A Word on Fouling...

[Sixpack595]

You have seen a ton of reasons, but you disagree.

To curb the superplayers without needing to use a horrible system like ageing.
To aid player development for low skill/agility players.
To reflect that a casulty is a good thing for your team no matter how you get it.
Because a large number of players want it.

I could just as easily say I've seen no good reason to deny SPPs. i disagree with those reasons, it doesn't make them go away.

The bottom line is I still haven't seen a good reason why spp for fouls should be back in anyway?!?

[Grumbledook]

you can foul ther superplayers without spp

the other points have been covered

[dakkakhan]

Zombie Wrote:

dakkakhan wrote:
What is a hobbo? If it's a halfling or a hobgoblin you aren't using LRB because there aren't allies except for Big Guys. You had a 50/50 chance and only tossed him once? We your league obviously doesn't roll as many 6's as mine does. Good to see my dice have relatives elsewhere.


He didn't say what team he was playing, only that it was against norse. It's not 50% (how often will i have to say this before some of you guys get it?), it's 41.67%. The argue the ref roll is very important to consider.

Grumbledook wrote:

he must have fouled me about 7 times 5 of them with the eye on him

the only time he got sent off was when he used his dirty player and si a hobbo, every other roll he got away with it

Thanks for the correction Zombie, perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me what he's talking about. It sounds like the guy fouling (the Norse coach) fouled with his hobbo.

anyway...

41.whatever %, if it's that important maybe we ought to allow SPP's for fouls and not allow a coach to argue the call. Then it's a true 50-50 with the Eye on you, right? why do I think you won't accept that either?

[Skummy]

As I read it, the norse player fouled with his dirty player and seriously injured a hobgoblin.

[Dave]

Or a Gobbo (mistyped)

[dakkakhan]

most of the talk is how terrible fouling is and no one has mentioned that fouls don't always work. A foul with a Dirty player against AV 7 is still gonna fail some of the time to break armor and even more so to put the victim off the field. Each time this happens the fouler has a chance to miss the rest of the game.

Grumbledook wrote:

I've just been chatting to a long time fumbbl coach who has a rep of being a fouling monster under the current rules. He agrees they are balenced and he doesn't want to see spp for fouls. Now when a player who would benefit greatly from it doesn't think it is worth changing doesn't that say something?

Grumbledook, does this not also tell you that it is not a deterrent? This guy would still make Marcus quit bloodbowl again, so I guess imposing this rule isn't doing what you say it does, ie lessen the number of fouls committed.

[Grumbledook]

i believe marcus said he would quit if spp for fouls were bought back not about people who foul under the current rules

in the current rules one player can foul and the other can not bother and hope that his opponenet gets most of his team sent off

this is what i did in that match i said earlier (it was norse vs chaos dwarfs and he got a serious inj on a hobgoblin (hobbo))

and the arguing with the ref only factored in once cause he only cause seen once (which is 50% of being seen with the eye on you)

If spp were awarded and the eye was on your opponent why not take the cheap shot for free spp? This is what would encourage foul wars.

[Mirascael]

most of the talk is how terrible fouling is and no one has mentioned that fouls don't always work. A foul with a Dirty player against AV 7 is still gonna fail some of the time to break armor

Really? Does the BBRC know about this? This has to be changed immediately, Dirty Player has to break AV 7 armour EVERY TIME in the future (83% without support just isn't enough).

and even more so to put the victim off the field.

That true? Has to be changed too. Let's tell the BBRC that each foul has to put the victim of the field, no matter what.

Each time this happens the fouler has a chance to miss the rest of the game.

What? A free armour roll without any risks for the fouler and a highly increased casuality-probability when Dirty Player is involved (about 2.7 times) and the fouler can be sent off? Now, here's a lame rule! Is this Sissy Bowl or what? Better give those Dirty Players twice as many SPPs each time they inflict a casuality. That would be reasonable!

Grumbledook, does this not also tell you that it is not a deterrent? This guy would still make Marcus quit bloodbowl again, so I guess imposing this rule isn't doing what you say it does, ie lessen the number of fouls committed.

Obviously you never read that particular post. Marcus quit, because it was a valid strategy to ignore the match entirely and just foul as much as you could, since that would suffice to develop your team. If a player is exclusively interested in wreaking havoc, fine. But it was merely outrageous to reward him/her for this and privilege coaches that didn't actually participate in the game at all. This game is meant to simulate fantasy football, not 40k or WHFBattle.

[Darkson]

Well, I'm was quite happy to house rule SPP's back in, and will keep the rule in for our next season.

I see the will never be a happy medium between the "yes" camp and the "no" camp, so if you want it, house rule it. And as if usual, if you wanted to play in my leage you'd play it my way, as I would folllow your rules in your league.

For those in te yes camp, if your league is happy to have it, more power to you, and I hope you enjoy it as we did.

[dakkakhan]

Mirascael lie down and let me stomp you, see how often you get up. I don't even consider myself to be a dirty player. Though I'm guessing your armor would be something less than 7 too, so perhaps that's a bad example.

Well Mirascael here's the post ...

Marcus Wrote:

I'm yet to meet the player who fouls every turn with his Dirty Player who can play this game worth shit. Every single last coach I have played who did that has been a clueless player who will never, ever, be any good. The sad fact is that when you get SPPs for fouling every two-bit muppet who can't play the game comes out with dirty players, rolls block dice, fouls, out goes a player. There is no skill, no tactics, no enjoyment. The DP gets more skills and yet he still doesn't score any goddamn touchdowns.

The first time I quit Bloodbowl it was because of this arms race attitude, it was deeply, deeply boring to play against people who could develop killer teams by doing nothing but fouling. Yes, they're out there, everywhere.

