Worried about the state of fouling

[Carnis]

A possible solution to make fouling tactical (like sillysod requests), could be increasing the eject chance significantly (even 100%), but making the ejection last one drive only.

As I see it, the current problem comes from not really losing a player for the entire game, as your reserves fill the position after the next drive starts (so it's not really like a red card in football, but more like a penalty in ice-hockey).

This way you would never be able to outnumber your opponent on the pitch because you foul, but you could still use it to good effect to get rid of wardancers for a drive etc.

[Carnis]

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.

The difference between AV1-4 is not significant. I can see this happening though, for instance:

My AV6 slann catcher jumped into halfling cage, rolled double1's. Already 3 flings & tree surround him. Effective AV2. Ok, it's rare, but happens (the example above did happen). AV4 on the other hand is not rare at all.

[mattgslater]

AV4

1296 perms.

---------------Major failures: 234
72 perms: Get caught, fail.
162 perms: get caught, stun.
---------------Minor failures: 144
144 perms: Fail.
---------------Situationally bad/neutral/good results: 62
62 perms: get caught, KO.
---------------Neutral results: 468
468 perms: Stun.
---------------Situationally good results: 76
76 perms: get caught, cas.
---------------Good results: 312
208 perms: KO.
104 perms: Cas.

So that's 312, 388 or 450 positive results, vs. 378 negative results. Might I note also that the relative quality of results beyond the 312th increases as the game wears on, which is to say that it tracks the potential payoff inversely. Sounds like the definition of stupid to me, barring vast player quality differences or major situational factors. Not enough to stop me from fouling with a really cheap player, but I can't imagine playing dirty with, say, Orcs or Chaos. That bugs me.

One alternative... bring back the native +1, and allow it to be applied to injury if not used on Armor. Then keep DP as-is.

[Joemanji]

A possible solution to make fouling tactical (like sillysod requests), could be increasing the eject chance significantly (even 100%), but making the ejection last one drive only.

As I see it, the current problem comes from not really losing a player for the entire game, as your reserves fill the position after the next drive starts (so it's not really like a red card in football, but more like a penalty in ice-hockey).

This way you would never be able to outnumber your opponent on the pitch because you foul, but you could still use it to good effect to get rid of wardancers for a drive etc.

Good idea IMO.

[mattgslater]

Or make it a variable penalty, with the same chance of getting caught. Like roll 1d6:

1: "I saw that!" Team turn ends immediately.
2-3: "Yer outta here!" Player is sent off the pitch and goes into reserves.
4-5: "And don't come back!" Player is ejected for the duration of the match.
6: Suspension! Player is ejected for the duration of the match, and the next one too!

So on average, an ejection costs [(3*number of turns left) + 16 turns + (2* number of turns in drive)] /6. If on average there are 8 turns left in the game and 3 turns left in the drive, it's 46/6=7.75 turns lost to getting caught. But of those, 2.75 are replaced with handicap equal to player TV add.

[Grumbledook]

extra rolls were removed hence we don't have IGMEOY no more

[mattgslater]

Trying to save one die roll on Blood Bowl ejection mechanics is rather goofy. It's not like this is a major shift in complexity vs. the rest of the game. Rather, more die rolls = more suspense, at a totally ignorable increase in rigamarole.

[Grumbledook]

oh I agree I liked IGMEOY

[Carnis]

AV4

1296 perms.

---------------Major failures: 234
72 perms: Get caught, fail.
162 perms: get caught, stun.
---------------Minor failures: 144
144 perms: Fail.
---------------Situationally bad/neutral/good results: 62
62 perms: get caught, KO.
---------------Neutral results: 468
468 perms: Stun.
---------------Situationally good results: 76
76 perms: get caught, cas.
---------------Good results: 312
208 perms: KO.
104 perms: Cas.

One alternative... bring back the native +1, and allow it to be applied to injury if not used on Armor. Then keep DP as-is.

That would bring back LRB 4 fouling.

Your example is without dirty player though. I'm not claiming fouling without dp is an efficient strategy, fouling WITH dp on the other hand:

AV4
1296 perms
---------------Major failures: 201
36 perms: Get caught, fail.
165 perms: Get caught, stun
---------------Minor failures: 72
72 perms: Fail.
---------------Situationally bad/neutral/good results: 81
81 perms: Get caught, KO
---------------Neutral results: 348
348 perms: Stun
---------------Situationally good results: 102
102 perms: Get caught, CAS
---------------Good results: 492
276 perms: KO
216 perms: CAS

I would also consider stun often a good result at the end of round 1, and at the end of 2nd half stun & getting caught are worth almost the same.

