Poll: spps for crowd and fouling cas: USE THIS POLL!!

[Marcus]

So far the only argument I've heard in favour of SPPs for fouling is the development aspect for non-scorers.

Why not try EXP? - it's not inextricably linked to aging. You can drop aging and still use EXP.

[Darkson]

the question i guess boils down to this: which situation is the minority situation, and which is the majority situation. The majority situation should be the standard official rule, and the minority should apply a house rule. I know the polls here aren't official, but the poll on here suggests that less than 50% of the people are happy with the rule as is...with no spps for either fouling or crowd cas....something to think about.

Again (and i really hope this is the last time i have to say this), you need to separate the two topics. I for one think that crowed CAS if you break armour is a good idea, but that has absolutely nothing to do with fouling CAS. 60% of the people right now believe that fouling is better off without CAS, and i garanty that this number will go up as people get used to the new rule.

So do we need someone to post these polls again seperately?

[wesleytj]

Its a rare thing but Wes ... I fully agree with Zombie here. Zombie has run some polls and when something he thought would be true showed a majority against him he fessed up. No one who understands anything about stats is going to agree with you that a majority want the fouling rules to get SPPs from this poll. The Yes Crowd line is a really a whole another topic and has only occupied a few posts of this 10 page topic. Using it is spurious at best; outright deceptive at worst.

If you want to argue about what you want fine and I like the discussion and the points that you are trying to raise ... but I agree with Zombie please stop trying to convince those of us that play with stats for living that the poll is on your side. Its not and it really does detract from your argument.

Galak[/quote]

i'm not trying to be deceptive...all i'm saying is that in general the status quo isn't the majority opinion. people can read the actual numbers and get what they want out of them.

you're right only 30% (at the moment) total want fouling spps back...i never said otherwise. i'm just trying to also point out that there's more to the numbers than that.

i also am aware that you can read way too much into these numbers it's not a remotely scientific poll, and we're only really asking the most committed fans of bb because generally they're the only ones on here.

anyway sorry if i keep harping the numbers in such a way as it looks like i'm trying to hide something. i'm just trying to make sure ppl see the whole picture that they're painting too.

[wesleytj]

anyway i think i'll stop posting here unless asked something specifically, i've said all i can think to say about the issue...

[Munkey]

So far the only argument I've heard in favour of SPPs for fouling is the development aspect for non-scorers.

I've got a few (read 4) Black Orcs that could really do with the SPPs to get block but I figure thats just part of the team development.

My Orcs are going through a flat period because of this but once these players get block they will be there for a long time and be a danger on the front line.

Teams develop at different paces so I don't see that this is really a problem. If it is then as Marcus suggests the Exp rule may be the way to go as these players will get their first skill much sooner although their turnover will be higher as well.

[Zombie]

anyway sorry if i keep harping the numbers in such a way as it looks like i'm trying to hide something. i'm just trying to make sure ppl see the whole picture that they're painting too.

What you're showing isn't part of the picture at all. Unless you also want to say that 100% of people aren't completely happy with every single rule right now. That may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.

[Icedman]

You have yet to present yours. It has nothing to do with your number of skulls and everything to do with your documentation. Do you really think you are going to change people's minds just by saying, "It happened in my league once!"? Stand back and look at from the other side. You won't listen to us and we CAN show you proof!

Sorry for not saying this earlier; some of my league stats are now up on the web; check the "Because You All Wanted It..." thread in General Chat for the link.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Like I said, you are using a broken handicap system. Not only does it almost randomly assign winners but it gives so coaches so much money that your fouling date is going to be skewed.

[Icedman]

Like I said, you are using a broken handicap system. Not only does it almost randomly assign winners but it gives so coaches so much money that your fouling date is going to be skewed.

The handicap system I use is the same as the Handicap system that was a part of the data that was 3rd Ed fouling; no more, no less.

As Zombie once said to me: you have asked me for my data, I have presented it. Now you tell me my data is useless. What was the point to me posting it in the first place, when you quite plainly do not want to listen?

[Ghost of Pariah]

It;s you who won't listen so this will be the last post I waste.

The handicap system I use is the same as the Handicap system that was a part of the data that was 3rd Ed fouling; no more, no less.

And this is universally acdepted as broken. What don't you understand? That handicap system is dead as dead can be. You are using to 2 most common complained about elements of 3rd edition to try to prove your point. That is why ppl here "aren't listening". We are listening. You just aren't saying anything.

[Zombie]

But your data IS useless. I told you before you posted it. If your league doesn't have a problem with fouling but another league does, the only league that matters is the one that does have a problem. For the game to work properly in any kind of environment, it's the only league that must be considered and studies properly.

Even if you were playing with pure LRB rules (except for fouling CAS of course), this still wouldn't prove anything!

[Icedman]

I told you before you posted it. If your league doesn't have a problem with fouling but another league does, the only league that matters is the one that does have a problem. For the game to work properly in any kind of environment, it's the only league that must be considered and studied properly.

Even if only one in ten league has a problem with fouling, it's that one league that must be taken into account if we want rules that work for everyone.

It's BS statements like this that have caused all the problems we have today. I don't care if it's Blood Bowl or society. One person/league/...ect having a problem with something is not any indication that something needs to be done.

One person is not an indication, i agree. Thousands of persons is another story. One in ten league means thousands of people.

If the only league that matters is the one that has the problem, but only one in ten leagues has that problem.....?

Or, put another way: is not 9 in 10 leagues more thousands of people?

And this is universally acdepted as broken. What don't you understand? That handicap system is dead as dead can be. You are using to 2 most common complained about elements of 3rd edition to try to prove your point. That is why ppl here "aren't listening". We are listening. You just aren't saying anything.

Now, as I understand things, the BBRC created the LRB by reviewing the data of the "universally broken" 3rd Edition.

Speaking of, some numbers on fouling. Now, I don't claim to be a statistician, but I think my numbers are close to right.

[Zombie]

Your numbers are for vanilla 3rd ed, a version that pretty much nobody played because it was so badly broken. For JJ style 3rd ed (without stacking and with harsh IGMEOY), things were very different.

Your numbers are also wrong, as should be expected. Like you said, you're not very good with probabilities. For example, you forgot the "argue the ref" roll, which is very important. There are other mistakes in there.

Anyway, the point is to have rules that work for everyone. I would think that's a simple enough concept but i guess it's not. The rules currently work for you, you just don't like them. Your rules would totally decimate many leagues, hence they're very bad. End of discussion.

[Ghost of Pariah]

See, the thing is 9 out of 10 leagues had the problem. In fact, I don't know w single league that didn't have any house rules for fouling. Not one.



As for the LRB being based on playtesting from 3rd? No you are way off. Like I said you need to do some research. You are out in left field there.
Anyway, I said before, you are just wasting time now and don't want to hear the truth. That's painfully obvious by your 9 out of 10 statement. lol

[sean newboy]

See, the thing is 9 out of 10 leagues had the problem. In fact, I don't know w single league that didn't have any house rules for fouling. Not one.

South Bend Indiana League. If u dint know they dint have a problem with fouling then u werent paying attention several months ago when this topic started in tbb. From the very first time i said that we hadnt had any problems with 3e fouling, but that i saw others mite have problems. The only house rules we had, just added players to some teams (assasins to delf, plague monks, ironbreakers, ironmaidens, etc).