Mercy rule?

[mattgslater]

Had an Ogre coach concede late at night last night on TT. Game had started late and gone long, and he was down 0-5 to a Necro team, with 5 Ogres, 2 Snots, and a re-roll going into turn 11. The concession really damaged his team but he was tired and both coaches were frustrated, and the deadline was nigh so continuing another night would not have been an option.

This got me thinking about a mercy rule. Something like, if you're down by 4 or more in the second half, you can concede without the usual penalties. Good idea, or no?

[lunchmoney]

Or you could have just recognised that enforcing the full concession rules was not the right thing to do in that situation. It could have put that player off from playing anymore, losing your league a coach. That's my idea of a mercy rule.

[sann0638]

Yeah, I struggle with concessions as a commissioner. Not sure on the reason for punishing them harshly.

[CyberedElf]

It is a no win situation.
Penalizing the loser feels harsh.
Concessions deny the winner spp, but rewarding the winner too much could lead to abuse.

I'm fine with the rules as they are, but that is biased by the social environment in my league. When a game gets lopsided we usually let off the gas. Or, if the opponent's players just run away or don't stand up, we leave them alone. We get spp through throwing passes and scoring. We seldom foul once the game is in the bag. (That +AG wardancer is always a target if he is on the ground)

[mattgslater]

Or you could have just recognised that enforcing the full concession rules was not the right thing to do in that situation. It could have put that player off from playing anymore, losing your league a coach. That's my idea of a mercy rule.

That's where I'm going. Just wanna codify it.

[Christy42]

A manager can rub away at any time if they are at least 3 scores down or 3 casualties down as they attempt to avoid their face being associated with this defeat (and also the team's pretty irate fans).

This obviously has a blow to the teams morale. At the start of each turn (both teams) roll 4d6 and discard the highest. If it is less than the number of turns that have been played the team joins their manager and legs it! If you have 7 or less players left on the pitch/reserves they get a reroll on this. Similarly if they are 4 or more touchdowns down.

If this is done before half time they do not get an MVP award and lose 20,000 in winnings (min 0). Else they keep the MVP and they lose 10,000 in winnings as the manager makes sure to grab as much of the cash as they can on the way out!

In any case their opponent gets an extra MVP award from the morale boost of driving their opponents from the field itself! The same player can't get both MVP awards.


Overly complicated but I feel like it fits the blood bowl style and it is not a frequent thing. You can change the effects to whatever the important part here is to add a bit of fluff to the concession which I think is in keeping with the world and limits the penalties.

[JPB]

I don't like penalizing. And I would only use it if coaches would concede a lot. However, if that happens it may make more sense to look into the reason why they concede and try to do something about it. Conceding is a bad sign.

But, if this is only about conditions that could lift the penalty. I would use total SPP instead of TDs. A total of 21+ SPPs (incl. MVP) is usually a dominating victory, and an amount of SPP the winning coach may be happy with.

Second, the winning coach should be protected from getting punished in turn (deny of SPPs, having a special moment, achievements that may reflect on standings etc.). So perhaps add a veto right, that a ref/third person has to look into (because that's going to work swimmingly... ) and appeal to coaches to be good sports (preferably from a distance). This point is stupidly vague by default, but at least ranking issues need to be taken into account somewhat. And screwing a coach out of a tournament because their opponents can concede is not good.

And last I once considered the following: “A team that has only 7 players in total (incl. Reserves & KO Box?) (aka a quarter of a team) or only 5 players on the pitch (aka half a team), at the start of any of their turns, may concede without penalty”.
The original reason behind this idea was to prevent teams from beating an opponent into submission to get their MVP and winnings. (“Concede or die! And give us all your money.”)
But I also consider being outnumbered worse than being outscored. Loosing shouldn't be a reason to concede, in fact that may be the situation the penalty would want to prevent (i.e. sore losers). But being down in numbers can mean that the beaten coach has nothing left to do but to move one or two pieces per turn (with little meaning). If only down in TDs a coach can still score, collect SPP, defend, play ball etc. Especially in a progressive environment which can have secondary goals.
Last this may help with attrition and, all considered, perhaps BB really needs a second winning condition (concession by lack of players) that can be triggered by the beaten team (only).

So rather than TDs I would suggest to base it on total SPP*, avoid possible penalties for the winning coach it may entail (especially league rankings) (somehow ), and total players left (if at all). And/or a combination of those 3.

