Just an idea...

Cervidal · Post by **Cervidal** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:23 pm

I've heard a few times in this thread, once again, about the +1 to injury for existing niggling injuries.

No way, and here's why: If you want to wreck agility, Norse Lizardmen teams, this would do it.

Skinks are already very vulnerable to injury thanks to a combination of strength, armor, and Stunty. If anyone on the team is going to have niggling injuries, it's the skinks. They are also the players on the team who end up with most of the star player points. Regularly disabling the team's only ball handlers would really cripple the team.

Agility and Norse teams have a lower armor and general strength than their bashier Chaos, Orc, and Dwarven counterparts. These less bashy teams are going to be the ones picking up the niggling injuries, definitely not the smashing squads.

All of these problems are exacerbated if they are implemented alongside with aging. Agility and speed teams already get more niggling injuries from the aging chart than their slower, armored opposition.

This is a rule that would completely favor a few specific, mostly high armor teams. Probably not the best way to go.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:29 pm

Cerdival: I brought it up again because I agree that there isn't enough player turnover in the game. The Mighty Blow "fix" also favors bashier teams and hurts Elves, Lizardmen, and the rest. The niggling injury increase to injury strikes me as the best way to even this out, as Niggles are most commonly gained thorugh the Aging table.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:19 pm

ianwilliams wrote:Pretty damn hard.

I think you'll find that fouling every turn with the eye on you - even with DPs - isn't that worthwhile a strategy. Even if you get through the armour automatically every time then you are removing players from the pitch only 55% of the time, while going off yourself 50% of the time.

Wrong. 41.67% of the time you're sent off, no more. And that's when the ref is watching!

ianwilliams wrote:Now given that you don't get through armour 90% of the time that means you are losing players faster than they are - and half of their players will only be KO'd meaning they can come back for the next drive.

A lot less than 90% is needed considering 41.67%. Also, even if you lose two zombies for every line-elf you get rid off, you're still winning. That's 60k for you and 70k for them. It's not like zombies and skeletons are good at anything else anyway.

ianwilliams wrote:The other problem with this is that you need half a dozen DP's for it work anyway. Given the awful rate at which unskilled zombies and skeles pick up skills you are going to be a long way behind.

What other skill would you give zombies and skeletons anyway? Nothing else, even block, would help your team more.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:23 pm

Skummy wrote:The Mighty Blow "fix"

There is no mighty blow fix. Making it work on both armour and injury would have such an insignificant impact (work out the odds, you'll see) that it's not even worth mentioning. The only thing it would accomplish is to add another exception to the game.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:29 pm

Zombie, tell that to my Skaven team when they go against a Chaos Dwarf squad with 7 mighty blow players. Each armor roll is likely to break, and each injury roll is likely to send someone off.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:34 pm

All right, since you apparently can't work out the probabilities yourself, i'll do it for you. With AV7, the chance of needing mighty blow on the armour roll is 1 in 6. The chance of needing it on the injury roll (assuming you break armour) is 10 in 36 (i.e. only when rolling a 7 or a 9). Therefore, being allowed to use mighty blow on both rolls would make a difference in 7.4% of all knockdowns. For AV8 and 9, it's even less. Hardly something revolutionary.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:37 pm

Zombie wrote:Wrong. 41.67% of the time you're sent off, no more. And that's when the ref is watching!

Okay - but that isn't for every sending off, the 1st one and its straight 50%. Make 4 argues a half and that's a 50% you'll get sent off too.

Okay so that makes the numbers nearer a 75% chance of breaking armour - without using DP. Against Av8 that means 3 assists on every foul. So its possible to get to 1-1 trading - if you don't mind your team being out of position a lot of the time.

Zombie wrote:Also, even if you lose two zombies for every line-elf you get rid off, you're still winning. That's 60k for you and 70k for them. It's not like zombies and skeletons are good at anything else anyway.

Ah well that's really the argument. IMO Being outnumbered for a strength team is a big problem - especially against teams like Elves where keeping a good line of TZ's is very important. They only need a couple of players and a little chink in the defence and they've scored. So getting players sent off - if you aren't already a couple of players up - is a big problem if you want to score.

I'd say if you are losing players 3-2 you may just about make it worthwhile. However by the time its worthwhile you'll have lost the game.

Zombie wrote:What other skill would you give zombies and skeletons anyway? Nothing else, even block, would help your team more.

I'd probably take DP 1st, then kick, then another DP then block on the rest. Maybe something else - depending on the rest of the league and my team. Your probably going to get a double (Diving Tackle?) or some stat increases.

I just think DP is a skill of diminishing returns - you get the most benefit from the 1st one on the team, a bit less for the 2nd and from then on its all downhill.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:49 pm

Zombie: Please - there's no need to be confrontational or get personal. Because I didn't calculate the odds in front of you does not mean I am incapable of doing so.

The problem is that the 7% increase is still an increase. If you've plaed Skaven for any length of time in the current rule set, you'd know that any increase is a bad thing. I've had to replace an entire roster in 30 games. Any more turnover and the team would probably not be sustainable.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:21 pm

ianwilliams wrote:
Zombie wrote:Wrong. 41.67% of the time you're sent off, no more. And that's when the ref is watching!
:oops: Okay - but that isn't for every sending off, the 1st one and its straight 50%. Make 4 argues a half and that's a 50% you'll get sent off too.

What the F_U_C_K is so hard to understand about this number? Sorry about the vulgarity, but when you're trying to explain a simple concept to complete morons who can't understand 2+2, you get pissed off after a while. It's 41.67% for the whole F_U_C_K_I_N_G game, period!

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:25 pm

Skummy wrote:Zombie: Please - there's no need to be confrontational or get personal. Because I didn't calculate the odds in front of you does not mean I am incapable of doing so.

The problem is that the 7% increase is still an increase. If you've plaed Skaven for any length of time in the current rule set, you'd know that any increase is a bad thing. I've had to replace an entire roster in 30 games. Any more turnover and the team would probably not be sustainable.

It's much more than a 7% increase. It's really getting anoying discussing things with people who can't add up 2 and 2.

Here's an idea. People who can't count shouldn't be allowed to discuss game balance issues. That should do it!

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:37 pm

... and people who can't discuss in a friendly manner and start to insult other people that easlily should not be allowed to post to this forum.

instead of calling people morons you could just mention that ian forgot the "argue the call" rule which lowers the probability of being sent off below 50%. However, your 41.67% is also not completly correct as it doesn't take the propability of the head coach being sent off on a one into account.

Just my 2+2 ...

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:47 pm

Must restrain urge to reply in kind.

And That is how you stop a flame war.

Moderators, please lock this topic. The discussion is obviously not going to progress in any meaningful fasion when parties don't actually listen to one another.

Post by **Thadrin** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:51 pm

Especially when said discussion is NOTHING to do with the original topic.

I didn't post this thread to be yet another discussion on the merits of fouling, and certainly not for flame wars.

Please Gents, back on topic or I'll lock it.

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:17 pm

Skummy wrote:And That is how you stop a flame war.

You are stronger than I am

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:31 pm

Tim wrote:However, your 41.67% is also not completly correct as it doesn't take the propability of the head coach being sent off on a one into account. :P

Indeed, it's not correct. It should in fact be lower if you take into account the times you foul and the ref isn't watching you.

Once the coach gets thrown out (which happens pretty rarely as for that you need a player sent off and then you need to roll a one), you stop fouling, or at least you do it less often.