Expanding IGMEOY

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:33 pm

Somewhat related to the topic of the Piling On Big Guys Poll...this is something I've been thinking about and I'm going to throw it out to see what ppl think.

While not illegal in the same way as fouling, Piling On is not exactly a shining example of friendly play. A referee seeing this activity by a team can generally expect that they are likely to be fouling as well.

What I propose is that usage of the Piling On skill be grounds for getting the attention of the ref. No roll for ejection, as there is in fouling, and if he's watching you already there's no change.

This will allow (in my mind) legitimate retaliation for this tactic by the other team. To me Piling on has always been almost on par with fouling, and to me that's always been the counter to Pile On. Sure you can use it and you're likely to get a cas out of it, but you're laying yourself on the ground for free and BEGGING for retaliation.

This rule would make that retaliation less punishing than it is now, and it would quiet the complaints about the skill as is being too powerful.

Whatcha think?

(btw, on aforementioned poll I voted that Piling On for big guys is fine...it's no different than Piling on by anyone else...you're just making an even MORE inviting target prone)

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:50 pm

Not a bad idea, both allowing the fouls to rain down on the PO, but also hurting the POers fouling game. It doesn't do anything to help when you are already players down and don't have a Dirty Player to take advantage.

Overall I think Milo's options are a lot simpler and more effective.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:56 pm

ianwilliams wrote:Overall I think Milo's options are a lot simpler and more effective.

...which are? I guess I missed Milo's options.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 9:04 pm

wesleytj wrote: ...which are? I guess I missed Milo's options.

#1 Change PO back to use before the Av roll
#2 Make PO a trait

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 9:52 pm

ianwilliams wrote:
wesleytj wrote: ...which are? I guess I missed Milo's options.
#1 Change PO back to use before the Av roll
#2 Make PO a trait

That would work as well...but I actually prefer my way...maybe I should make a poll?

To be honest I'd be ok with Milo's idea as well, but I do prefer the idea of making the connection between piling on and somewhat dirty play (without being AS dirty as fouling)...but ymmv.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 9:56 pm

Anything other than changing piling on back to its former description is a bad idea, both realistically and rule-wise. It's patching a patch, when you could make it right much more easily. We'll never play it differently around here anyway.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 10:02 pm

Zombie wrote:Anything other than changing piling on back to its former description is a bad idea, both realistically and rule-wise. It's patching a patch, when you could make it right much more easily. We'll never play it differently around here anyway.

Bah, it's silly to assume "the way it used to be" is and always will be the best way. If we all had your attitude we'd all be playing 1st ed still. Oh wait, no we wouldn't because it sucked. We just wouldn't be playing.

If you don't like my suggestion fine, but argue for or against it based on the rule itself, not just because it wasn't the original way.

Besides, why doesn't anyone (or many ppl) think the same way about diving tackle? I hate the new skill, I think it'd be better to revert back to the old skill and make it a trait. But not because "it's the old way and anything else is worse", but because I think it fixes any and all problems people used to have with diving tackle.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 11:50 pm

I would rather see Piling On revert to the old ruling, not because it's the old way but because it seems the best option.

The make it a trait argument seems a bit unessecary, it is only really overpowered as it stands at the moment or possibly on the 4 mummy Khemri team (sounds scary but I havn't seen it in practise). Make it a trait seems to be a standard call when any skill is suggested as being overpowered, I would rather not see too many skills go this way or the only skill available without a double will be block

I quite like the suggested link to fouling but as Ian pointed out this does not help much if you don't have a dirty player to retaliate with (especially as PO players tend to have high AV).

Also doesn't help if you are losing a fouling war as the opponent can still foul before PO whilst the refs not looking.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 12:19 am

Munkey wrote:I quite like the suggested link to fouling but as Ian pointed out this does not help much if you don't have a dirty player to retaliate with (especially as PO players tend to have high AV).

You don't need a dirty player to foul sucessfully...tho of course it helps.

