A way to solve the foul dispute?

[Zombie]

Those are two different subjects entirely.

There's the point about coaches who will foul every turn and not care about the win. A very valid point, but not what i was addressing here.

Then there's the point that fouling the best players from the other team (not every turn of course, but still even if the ref is watching you) is actually strategically sound, even in the current rules. That's the point i was trying to make. In that scenario, the coach will stop fouling with the ref on his side once his coach gets ejected (because the odds become a lot less interesting then), unless he has an extremely good reason to foul. But before that happens (i.e. your coach getting ejected), you can expect to be able to make, on average, 12 fouls with the ref watching you. So this means that you can usually (not always of course) have quite some fun before that happens.

Nothing, possibly short of removing the rules from the game completely, will be enough for some coaches.

I'm pretty sure that a good 95% of coaches right now (at least those who post here) think that the rules are harsh enough right now. So the coaches you mention here are the clear minority. But the majority (it think it was 60% last time we were polled) also think that they're perfect as they currently stand. It's not that we want fouling to be penalized more. It's just that we don't want it to be any easier or anymore rewarding than it currently is either.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Yeah, don't mess with fouling. It's just fine as is. Making it any softer than it already is would just eliminate it from the game.

[Grumbledook]

12 fouls with the ref watching you when your coach is there, care to elaborate please zombie?

[Zombie]

The chance of the coach being sent off equals the chance of the player being sent off multiplied by the chance of an arguying coach being sent off. That's 1/2 X 1/6 when the ref is watching you. So on average, every 12th foul where the ref is watching you, the coach gets ejected.

[Grumbledook]

oh you were on about the coach, i thought you were talking about the fouler being sent off ;]

i would still foul if my coach had been sent off anyway still a 50/50 chance

[Zombie]

I would still foul if it was really, really worth it (like a downed wardancer or something).

[DesTroy]

Well, now that I have read most of the debate on altering fouling, I would like to let you folks know of the house rules for fouling we use in our league, the Howling Fury Football League.

First off, we do not allow Mighty Blow to be used on fouls. Why? Simply put, if you can use Mighty Blow on fouls, what good is Dirty Player then? It doesn't make sense unless you eliminate the Dirty Player skill from the game, as the two would be too similar if MB were used to foul.

Second, we use a house rule that states that fouls may not use assists from either the fouling team or the defenders. Only one player may foul, without help, nor can the target elicit help from his teammates. This actually helps, in a way, because now the Dirty Player skill is MORE valuable, rather than being rendered worthless.

Other than those modifications, the HFFL uses the rules as written in the LRB, and there has been no shortage of fouling in our league.

To sum up, then: using Mighty Blow and/or assists on fouls is not a good idea IMHO. But of course, people disagree. This is just an example of how another league deals with the "problem."

[Grumbledook]

the living rulebook doesn't allow any skill other than dirty player to count on fouls, so mighty blow can't be used anyway its not a house rule ;]

[Mestari]

Yes they do. Once he gets ejected, you stop fouling!

Quite a valid point. However, one must remember that the odds posted assume an auto-breaking of AV, which improves the odds for you.
Ensuring the breaking of AV may also give the other team an edge as there is a group of players grouping on a single player.

What ever the case, the odds are very even - which only shows that the fouling rules are quite balanced at the moment. Referring to the thread that discussed card games, it's a bit like playing BlackJack perfectly - if you know how to play, the odds are so close to 50% that you can expect to stay pretty much even with the dealer.

[Zombie]

No. In this case, if the odds are 50%, they strongly favor the kicker. Why? Because the fouler is usually a 30k to 50k player with no other skill than dirty player, while the fouled player is usually rather in the 90k to 130k range, with a couple of upgrades as well. If both are missing for the rest of the game, who do you think is the winner here?

[Mestari]

You're still forgetting the fact that the AV roll is not accounted for. Or do you claim to foul only when you automatically break AV?

My standpoint is that the odds are less than 50%, but the fact that you target the more valuable players makes the odds approximately 50%.

All in all, to get the odds that far, the fouler needs to:

-Get the valuable players down AND
-Arrange auto-break of AV AND
-Have a DP available

All this moves your emphasis from the game into fouling, and this benefits the other team.

I can admit that with careful planning and by playing the fouling game correctly you can achieve avout a 50% rate of success. But I categorically deny that the odds would heavily favour the fouler under the current rules.

[Zombie]

-Get the valuable players down AND
-Arrange auto-break of AV AND
-Have a DP available

I would agree with that if you replace the first AND by an OR. That's what you need to get the odds at a little over 50%. With an AND, the odds are HEAVILY in favor of the fouler, but all 3 elements combined is rare in an actual game.

[Mestari]

I've asked the UN Security Commission to prepare a Roadmap agreement for us to sign in order to end this discussion:

Code: Select all

UN Resolution #1895 : Is Fouling in BB Useful

Generally, the expected return from fouling is less than 50%. A 50% return means that you lose as many players as you manage to injure by fouling. However, under certain circumstances and when playing the fouling game well, the expected return can be increased to values over 50%. These values are dependent on the respective values of the fouler and the fouled.

The UN does not guarantee any rates of success should you resort to using fouling, nor does it guarantee that by refraining from doing so your opponent will be screwed if he fouls.

A good resolution?

[Tim]

I like fouling a lot, because i think it's
a, just a valid tactic in Blood Bowl, like passing
b, fits the fluff
c, a good way of keeping player turnover in the league.

However, to go back to the first post, fouling can stir negative feelings because all effects are limited to this game, while injuries can cause longer lasting effects (death, ultimatly). I agree that this is wrong, because it takes the clean conscience from fouling as a game tactic.

How about this rule:
If the ref is watching you and a 5+ is rolled on the ref roll and the roll is not argued successfully, the player is not only taken out of this game, but also has to miss next game as well.
Additionally, if a 6 is rolled, the player is noted as an infamous fouler by all Blood Bowl fans. Roll a D6 at the beginning of a match, on a 1 the opposing fans have managed to keep the player from attending the match (beating him up, kidnapping him, spoiling his drinks, stealing the hoof irons from his horse, whatever ...). Note this down as Niggling Injury, use same game mechanics.


This could balace the effects very well, without further crippling the usefulness of an occasional foul.

[Redfang]

The idea of being sent of for more than one game is a good one to work on, but I don't like the idea of foulers getting "Nigglings"

Fans love blood; fans love foulers. Also it would make it too difficult to have 1 dedicated (DP) fouler, because that player would relatively rapidly pick up Ni's

R