Fouling for SPPs

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:10 am

When an inaccurate pass ends up in the hands of the intended receiver, the player did accomplish what he was trying to do.

I view casualty SPPs as the award for good blocking. Because keeping track of knockdowns and awarding fractional SPPs would be too distracting, we instead give out a couple SPPs on each especially effective block. Blocking is a core part of the game and a good blocking performance deserves to be awarded. Even if knockouts and casualties didn't exist there'd still be a use for it.

I don't think fouling deserves to be a fundamental part of the game. It's not behavior that I think should be rewarded. I think the people who complain about not having fouling SPPs are the real players of Pansy Bowl. If you need some kind of motivation outside of injuring your opponent, you're not really interested in the blood part of Blood Bowl at all. All you really care about is developing your team.

I don't think fouling should be part of the strategy of a cerebral, tactical Blood Bowl team. It should be a losing cause championed by folks who prefer to act more in the spirit of the game than by the numbers of the game. Adding an incentive just makes everyone do it. Where's the fun in that?

Fouling also simply isn't dangerous enough compared to blocking to justify the SPPs. Setting up your one foul a turn shouldn't be that hard, and the player only risks being sent off to the safety box. Yes, a fouler who causes a casualty did what he intended, but should there be an award simply for doing what you intend to do when there's no risk? Maybe we could start giving out awards for assists. A player holding the ball or making a block is risking getting hurt. Foulers usually don't even have to dodge or go for it.

If you had to give up a blitz, or at least be standing in the right position, I wouldn't mind the fouling SPPs so much. Fouling would then have a real trade-off involved other than the simple 1/6 risk of getting removed from the field. A foul could be defined as blocking a player who's down. Maybe we could even involve the block dice before we roll the armour dice so the fouler has to risk his neck a bit.

Is there anything left to explain?

Pink Horror

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 8:04 am

What if you could only Foul if you started your turn standing next to the intended victim? Just like a normal Block?

Just a wild idea... I'm not sure if I support it myself, but it just popped into my mind.

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 10:03 am

Not all things need to be fully explained to be available in the game. For exemple, how do you explain that a player who randomly get choosen as Most Valuable Player gets 5 SPP? He may even have been in the dugout the whole game.

I think SPP's for fouling is ok, as long as the risk for fouling is so high that it balances the SPP's reward.

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 10:45 am

Why, that's an excellant idea Mestari!

Hmm, wonder why it popped into your head? In my ramblings I must have accidently gotten across the idea I was trying to communicate. Oops. Usually I'm confusing enough to keep people from knowing what I'm writing about.

Pink Horror

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:03 am

I agree, its a really good idea! Treat the foul as a block-like action. You have to stand beside the downed player to foul, or use your blitz action.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:36 am

The point why I don't like forcing fouls to be blocks would be the diminished ability for targetting enemy key players (oops... here I go again, calling the opponent 'enemy').
But on the other hand, if the blitz could be used for that purpose... but then again - rarely do one of those target players fall down on their own somewhere in their back field without the blitz which blocks him down, to make him vulnerable for the foul.

Another idea:
Interceptions= 3 or 4SPP

They are rare enough to merit this, don't you think... on the other hand, wouldn't this again mean giving something to the agility teams... still with interceptions usually at '6', and given the fact that people are more inclined to throw the ball over low-ag players, this might in fact mean giving something to the strength teams. Agility players don't rely their development on interceptions, do they?

Yet another point: Random MVP's suck. I'd rather see a method for determining who really was the MVP. Then there would be a point in comparing who had gotten the most MVP awards.
At our close-friends experimental league we've been giving them out so that the opposing coach chooses who was the MVP for the other team. So far no problems, and getting killed/niggled means that he wasn't valuable enough.

christer · Post by **christer** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:50 am

Highly off-topic. Sorry.

Maailmaa pitää pystyssä neljä asiaa: viisaiden oppineisuus, mahtavien oikeudenmukaisuus, hurskaiden rukous ja rohkeiden uljuus. Mutta kaikki nämä ovat tyhjää ilman hallitsijaa joka osaa hallitsemisen taidon

Oh man.. That sentence surpasses my knowledge of the finnish language.

Here's how much I manage to translate without the use of online translators:

The world upholds four things: The knowledge of the wise, the correctness [or righteouseness? Something about being right anyway]of the powerful, [something] and [something]. But all these are as empty as air to the [something] who knows the art of [whatever the last something does].

Either way, looks deep

-- Christer

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 12:14 pm

Mestari wrote:Yet another point: Random MVP's suck. I'd rather see a method for determining who really was the MVP. Then there would be a point in comparing who had gotten the most MVP awards.
At our close-friends experimental league we've been giving them out so that the opposing coach chooses who was the MVP for the other team. So far no problems, and getting killed/niggled means that he wasn't valuable enough.

Interesting idea. I would work very well in a local league with people who know each other. But it can also be a problem if a team really bashes one player, who then must choos the MVP for the other team. Open for petty evil use.

I think we will continue to use the random MVP, as it has the merit of giving it to players who never recieve SPP's in other ways. Maybe we should see it may be a bonus for longtime hardships. Players who score and blitz gets their SPP fast. But those linemen who get beaten and misused, but still stands after several games must learn something too even if they never score or do a cas.

