Worried about the state of fouling

[Grumbledook]

Yes and no. Its not risky in the sense that it can put you at a real disadvantage. Its risky in the sense that it might not work so unless you are a lucker or have bribes you need some kind of backup strategy.

that is how fouling should be imo and was the aim of the fouling rules

... but thats pretty boring IMO. Not because it doesnt produce as many splats but because it makes the game less like chess and more like snakes and ladders.

I prefer the brand of fouling which gives you a semi-reliable method to remove a problematic player. It has alot more nuances including the ability to threaten opponents to get them to play in a different way. The problem with this in the past has always been that its possible to build a strategy soley around using powerful fouls to destroy the opposition.

Actually I would prefer automatic ejection to LRB5 fouling if it meant getting back a proper threat to threaten people with.

Well I still see fouling as a semi-reliable way to remove a problematic player. I've never really taken dirty player since 3rd edition so the only difference now is losing the +1 to the AV roll for the fouler in those cases. This makes player positioning more vital for a better chance to break AV and something that is overlooked. Positioning players well is one of the harder skills to learn in the game and I would say it makes the game MORE chess like not less.

Fouling is against the rules, that is why you get sent off for it, but it is also in character with the game. As you said you were able to build strategies of just fouling and destroying the other teams under LRB4. Fouling was out of line in 3rd edition with a lot of other rules. The nerfing of those rules up to LRB4 left fouling too powerful still and it would tamed down for a reason, as well as GTR being hard to roll on the KO table and being more equal to the two teams. GTR was toned down cause fouling was OTT, though it was also fouling in itself which needed bringing into line as well. That is what has happened.

The fouling threat is still there and if there are lower chances to get sent off and in combination with bribes there should be more fouling in the game (which I'm all for) but having it too powerful is unbalanced when you get a team that wants to abuse it. With dirty player getting you +2 to an injury roll when you can get very high odds of an armour break is just out of line with the rest of the blocking/injury rules as they are.

I am in agreement with wylder that the LRB5 fouling rules work fine, his post makes a lot of sense.

[DoubleSkulls]

What I tried to do in LRB5 was making fouling a lower risk/reward operation - so teams would foul a bit more, but get less benefit from it.

So I didn't want the high risk/reward style of LRB4 (well with the eye its high risk/reward, without the eye its just high reward!) but a lower level thing where players could put the boot in fairly often without it normally doing much.

An alternative approach would be to remove assists. That way you are fixing the efficacy issue, and then balance the reduced success rate with a reduced sending off chance. IIRC the reason we didn't do this in LRB5 was the concern it would really help high AV teams avoid fouling attrition.

[Grumbledook]

I like the gang fouling aspect of using assists from a fluffy POV and as I said I think it makes the tactical side of player positioning more important

[GalakStarscraper]

I still like the LRB 5.0 fouling rules.

Galak

[SillySod]

This makes player positioning more vital for a better chance to break AV and something that is overlooked. Positioning players well is one of the harder skills to learn in the game and I would say it makes the game MORE chess like not less.

I used to think this too. However, high risk fouling still requires these skills as well as some other ones. It tends to produce a more dynamic and flowing game rather than a repetitive "now lets surround this player" approach.

As you said you were able to build strategies of just fouling and destroying the other teams under LRB4.

Perhaps I wasnt making myself clear on that point. You couldnt really build reliable strategies around fouling and destroying the other team in LRB4... but if you did attempt it it was successful more frequently than it should have been.

-

What I tried to do in LRB5 was making fouling a lower risk/reward operation - so teams would foul a bit more, but get less benefit from it.

I think you achieved that but I dont think its what you really wanted to achieve. By making fouling low risk/reward and balancing it you took it away from the tacticians and gave it to the people who use it for attrition. I can see how it happened but it isnt the right fix.

Fouling needs to be fundamentally unbalanced in favour of the ref. That makes attrition much less viable. At the same time I think it could do with a bit more power so its a genuine threat.

[SillySod]

Doubles mean nothing. Instead, the victim's coach rolls 2d6 and adds +1 to the result for each assist. If the total is 10+, the fouler is spotted and his coach must ATC.

Thats an interesting rule. I'm not sure I like the penalisation of assists but it definately has potential.

[Carnis]

I still like the LRB 5.0 fouling rules.

Galak

I like them a lot as well, compared to LRB4 ones anyway.

My only problem with them is that it too heavily favours the high AV teams, which are already heavily favoured in the blocking & dodging rules, by not having to worry about being knocked/Cas'd if they ever get knocked over.

Finally, fouling thick skull players is down right impossible, since the knock/cas per ejection goes so freaking low.

I guess sneaky git was intended to favour fouling high AV, but it doesnt work, cause a lot of the high dicerolls are doubles (5+5 & 6+6 make up 2/6 of 10+ rolls needed for AV9 & 2/10 for AV8), making it inefficient to foul high AV without assists (down to AV6 preferably) & dirty player (to raise to injury on non-doubles matching armor).

