[Deathwing]

I guess my point was that I'd take more DPs and use them more often, and I think an awful lot of coaches would do the same.

My question is, why don't you do this now? The likely answer, as I can decipher it, is that you've stopped fouling, choosing instead to sit on the IGMEOY counter.

Simply because if I use a DP now with the eye on me, he's gone on average 50% of the time, or once every 2 fouls. Under your proposal, he's gone 33% of the time, or once every three fouls, unless I choose to add the +2.
Basically I'm getting to foul with less risk, therefore I'm gonna foul more often. I'm only going to use the DP skill to turn an 8 into a 10 most of the time (unless I really need to KO that player when I roll a 6 or 7, which is going to be so infrequent as to not be a factor).

And no, I'm not really a 'counter keeper', I'll stick the boot in first chance I get, and (assuming my oppo. sits on the counter) I'll risk the 4+ if an opportunity presents itself. My point is that I could and would risk a 5+ on a more regular basis, and turning a KO into an casualty by using the DP skill still only brings it down to the 4+ it is now.
Any clearer?

I'm not sure I'd use my DPs "more often" in this system, if only because of that extra +1 to the Ref Roll. That would make it more difficult to slip in the DP boot when the ref isn't watching, which (to me) counters nicely the lesser attention paid to the unmodified boot.

Okay, some confusion with language. My guess is that people would foul more often with their players with the the DP skill, but use the DP skill itself less frequently than currently, but to greater effect.

[GalakStarscraper]

I'm back and just would like to say that I've read through the whole post and think Chet's revised plan has merit.

DW, I don't think it would become a fouling game again ... 4+ to get ejected with the eye on you and using DP is still really risky and a 5+ ejection roll is still enough to make most people think.

I DO NOT want fouling to become TOO good again ... ie giving SPPs back for fouling which would be a really bad idea ... but I think Chet's plan has merit.

I'll chew it over some more.

Galak

[Acerak]

That Elf team with the eye on it ought to be able to lend an extra DP-less kick to that Norse Blitzer without a 50/50 chance of getting caught.

Why? If the ref is watching the Elves, then I don't see that using a player who is "not dirty" should make a difference. Personally a Dirty Player is more likely to get away with it since he is skilled at doing it.

Dave -

I suggest you try the rule out. You seem to find enough merit in it. I don't think you're going to foul with that DP as often as you think, and you're not going to get away with it as much as you think, either. But I'm not going to convince you of that until you try it yourself.

Right now, fouling isn't a tactical option, IMO, but sitting on the IGMEOY counter is the new "avoid losing" strategy. This option makes fouling with DP riskier. It also means you have a real tactical decision to make every few fouls: should you add the +2 to AV or INJ, or should you take the better odds of not getting caught instead? This is a discriminating rule that adds to the game, IMO. The current 4+/6+ rule is a hammer where a chisel is needed.

As for DPs: hey, a Dirty Player is more likely to cause an injury. That's just because he's more blatant, not because he's sneakier

-Chet

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
I definately like Chets suggestion that for new GtR.
I also like the added modifier for fouling with the DP - this will mean that the first foul doesn't have to be a DP foul.

IMO, fouling, even now, rocks.
If it was up to me (which it isn't) I'd keep the EOY modifier at +2, and have the additional +1 for a DP foul.

And - I don't agree that the main fouling tactic has become "sitting on the counter". Key fouls will open up to the sitter, and if he's a clever player he'll take them. Sometimes key players are napping on the pitch. Sometimes recievers are face-up very close to your endzone - and need to be dealt with.

Secondly, a DP won't necessarily be deterred by the prospect of the 4+. I've seen that many times before. With the proper ammount of assists, his 1-3 for not getting caught, and his 6 for argue, will make fouls against important players very worthwhile.

But OK, non DPs don't get decent fouls once the eye is on them.
How about this final modifier:
Fouler has neither assists nor DP skill: -1?
(Or something like that).