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:08 pm

One way to score MVP's that is not random and open to abuse could be:

1) Give the MVP to the player who has contributed the most individual SPP scoring actions

Example: A thrower completes three passes, two of which end in TD's for two catchers. The thrower has made three inportant contributions to the game - the catchers one each. Therefore the thrower has contributed more to the game and deserves the MVP.
or
2) Give the MVP to the player who scored the most SPP during the game (although this is bias against throwers etc. for the reasons above)

If there is a tie in either of these situations then the opposing coach makes the decision who to choose - they have an opinion who hurt their team the most.

I think we will continue to use the random MVP, as it has the merit of giving it to players who never recieve SPP's in other ways

If you want these players to get more SPP's - get them more involved in the game, then they will earn them in their own right.

Diesel

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:38 pm

Pantera wrote:Not all things need to be fully explained to be available in the game. For exemple, how do you explain that a player who randomly get choosen as Most Valuable Player gets 5 SPP? He may even have been in the dugout the whole game.

I don't think the MVP can go to someone who never left the dugout. They have to make at least a cursory appearance on the field.

Pantera wrote:I think SPP's for fouling is ok, as long as the risk for fouling is so high that it balances the SPP's reward.

Well I see what you're saying there, but at the same time, what's the risk of trying a pass on the last play for a completion? I like the current igmeoy rule, a random foul here or there is no big deal, but if you start doing it every turn and your opponent doesn't, ie if you're using it as a primary strategy in your game play style, it's going to hurt you a lot.

I think the distinction made there is a good one.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 3:15 pm

Diesel wrote:One way to score MVP's that is not random and open to abuse could be:

1) Give the MVP to the player who has contributed the most individual SPP scoring actions
Example: A thrower completes three passes, two of which end in TD's for two catchers. The thrower has made three inportant contributions to the game - the catchers one each. Therefore the thrower has contributed more to the game and deserves the MVP.

This all seems to assume that I'd somehow remember who threw what important completion. And what about a blitzer who KO's a guy to make a big hole in the line to run through? He made a contribution right? But he didn't get any spp...so his contribution is irrelevant suddenly?

Diesel wrote:If there is a tie in either of these situations then the opposing coach makes the decision who to choose - they have an opinion who hurt their team the most.

Man that's begging for abuse. You'd just pick the guy of the 2 who WOULDN'T get a skill and say they hurt you the most.

Diesel wrote:If you want these players to get more SPP's - get them more involved in the game, then they will earn them in their own right.
Diesel

There are LOTS of ways players contribute to the success or failure of a game that doesn't involve SPP's. One I mentioned above. THen there is the lineman that sacrifices himself by standing next to the black orc so he can't blitz the ballcarrier. Or the guy who picks up the ball and hands off to the thrower so HE can pass. Or the guy who knocks the ball loose from the defense.

Don't tell me they weren't "involved in the game" enough. That's what the MVP is for to me. It's a way to reward the guys who do stuff for you that doesn't show up on the stat sheet. And of course in game play terms, its the way to balance out the spps throughout the team. Both of these are important aspects towards the health of the game, and should not be removed.

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 7:18 am

wesleytj wrote:I don't think the MVP can go to someone who never left the dugout. They have to make at least a cursory appearance on the field.

No, as long as the player was available for play he is eligible for a MVP even if he was in the dugout all the game. According to LRB1.3

wesleytj wrote:Well I see what you're saying there, but at the same time, what's the risk of trying a pass on the last play for a completion? I like the current igmeoy rule, a random foul here or there is no big deal, but if you start doing it every turn and your opponent doesn't, ie if you're using it as a primary strategy in your game play style, it's going to hurt you a lot. I think the distinction made there is a good one.

But you can only make one foul per turn as per passing. Well, the current rules are pretty hard on fouls exept for the first one, and I don't see why you shouldn't be avarded a SPP for making a CAS on such a foul. What I mean is that the current penaltyrules for fouling is ok, but I think removing SPP for a CAS on a foul was wrong. Also, I think the fouling without penalty kick-off result is a un-balancer regarding to the current foul rules. So maybe Get The Ref! should be removed. Of course, its not often you roll 3 on the Kick-Off table, but when it happens a team that plays rough will certanly benefit immensly from it. Even if no SPP's are awarded.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 1:58 pm

Pantera wrote:But you can only make one foul per turn as per passing. Well, the current rules are pretty hard on fouls exept for the first one, and I don't see why you shouldn't be avarded a SPP for making a CAS on such a foul. What I mean is that the current penaltyrules for fouling is ok, but I think removing SPP for a CAS on a foul was wrong. Also, I think the fouling without penalty kick-off result is a un-balancer regarding to the current foul rules. So maybe Get The Ref! should be removed. Of course, its not often you roll 3 on the Kick-Off table, but when it happens a team that plays rough will certanly benefit immensly from it. Even if no SPP's are awarded.

I think you misread me somehow, I'm in favor of spps for cas as well.

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 3:17 pm

wesleytj wrote: I think you misread me somehow, I'm in favor of spps for cas as well.

I probably skimmed to fast, which isn't always good when not reading your own language.

But ok. If the current IMGEOY rules is used, a SPP for a foul-cas is ok, as it isn't going to happen to often. Only Get the Ref could be dangerous in this case.

Rupert · Post by **Rupert** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 3:21 pm

I'm with Pink on this. Sure the fouler risk being send off, but the one being fouled risk his life, and if the fouling team dont have bench issues the coach wont care having a few guys send off during a match. In my last match I was outnumbered early and my opponent started fouling every turn leaving me with some problems for the rest of the tournament.

Why not make some kind of retaliation possible? On specific rolls the player being fouled strikes back and the fouler rolls armour roll.

Rupert