[Pink Horror]

I never liked them getting rid of the +1 for the fouler. With that, I think fouling would be as powerful as it should be. My last game, I tried 2 fouls and got sent off both times, but I took a wardancer out of the game. It's nothing personal. I wanted to hurt the guy because he was a wardancer. Isn't that an unwritten rule of the game?

With the current odds for send-offs, the target needs to be worth more than the fouler, which is how it should be. But there are all sorts of uses for clumps of players, so that is not an issue. Lead the target where you want a clump and foul there. I take 1-3 fouls a game. Sometimes, if I start outnumbering someone, I'll use fouling to widen the gap. Otherwise, the #13 and #14 guys on my bench would never get in the game.

[mattgslater]

I have fouled exactly once in LRB5: under these rules, if I can get a reliable foul going, that's a great indicator that I don't need it, which is a great reason not to do it. The one time I did, it was to stop an almost certain TD, and the fouler and assists were all able to get into a nice position around the ball.

In all the LRB5 games I've played, I've been fouled twice, to no effect, and once my opponent got himself ejected (even worse, he fouled with the wrong guy, but that's not a rules thing). We play fixed formats, which makes bribes very rare: maybe that's part of it, but really. 3 fouls in, well, a lot of games. I'd have been happier if they just took the fouling rules out, rather than insult us with worthless fouling rules.

In 3.0, we used to snicker at people who stayed over 7 players but didn't foul more than 4 times each half. Dirty Player was prioritized above Kick. If fouling didn't make any strategic sense, you owed it to your team to do it anyway.

Neither outcome is acceptable, in my book. The new fouling is worthless unless you're an overwhelming underdog or facing vast player-quality differential (Khemri vs. Wood Elves). Dirty Player is a joke.

Fouling costs:
* An action.
* Probably a whole lot of maneuvering, blocking guys away without following, etc., that likely yields another two wasted actions or suboptimal positions.
* An ejection probability that one must equate with likelihood (I wouldn't take a 4+ dodge with a TRR unless the game was on the line and I could think of no better way; what would motivate me to take the same odds with an automatic BH on a failure and no chance for SPP gain, I have no clue... ok, I do know, but it's pretty rare).
* Your opponent's goodwill.

Fouling gets you:
* Most likely a wasted action on your opponent.
* Occasionally a whole lot of wasted actions, or at least a lost action or two and a player quality drop thereafter as the benchwarmer comes in next drive.
* Frequently just an extra TZ on an already-marked player.
* Sometimes nothing... or worse.

[Grumbledook]

some coaches will foul cause they like fouling regardless of the rules

allowing heavy fouling to be an efficient tactical strategy breaks the game imo

in the fluff on the whole the teams who foul loads etc have not been good teams (may be an exception or two)

there should be an opportunity cost to fouling, it is no worse than choosing to blitz a dangerous player on the other team though

what would motivate me to take the same odds with an automatic BH on a failure and no chance for SPP gain, I have no clue

the badly hurt on the other player possibly putting him out for the rest of the game and not having to face him
getting a player off the pitch who is probably worth more to the other team than the player you may lose in the process of doing so

as for opponents goodwill, I think that being able to take being fouled is more goodwill than moaning about the other coach fouling you

when your team does have the numerical advantage and perhaps you are using it to stalling out, the threat of fouling his players if he keeps coming at you is also there

he may decide the game is up and let you pass out the turns assuming you will leave him alone if you do so (course some coaches will still try and foul the other team anyway in this situation, but as I started the post some coaches will just foul anyway for the sake of fouling in any situation)

so for yourself and often coaches like me, you decide that fouling isn't tactically worth while for a lot of situations so you don't do it

This is the only version of the rules I can honestly feel that is the case and I applaud it cause it has been a long time coming.

[mattgslater]

some coaches will foul cause they like fouling regardless of the rules

allowing heavy fouling to be an efficient tactical strategy breaks the game imo

Yeah, I agree that heavy fouling shouldn't be a smart strategy, but the truth is that the number of smart fouls out there in LRB5 is so small as to be an afterthought (not saying it doesn't exist; just saying that it's so rare that you could play a whole NFL-length season and not see it happen unless you're playing Stunties, CDs or an undeady team). And nerfing oneself for fluff is a team design thing, so it can hit only the vets: if you make it a strategy thing it picks on the newbies and the bottom-feeders, as good coaches just won't do it. If my league had a coach who routinely did dumb things just 'cause he thought it was funny (especially if it was bad for his opponent's team), we'd boot him in the preseason... with prejudice. That's only slightly less offensive than blowing off a scheduled match without a phone call. The time to exercise your sense of humor is when naming your players and modeling your team. Play to win, or at least to improve.

there should be an opportunity cost to fouling, it is no worse than choosing to blitz a dangerous player on the other team though

Umm... what blitz comes with a 1/4 chance of getting BH'ed? You should never ever ever have in the rules a strategy which if applied properly is dumber than a 2-dice-against blitz.