Martin

[DoubleSkulls]

I think Acerak's changes make a lot of sense. A marginal increase in the amount of fouling, with no increased benefits is a good think for the strength teams.

I particularly like the thought that has gone into fixing GtR & handicap results. I don't like D3 random players for grudge match, let the handicapped team choose one player. In fact I'd go so far as to say many of the similar handicap results should be "fixed" to allow the player to choose who is effected.

[Acerak]

I particularly like the thought that has gone into fixing GtR & handicap results.

Thanks, but most of that credit goes to other people. I know I didn't come up with those ideas entirely on my own

I don't like D3 random players for grudge match, let the handicapped team choose one player. In fact I'd go so far as to say many of the similar handicap results should be "fixed" to allow the player to choose who is effected.

Actually, the Handicap table is currently constructed so that you get to choose just about every player who could gain a skill for the match. The lone exception is Iron Man, for reasons that should be obvious!

The problem with allowing the team to choose the DP is that the card becomes a more limited version of Intensive Training. You can argue that Stiletto, Knuckledusters, Illegal Drugs, and Buzzing are similar, but they give you either (a) skills that most players couldn't get without a doubles roll or (b) stat upgrades. So I think D3 random players are pretty good. Maybe D3 random linemen? Perhaps it could be D3 players of your choice, given that they're going to be ejected soon anyway!

Interestingly enough, I think the original Grudge Match (unlimited fouls each turn) becomes marginally useful with a simple +1 to the Eye. You couldn't go to town with DPs, but you could try a 6+ foul and one or two 5+ fouls.

-Chet

[DoubleSkulls]

The lone exception is Iron Man, for reasons that should be obvious!

-Chet

I don't see why Iron man should be so different. Making a single player on the team immune to injury is extremely useful, but most teams have players who are going to be targeted for removal. Stopping them hurting one of those players just means that they only bother trying to hurt less important players. However getting it randomly assigned to a dwarven longbeard doesn't help much.

If you feel that is overpowered as a choose any player, then just make it so the player is immune to injury - they can still be stunned, or any 8+ is a KO. That way the stronger team can still remove them from the game, they just can't go for the casualty.

[GalakStarscraper]

I'd rather have D3 Random DPs than the original Grudge Match.

Also I agree with it being random ... especially with the proposed change to fouling ...

Galak

OR .... I could live with the result being the D3 players from your team with the least SPPs (your stars egos are too big to risk getting thrown out). Your choice in case of ties. Yeah, these tend to the be the best players to foul anyway ... I kinda like that.

[Mestari]

First of all, a short introduction: I'm Teemu Tokola, a Blood Bowl enthusiastic from Finland - some of you might remember me from the Blood Bowl mailing list.

I've been mostly away from the BB community for about two years, and I've only recently met the 2k1 rules review - after a bit of thinking I've liked almost everything. The things I don't like - appears I'll just have to live with them

Anyhow, I'm with Chet what comes to this discussion - I haven't yet tried the 2k1 rules out, so I have nothing to base that opinion on except a gut feeling. Still Chet's proposal for changing the fouling rules appears to be an improvement over the rules in 2k1 rules review.

That humble opinion concludes my first (but not the last) post ing to this forum.

-Teemu

[plasmoid]

My experience with 2K1 fouling is this:
*DP fouling is still lethal. In fact, after our first tournament, the majority of coaches found it too lethal.
*non-DP fouling is only used in extreme emergencies. Otherwize, it is rarely worthwhile.

With that in mind, these are the modifiers I'd prefer:
+1 if the eye is on you.
+2 if you are fouling with a DP
(or alternatively +2 if you are using a DP bonus).

Martin

[Acerak]

Howdy, Teemu! Good to see you're still around. Feel free to e-mail me at chz@buffalo.edu if you want to talk about stuff you don't like with the Rules Review. (You can discuss it here, too, of course!)

Cheers!

-Chet

[Trambi]

Real strenght team don't need to foul !
They have ST5 and mighty blow

[Trambi]

In addition, The (Chet's) rules sound good.
And what about assist fouling ?