A Word on Fouling...

[Icedman]

A while ago I was told to talk to the BBRC for proof of the problems related to the awarding of SPPs for fouling CAS. My research on this topic is not yet complete, as most of the BBRC has yet to reply, if they see fit to at all.

What I have received to date amuses me, as it pretty much sums up what I've been trying, and failing, to get across on the other fouling threads.


People are very leery about re-introducing SPPs for fouling, due to experiences during the "Fouling Wars" of 3rd Ed. Unfortunately, no-one seems to have collected any hard numbers on these events, but many (all?) are aware that it was once a problem.

People have had a "good feeling", if you will, about the current fouling rules.

However, no-one has tested the idea of SPPs under the Living RuleBook, or even in the playtesting that went in to the Living RuleBook. No data exists, hence no-one can say for certain that the LRB fouling system can handle the problem most had under 3rd Ed, where fouling was the quick way to player/team development. All everyone has to go on is a "gut instinct", based on prior experience and a belief about the current system.

The BBRC is looking into the topic with some interest, though as of yet, no ideas are really concrete; they are just curious as to whether or not the LRB ruleset is capable of handling the SPPs for fouling CAS problems, and if not, how the system could be tweaked such that fouling would not be a problem (one idea intimated to me was that they would look into giving SPPs again, if Chet's No-INJ-Mods idea was accepted).

I must stress that this is by no means a "complete" survey of the BBRC members, or those who's test data they base their decisions on (I only know the IDs of 4 of the 6 members who watch this board, for example), but to date, the information presented above is what I have understood from the messages I have received.

[Darkson]

Icedman,

Don't know wheter it will be any good data wise, but the REBBL Skaven is giving SPP's for fouling (clan bowl rules).

http://www.rebbl.com/Skaven/skaven.htm

The leagues only just started (1st round being played now) but I'm sure tchatter would be happy to give you some figures.

[Icedman]

Don't know wheter it will be any good data wise, but the REBBL Skaven is giving SPP's for fouling (clan bowl rules).

Thanks DS, I'll look into it. I'm assuming they've got the rulesset they're using up on the site?

[sean newboy]

Im not sure rebbl skaven should be used as data for that, almost all of the players in the league are all av7, u definately would not get as many fouls (injury causing ones) in other leagues. Not to mention a skaven league is bound to be over the top in blood factor.

[DoubleSkulls]

People are very leery about re-introducing SPPs for fouling, due to experiences during the "Fouling Wars" of 3rd Ed. Unfortunately, no-one seems to have collected any hard numbers on these events, but many (all?) are aware that it was once a problem.

Your main problem is that a lot of people don't see any reason to change the current system. It works, most of the people I play with are happy with the way it is now.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Icedman]

Don't know wheter it will be any good data wise, but the REBBL Skaven is giving SPP's for fouling (clan bowl rules).

Thanks DS, I'll look into it. I'm assuming they've got the rulesset they're using up on the site?

The REBBL is keeping its own stats on this one; go to the site to have a look for yourselves.

Sean; alot of people who are against the idea of SPPs for fouling are against it based on the fact that leagues were once that blood-heavy. I think that a league promoting the blood-and-carnage aspects would be a more robust test of the LRB system than a more balanced league environment, don't you?

To Ian; I'm not commenting at all on whether the system's broke or not, I'm just putting out the results of the research I've done, as I get them.

[Marcus]

Hooray, research for research's sake.

No point proving a point unless there's a point to prove IMO. I'm yet to hear a sensible reason for bringing back fouling SPPs.

[Icedman]

Hooray, research for research's sake.

No point proving a point unless there's a point to prove IMO. I'm yet to hear a sensible reason for bringing back fouling SPPs.

Marcus, the research I am doing is at the behest of (mostly) Pariah: I was told that all the evidence ever needed to prove that SPPs for fouling was a bad idea could be found by simply asking around. I am merely reporting what answers I have been given (incidently, I would've reported it even if there was evidence).

As to a sensible reason...what classes as such?

The argument against fouling has one (albeit very good) reason for not letting SPPs back in: that fouling was/is the quick and easy road to player/team development (I've been told this in one of the two replies I've received to date).

A (possible) reason for: if we know whether the system as it stands can handle the problem, then those who wish to award SPPs for fouling can do so knowing that such a system cannot be abused as it once was.

[DoubleSkulls]

I think you've missed Marcus's point (or I'm missing yours).

You appear to want SPP back for fouling for their own sake. You haven't produced a good argument to say why SPPs ought to be awarded for fouling. Forget about whether it can be made to work or whether it is balanced. Why do you want them in the 1st place?

Sell me on that and then I may be interested in your research.

[Grumbledook]

Ditto, I don't just don't think the act of fouling is worth merit of receiving spp, just like picking up the ball isn't.

[Redfang]

Then neither should be throwing a quick pass to a receiver, while both receiver and passer are safely behind lines!

You constantly told off all arguments by claiming a foul war would result. Others claimed that it would not, since IGMEOY would be enough to prevent that. Icedman now offers to investigate whether a foulwar would happen indeed, or whether IGMEOY does the trick. Even if a rule-change won't happen anyway, this research will still provide the BB community with valuable information on the subject! Furthermore it might given an indication to who's right. Something we can't say shit about unless it is tested; both with and without SPP's! And now you won't even listen to what he might find out?
How much trouble is it for you to read his findings?
Finally somebody takes steps to see what will really happen! You should be glad! This might determine whether continuing this discussion has any use or not.

R

[Grumbledook]

I will read them but i still don't agree with the point of fouling to have spp.

[Marcus]

And yet there is still no reason given for introducing SPPs for fouling.

[Redfang]

not in this thread, no, but this thread is not here to give those arguments!
Arguments were given, however, in the previous two threads on this subject.

R

[Redfang]

Here's Wesleytj's post on the subject that started it all a little while ago:

(sorry this was going to come sooner but tbb was down on friday)

3 main reasons:

1. Balance: Many teams have issues on getting those first few skills on low agility players. Black orcs and zombies pop instantly to mind. Can't pass, can't run, can't score, in general they can't do anything speed/agility related to get spps. They can't hit very well either, since they have no block or mightyblow or anything else to give them casualties reliably. So they foul. But now that doesn't work either. Other teams have no such players, and therefore have an advantage. line elves, line rats, and so on will always get their spps. Besides, what else is a slow team supposed to do at the end of the half/game when they only have one turn?

2. Overkill: We've already done enough in new lrb rules to contain abusive fouling. We have a good and workable IGMEOY. We have limited DP to be + to arm or inj only instead of both. We have given defensive assists for fouls to help the av of the poor lad who's down. Isn't that enough? Do we really need to have this as well? Is it really necessary to take away a very good source of spp's from players that need them so badly?

3. KISS: For those that don't know, it means "Keep it simple stupid" Causing a casualty on a member of the opposing team should give you 2 spp. Making needless exceptions only complicates the rules for no good reason, especially for people who have bb experience and are accustomed to playing the old way. Now I know that's not a reason to NOT fix a rule that IS screwed up, but I think it IS a good reason to leave alone something that isn't or wasn't.

your turn.