[SillySod]

allowing heavy fouling to be an efficient tactical strategy breaks the game imo

I agree. However, LRB5 does that.

[Grumbledook]

thought you said it was too weak or random so some games you will just lots sent off without effecting the other team

would that not cause you to lose games as well as win them, ergo in my eyes not an effective strategy

or have I misunderstood you?

@matt - not everyone plays the game in an optimal strategy all the time, taking odd skill choices, playing with some fun and character

sillysod even said he likes fouling on turn 16, personally I would only do that kind of thing in a fixed league against some of other coaches who are at the top in the hope to weaken their position and strengthen my own

I'm not saying they routinely do dumb things cause they are funny but some coaches will take more one dice blocks than perhaps is sensbile, others will foul, some will try and do a completion to score with someone else instead of just walking it in etc

I agree that it is no fun against someone who isn't even trying to win the game, but you can do that and still foul a lot as well

[Carnis]

Yeah, I agree that heavy fouling shouldn't be a smart strategy, but the truth is that the number of smart fouls out there in LRB5 is so small as to be an afterthought (not saying it doesn't exist; just saying that it's so rare that you could play a whole NFL-length season and not see it happen unless you're playing Stunties, CDs or an undeady team).

Umm... what blitz comes with a 1/4 chance of getting BH'ed? You should never ever ever have in the rules a strategy which if applied properly is dumber than a 2-dice-against blitz.

Reading this I feel the coaches in your league severely underestimate LRB5 fouling. Furthermore, I feel you haven't really been fouling/fouled a lot. Finally if you consider turn 16 fouling unfriendly, then you may love your models a bit too much. I expect to be fouled on T16 after the game has been won (used to grit teeth about it, now I just laugh & cheer if he gets a kill, lining up my best fodder/nuffle's favourites), though I don't always do it personally it's part of the game & completely understandable. Some coaches play for the kills, and it's a perfectly acceptable goal.

In our league a regular game where both sides are not elves has 3-5 fouls pretty often. It's smart to foul to:

a) cause atrition when you're winning the CAS-game.
b) play with your opponent psychologically.
c) cause atrition if you outnumber your oppo on the bench.
d) get a numbers advantage on the field early in the drive and you don't have a better alternative (such as a surf).
e) hit prone players inside your cage/near hitting range of the ball carrier on offence (stun is enough).
f) reduce the number of potential catchers in defence vs passing, assuming your initial blitz didn't produce the needed stun+ (again, stun enough here)
g) kill stars/legends, especially when the apoth is down, this can be a real psychological weapon to some coaches
h) cause mayhem, if you happen to own a sneaky/dirty player and opposing AV is 8 or less with no Thick skull.
i) reduce your own incoming losses by fouling mb/piling players on the ground
j) reduce your own incoming losses by fouling your opponents DP out of the pitch
k) reduce your own incoming losses by fouling stunties/reservists, evening out the bench numbers
l) get rid of limited-access key positionals, such as slann catchers/wood elf wardancers
m) to get rid of annoying jump up freeblocks

The psychology bit is very important with some coaches, have seen halflings beat pro elves cause the pro elf was afraid of the AV6 stunties sharp shoes & delayed his scoring attempt eventually losing the game for him. Just don't ever foul stunned players, can do that next turn just as well.

Finally, the 30% odd chance of losing a lineman positional is no biggie to a LOT of teams. You're just down one player for one half, if your oppo has up to 55% chance of being down one player also, you win by default (even against lower value player, if your own bench is longer). So it's a form of zerosum, with the dice slightly in your favour (with bribes/DP and/or sneaky git a bit more than slightly).

Fouling was very unpopular at the beginning of our league as well, but it has gained support slowly but surely. Finally, you shouldn't think of fouling as a blitz with 24% chance of BH on your side. Think of it as a smart tool with an up to 55% chance of removing opponents & use it tactically (at the end of your turn). With a bribe this can be devastating, though I usually consider the wizard a LOT better inducement investment.

P.S. 2D against blitz is 11/36 turnover, with 25% chance of causing an armor check. AV1 foul (applying fouling properly), is a 11/36 chance of turnover & 'bh', with 15/36 chance of stun, 11/36 chance of KO, 10/36 chance of CAS (this could be a kill!). Far overpowering the 2d against in my books.

P.P.S 55% is only 3% worse than what mb/piling on players get on knockdowns vs AV7, and they are used by a lot of leagues to good effect.

[mattgslater]

AV1 foul (applying fouling properly)

AV1? Really? I remember in 3rd edition, when there were no pull-offs or defensive assists, my Dirty Player almost never got in an AV1 foul that wasn't purely gratuitous. If you need to get a numerical leg-up, presumably your opponent can mark most of your men and you need most or all of your actions.