Who wants spp's for fouling???

[Acerak]

I don't know how anyone who played before IGMEOY (in any incarnation) could suggest getting 2 SPPs for fouling. You'd quickly have teams loading up with 3 DPs, which would quickly become 3 DP/Block/Skill players.

And me? I'm KING FOULER, baby! So don't give me all that "you must not like fouling" junk

-Chet

[sean newboy]

Yes but im not asking about b4 igemoy, im asking about now with current rules Acerak and others.

[Deathwing]

What if u get no spp's if u got caught then? Not to mention if the numerical odds are that stacked why not just keep scoring and passing?

Well, how about the situations where scoring would level the numbers up?
Players in the reserve box (either spare, out due to Morley's revenge, Running Late, In the Bag etc.), KO's that could return etc.

There's plenty of situations where you have numerical superiority for that drive and it's in your interests to 'do a number' on your opponent while you can. At the moment it's not worth repeatedly fouling in that situation, with Spps I'd be inclined to.

It's also a 'fast track' route for cheaper players. DP as first skill would get Skeletons/Zombies/Hobbos/Halflings/Gobbos etc to 16 in a hurry.

[sean newboy]

I guess u guys are just seeing alot more injuries from fouling than i have in the mbbl2. With fewer assists, possible negative assists and such i havent incurred or gotten many injuries. My current opponent sure is trying tho, as have several of the others.

[GalakStarscraper]

Sean ... that's rules clutter to add exceptions ... like it better with no SPPs.

Galak

[McDeth]

Absolutely not, although fouling is part of the rules. There should be no reward for dirty play, only for good play. Fouling can never be considered goodplay even if used tactically, and as such should definitely not be rewarded.

[DoubleSkulls]

I said no. IMO its the single best change to the rules. Coaches no longer attempt to foul every turn, and you don't see the development of several well skilled DP's in every team.

[NightDragon]

I seem to recall that the IGMEOY rule only came in to being because in the GW League one of their staff used DP so intensively that he fouled his way to the title,but no doubt I will be corrected on that one. Laters DD.

[Acerak]

I seem to recall that the IGMEOY rule only came in to being because in the GW League one of their staff used DP so intensively that he fouled his way to the title,but no doubt I will be corrected on that one. Laters DD.

That's more or less the story. I'm not sure the chap won the title, but I do know that an American came overseas, joined the staff, and whalloped the beejeezus out of his Brit comrades with DP. The real problem wasn't that he won; it's that no one there had really tried to min-max 3E fouling, which was definitely a broken feature. The original IGMEOY - caught on doubles if the ref wasn't watching, caught UNLESS you rolled doubles if he was - sprung up shortly after that.

-Chet

[sean newboy]

I dont know bout anyone else but i learned alot from this. Now for the record i never assumed that the vote would go any other way (majority to no). I just wanted to see what everyone thot of the idea. Im surprised how close the vote really is. The biggest thing i have learned is that the concensus seems to be that the only reason people dont foul as much is the lack of spp's for fouling and not the lack of assists, friendly -1 mods, or lack of bonus' from anything but dp. Sounds like we just removed incentive without really affecting anyones desire whether or not to foul.

[Trambi]

Yes if it's impossible to assist a fouling.
Moreover I fear more agility team with m***** f***** DP fouler than a strength team with DP fouler . Cos it's made a wide tactical choice for these teams.

[Mestari]

Removing SPP's from fouls is in my opinion one of the best changes done to the rules.

A dirty player has reached the peak of being dirty when he got DP - there is no reason (fluff- or otherwise) why he should get better in other aspects by kicking prone players.

If, however, the general opinion would support giving spp's for fouls, it might be a good idea to give only one spp for fouling casualties. It'd slow down the progress of foulers.

However, I feel that the current situation is the best solution.

[sean newboy]

Look at the numbers Mestari, yes is not that far behind no. And the other 2 categories on the border. I would say it is pretty evenly divided, i expected the no's to have a much larger lead.

[Acerak]

I don't put much stock in on-line polls run here or at BBCentral, whether I agree with the prevailing opinion or not.

Why don't I? Well, that's simple. This poll has a very good response rate for this forum: about 35-40 votes. GW regularly runs Specialist Games polls that return 3,000 votes.

They're expected to add polls for Blood Bowl on the new site. At that point, we'll be able to get a good feel for what people like and don't like about the rules.*

-Chet

* Mind you, the BBRC won't changes the rules simply because of a poll result

[sean newboy]

Im glad your basing it on polls that they will add. The ones that i have seen so far by GW have been entirely useless to fix rules, and as far as i am concerned been more along the lines of this is what we want to do so please rubberstamp what we will do.