Besides, I think every team should have one dirty player. Even teams that never foul: I never fouled with my wood elves, yet I always had one guy with DP...he was there as deterrent. It's saying if play dirty expect some back. Altho of course now with igmeoy maybe that's not really necessary.

Munkey wrote:Also doesn't help if you are losing a fouling war as the opponent can still foul before PO whilst the refs not looking.

Well, if you're losing a fouling war the ref is already looking at him anyway, unless of course you're fouling back in which case there is no room to complain.

This isn't meant to EQUATE PO and fouling, just to "link" them as you said. To make people think about the consequences of piling on in much the same way they now think about the consequences of fouling, only not as harsh.

If the guy is already fouling, you're right, this doesn't change anything usually. In that case there's already IGMEOY for when he does foul, that's the best defense you've got. It doesn't pay to foul every turn with a dp anymore...the chances of a casualty are less than the chances of ejection. And that's the way it should be really...what I'm saying is don't confuse the two issues.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 12:30 am

You seem to be saying that by making the ref look at the PO player the odds can be evened up by the other team being able to foul the player when he's down.

Trouble is if you are already outnumbered, by fouling you just allow a foul then another PO block (maybe every other turn but still).

If you don't foul then you are still suffering at the hands of the PO players.

I don't believe I am confusing the two issues but by linking PO to IGMEOY you by defenition link it to fouling.

The other trouble of using fouling to even up PO is that under the current LRB rules PO is only used when it is needed to break armour, meaning that the fouling 'window' is reduced because the player will not spend all his time on the floor and when he does you have suffered at least a stun.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 9:23 am

wesleytj wrote:You don't need a dirty player to foul sucessfully...tho of course it helps.

I strongly disagree. When fouling you have at least 1/6 chance of being sent off. Even if you are guaranteed to penetrate armour non-DPs have only a 1/6 chance of getting a casualty. Realistically at best (3 assists) you are only looking at a 30% chance of a KO or casualty.

With DP the odds move dramatically to nearer 50% chance of a KO or casualty. This is a far more efficient trade off.

The other big problem is that then your team gets sucked into fouling, instead of trying to score.

wesleytj wrote:Besides, I think every team should have one dirty player. Even teams that never foul: I never fouled with my wood elves, yet I always had one guy with DP...he was there as deterrent.

Now you are making DP a "must have" skill. Under 3rd ed it was, and it was a bad thing. Surely one of the great things about BB is that there is a great variety of possible skill choices. If everyone takes a DP then it reduces variety and hence part of the fun of the game.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 1:50 pm

ianwilliams wrote:Now you are making DP a "must have" skill. Under 3rd ed it was, and it was a bad thing. Surely one of the great things about BB is that there is a great variety of possible skill choices. If everyone takes a DP then it reduces variety and hence part of the fun of the game.

Have to agree with this one. I tend to not be a big fouler as even with an Orc team i'm usually too busy playing the ball to foul more than occasionally.

Therefore I would rather not 'have' to take DP on one of my players. I also like the variety of skills i'm seeing in our LRB league, not one player on every team with DP and Pro.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:21 pm

look nobody's making anybody take anything, and I certainly don't think that giving spps for all cas MAKES anyone take a DP. It just makes it a more attractive idea.

I was just stating that I always take one. Not that anyone else should/would have to.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:35 pm

When one team starts getting guards, the rest of the league has to follow out of necessity. DP works much like this in any case, and I can see it getting to be one of those mandatory skills again if it gave SPP's.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:37 pm

Skummy wrote:When one team starts getting guards, the rest of the league has to follow out of necessity. DP works much like this in any case, and I can see it getting to be one of those mandatory skills again if it gave SPP's.

Well, there are plenty of those kinds of skills. Kick isn't required yet almost everyone who knows what they're doing takes one. Leader isn't required, but back when it was a skill not a trait most coaches took one. If a bunch of players have dodge, then the rest of the league should get tackle "out of necessity" to use your term. I don't see the big deal, and that certainly isn't really a good argument for the proposal.