*SPP difference could be another option. I would say a difference of 15+ SPP (incl. MVP, so 10+ in game) qualifies as outplayed.

However, as said the penalty is rather a solid ban hammer for people who need help with the situation. A better approach is to figure out what the coaches problem is, and fix it, if possible.

[mattgslater]

Hmmm. Maybe if we started enforcing the time limit? If this game had gone on for an hour and a half by that point, they would have stuck it out. But both coaches were playing slow, and there were a lot of distractions.

[CyberedElf]

“Concede or die! And give us all your money.” . . . A better approach is to figure out what the coaches problem is, and fix it, if possible.

If you lay on the ground, never stand up, and pass your turn; the only reason to concede is if your opponent is a jerk. Problem identified, but hard to fix. To me, almost everything else is just being a sore loser, also hard to fix. How are either of these problems fixed by mercy rules? Does less penalty for a sore loser help? The winner of a concession will always lose turns to get spp. Giving the winner less will help prevent jerks at the cost of penalizing the coaches that just played that much better or were luckier. I would rather address a jerk by other means.

I find gentlemen's agreements go a long way. "I won't hit or foul you, just don't stand between me and the endzone."

I really believe the cases of concessions that are not because of jerks or sore losers are in the vast minority.

[fidius]

It's not clear to me who was forcing the Ogre coach to keep playing. Maybe whoever it was just needs to be introduced to basic manners. Emily Post has a good book on the subject.

[mattgslater]

The concession rules were forcing the Ogre coach to keep playing.

[JPB]

I think what you can take away from this is that no one really uses the concession rule. It's like the turnmaker rule, it's basically only there to encourage coaches not to forget to keep track of the turns, but no one ever enforces it (but only tries to keep track of the turns as best as possible). The concession rule is similarly flawed. It's only there to encourage coaches to see a game through, but enforcing it doesn't help (i.e. the game still ends).
So if your coaches don't have a problem in that regard (sportsmanship), you can consider to drop it, and only use its spirit but not its wording. (as with turnmarkers)
If coaches have to stop playing, you could allow them to stop, and if needed, take a look and check for a few indicators that would make it more tolerable like, as you originally suggested, being 5-0 down (20 SPP). At which point you can allow them to stop playing fairly confidently I would say.
If they haven't reached that point, but won't or can't continue playing, you could consider things like giving the winner an extra MVP or a couple of “fake” TDs, but don't penalize the other coach.

[mattgslater]

There has to be some reason to discourage coaches from just playing a half and quitting. That would happen a lot in my league if not for the concession rule. My coaches are still building their basic skills, including pitch-vision and heart. So if you're brand new and up against a coach with a better handle on the spatial elements of the game, it's easy to fail a gut check and just wanna quit on a winnable game.

[JPB]

OK.
So you need the concession rule, but would like the option not to apply the penalty (aka mercy rule)?

If the idea of the concession rule is to keep coaches playing and not “fail a gut check in a winnable game”, you would need an exception to the rule that basically describes when the game isn't winnable any more?

I guess that's TD difference (as you suggested) and player numbers (if you don't object to that). And total SPP is just a minor factor.

Gosh, this is difficult, isn't it?

I would say a difference of more than 2 TD is unwinnable. I don't think a team being 3-0 behind can have possibly enough time to tie the game. However, this may be true for Dwarves and such, but Skaven or Elf may pull off some shenanigans, and manage 3 TD (score, defend, defend?) (one turn score?). Seems unlikely, to be honest, especially scoring repeatedly (and fast!) on defence. I guess there may be some unique scenarios when a fast team can repeatedly cause the opponent to turn over the ball and run it in, but that should be very unique scenarios. Personally, the moment a team is 2 TD behind, I consider a draw the best possible outcome. I think a lot of 2-3 results are more back and forth, than being 2-0 behind and then scoring 3 times in a row.

To be one the save side use your original point of 4 TD difference. And I think you can drop the “2nd half bit”, i.e. when they score every other turn (which would be astonishingly quick) they would be in the 2nd half after 4 TDs. You may ignore being down in players, and just let it play out until there's a difference of 4 TD, and you may consider that conceding in that case gives extra MVP and winnings to the winner, but no penalty to the loser.

[Rolex]

Only mercy rule you need if players agree is that they skip turns.

There is no rule that forces a player to do anything in this turn.
If both players don't agree, concession rules apply.