Nothing at all against players who foul players out as an adjunct to scoring. But they are not the coaches who need fouling SPPs, they are the coaches who are good enough to parlay the casualty into improving the scoreboard.

Seems to me Marcus is saying that he doesn't want fouling for fouling's sake, so unless the player that fouls every turn does so in order to score, and Marcus has to play them, he just might quit again. The only time he mentions SPP's for fouling is simply because of the (I foul, you foul) attitude.

Is there another action that you take that has the potential for you to miss the rest of the game and cause a turnover that doesn't give you Spp's for successfully completing it? So Ban fouling, why even let it stay at all? That option should have some merit, the simple fact that it is sometimes useful is irrelevant. Does it's removal completely change the game? Not really. Does it?

[Zombie]

and the arguing with the ref only factored in once cause he only cause seen once (which is 50% of being seen with the eye on you)

Just because he didn't fail the first of the two rolls most of the time, and didn't get to throw the second, doesn't change the fact that it was 41.67%. If you needed to throw two dice and only got sent off if you rolled 4+ on both, but the coach only ever threw the first die and never failed the 4+, you still couldn't argue against the fact that it was a 1 in 4 chance everytime (and not 1 in 2).

[Zombie]

Is there another action that you take that has the potential for you to miss the rest of the game and cause a turnover that doesn't give you Spp's for successfully completing it? So Ban fouling, why even let it stay at all? That option should have some merit, the simple fact that it is sometimes useful is irrelevant. Does it's removal completely change the game? Not really. Does it?

Yes it would, and very negatively too. Fouling is essential to get rid of problem players. It's when it's used against anyone, anytime that there's a problem.

[Mirascael]

Marcus Wrote:

I'm yet to meet the player who fouls every turn with his Dirty Player who can play this game worth shit. Every single last coach I have played who did that has been a clueless player who will never, ever, be any good. The sad fact is that when you get SPPs for fouling every two-bit muppet who can't play the game comes out with dirty players, rolls block dice, fouls, out goes a player. There is no skill, no tactics, no enjoyment. The DP gets more skills and yet he still doesn't score any goddamn touchdowns.

The first time I quit Bloodbowl it was because of this arms race attitude, it was deeply, deeply boring to play against people who could develop killer teams by doing nothing but fouling. Yes, they're out there, everywhere.

Nothing at all against players who foul players out as an adjunct to scoring. But they are not the coaches who need fouling SPPs, they are the coaches who are good enough to parlay the casualty into improving the scoreboard.

Seems to me Marcus is saying that he doesn't want fouling for fouling's sake, ...

Seems to me a certain dakkakhan does want fouling for fouling's sake?

...so unless the player that fouls every turn does so in order to score, and Marcus has to play them, he just might quit again. The only time he mentions SPP's for fouling is simply because of the (I foul, you foul) attitude.

I've read something different:

The sad fact is that when you get SPPs for fouling every two-bit muppet who can't play the game comes out with dirty players, rolls block dice, fouls, out goes a player. There is no skill, no tactics, no enjoyment. (...)
it was deeply, deeply boring to play against people who could develop killer teams by doing nothing but fouling

Coaches who did nothing else but fouling could develop killer teams due to the cheap and easy spps. That was braindead - and the reason why Marcus (and many other) quit the game.

Is there another action that you take that has the potential for you to miss the rest of the game and cause a turnover that doesn't give you Spp's for successfully completing it?

Is there another action that gives a free armour roll (with a very high bonus if Dirty Player and assists are involved) against an opponent's player which, with Dirty Player, has a 2.7 times higher chance of inflicting a casuality without any lasting risk for the fouling player?

So Ban fouling, why even let it stay at all?

To reward or not reward cheesy play is the issue here.

...the simple fact that it is sometimes useful is irrelevant.

Sometimes useful? Now, there's an understatement...

[Marcus]

Dakka: My argument in point form.

Fouling is fine - you use it to stun players in good tactical position, or remove important players from the pitch and hamper your opponent's chance of winning.

Dirty Player is fine - it means you can have a player on your team that does these things.

SPPs for that action is not fine - there is an inherent reward for doing this already, as well as an inherent risk. It does not to be tied to player development, which is what this argument is all about: "should a player develop due to fouling", it has nothing to do with whether fouling per se is a good or bad thing.

The fact of the matter is that dirty players, even under IGMEOY rules, get the most SPPs out of any team. Last time we played with SPPs for fouling, even with IGMEOY, the Spike player of the year was the 2nd placed team's Dirty Player, just from fouling casualties.

Most of the pro arguments seem to revolve around either player development - that you can't get SPPs for blocking/low ag types any other way or that you should be rewarded for a fouling action if it causes a casualty.

First point - I maintain that SPPs for fouling are going over the top as the best player in the entire league is invariably the one who wanders around kicking people. This makes fouling a viable development strategy, which I believe it should not be as it makes the game boring when players focus on foul casualties rather than getting the ball over the touchline, which is the object of the game

Second point - There is a reward for a foul casualty, the player you fouled is out of the picture for at least the current game. It's then up to you to take advantage of that by winning the game. Rewarding them in other ways is putting the cart before the horse and rewarding the player for getting the casualty rather than the coach for winning the game.

Developing players for fouling, by fouling is a self-propagating side game that shifts the focus of the game from the actual object - scoring more touchdowns than the opponent - to some sideshow where many players don't care if they lose so long as they remove players. There is no need to reward that, let someone show a little skill and actually use those fouls to help them win the game.

[Mirascael]

I don't even consider myself to be a dirty player.

Which might be exactly the problem here. Actually, I am a foul-happy player and really have to pull myself together when I am playing against rookies. That is now, under the current rulings without SPPs for fouling. It would appear that some coaches, especially those which want the foul-spps back, truly underestimate the power of fouling. It might almost be too powerful already.