Anyway, dp'ing av4 gives you 492 good results to 201 bad results. That's not unreliable at all, if used right. The rest (603 permutations) are zerosum results as far as the half is considered.

[mattgslater]

Since you almost always forfeit one or more actions (by forfeit I mean end up in a square that doesn't help you), a stun is a failure unless you're dealing with a player that you can't afford to leave unstunned, in which case it's a neutral concession.

[Grumbledook]

surely you plan ahead in your turns and work out if you knock a certain player down early in the turn, you can position your players in order to get assists in a foul and also be in squares that are helpful, even if you weren't going to do that foul

I know that is how I play and what I look for when planning a turn out

[Digger Goreman]

A possible solution to make fouling tactical (like sillysod requests), could be increasing the eject chance significantly (even 100%), but making the ejection last one drive only.

As I see it, the current problem comes from not really losing a player for the entire game, as your reserves fill the position after the next drive starts (so it's not really like a red card in football, but more like a penalty in ice-hockey).

This way you would never be able to outnumber your opponent on the pitch because you foul, but you could still use it to good effect to get rid of wardancers for a drive etc.

Good idea IMO.

I like that too.... Makes fouling a little more prevalent (meh) and much more tactical (yeah!).... I always liked IGMEOY, and primarily because it gave a use for the ref and coach minis!!!! I also LOVED arguing the call.... I think I got thrown out 1.5 times per rare time I won the argument... but, hell, I'd argue a snotling being tossed... it was just plain, vicarious FUN!!!!

DG

[mattgslater]

surely you plan ahead in your turns and work out if you knock a certain player down early in the turn, you can position your players in order to get assists in a foul and also be in squares that are helpful, even if you weren't going to do that foul

I know that is how I play and what I look for when planning a turn out

Sure. But I can almost always think of a better place to put my last moving player than wherever he needs to be to foul whoever he needs to foul. If a guy's out of position 'cause he fouled, it's just like he's prone (well, almost like he's prone; he gets three more squares the next turn, and there's perhaps a chance his TZ will become relevant).

[Pink Horror]

surely you plan ahead in your turns and work out if you knock a certain player down early in the turn, you can position your players in order to get assists in a foul and also be in squares that are helpful, even if you weren't going to do that foul

I know that is how I play and what I look for when planning a turn out

Yes, it's how I play too. I foul at the point-of-attack: exactly where I want my players anyway. And a stun is not a "neutral" result. Often, the stun is good.

For the huge list of reasons given before, there's another:

n) It's near the end of the game. I want to get my best players sent off so they are healthy next game.

Matt's numbers simplify everything too much. Believe me, I know the odds. But to say something is stupid just because of odds is, well, worse than stupid. It's stupid and arrogant. There are tons of situations that get made much better with a stun. And a chance at injury is not meaningless. When you knock down a player who's only going to be on the ground 2 or 3 times all game, it's best to make the most of it. Let's say in the average game I'd knock that blodger down 3 times. One foul on him, at minimum, is a 33% improvement on my chances to hurt him. With assists, we're getting around 50%. If I foul every time he goes down, now the minimum advantage is 100%. When you're dealing with low-probability events like casualties, I believe it's best to look at relative gain.

[mattgslater]

I'm not saying it's never a good idea. I'm just saying that it's really really situational in LRB5, something that wasn't generally as true in other editions. Now, in order to foul wisely you need either very good comparative value (fouling expensive positionals with a Zombie, say) or a very convenient circumstance (fouling a failed cagebreaker, for instance). In the old rules, if I knocked a positional down out in the open on a block, I'd run my DP up to foul with just one assist and it would be worthwhile. Now, I'm not at all convinced that it would be worth it, as I'd only be adding up to +2 to the AV roll. That's a burned action which, if unsuccessful, I may come to regret the following turn. Now, maybe the kd involved an assist, and I might leave that guy there until after the foul, in which case it's a little less unlikely, but I risk an additional action. Sometimes (usually) the optimal fouling target can't be hit from the "point of attack."