FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

black_devil_laughing

Joined: Mar 16, 2011

Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 08:40

Quote:

How about keeping it the current +1 and making the other +1 come from the Sneaky Git skill (to give it some point in existing after the eye is brought back). If it takes two or more skills, it can't be broken... right

+1

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 18:51

Mr_Foulscumm wrote:

Geniuses!

Catalyst32 wrote:

Also I think the Eye isn't as realistic as the random chance that the Ref might have turned his head at the right or wrong moment to see or not see the Foul.

Yes, because real life is always the way to go with a game to make it fun right? Very Happy

In this case absolutely yes. The Eye is a STUPID game mechanic.
To know that if you foul on turn 1 when receiving that the Ref is highly unlikely to spot the foul and ban your player makes that foul almost mandatory rather than optional.
To know that your opponent can choose to not foul back thus making your 2nd foul potentially very likely to be spotted and to have your player banned is just as bad.
Why should your opponents chosen fouling strategy affect your chosen fouling strategy?
The strategy of both coaches should be dictated by game mechanics independent of the other coaches choices.

Also... part of the reason people believe the potential damage that can be inflicted by Fouling should been returned to the game is to counter the overuse of Piling On. (I know some just want more Blood and that's cool too.) IT SHOULD NOT BE SAFE TO BE ON THE GROUND. To willingly put your players on the ground should come with the legitimate threat of a damage inflicting foul.
The Eye after the 1st foul has been made takes away the threat of a Foul more than the current rules on being sent off. The current random 'sent off' rules based on roll of the dice help to preserve the threat of a Foul to discourage Piling On.
I would also go so far as to say that Piling On should require the player that is Piling On to make an AV roll. Should that player fail his AV roll he should be Stunned and placed Face Down rather than face up. (I think anything beyond Stunned except maybe KO'd would be going too far.)

Last edited by Catalyst32 on %b %19, %2011 - %18:%Jul; edited 1 time in total

RandomOracle

Joined: Jan 11, 2004

Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 18:58

Catalyst32 wrote:

Why should your opponents chosen fouling strategy affect your chosen fouling strategy?
The strategy of both coaches should be dictated by game mechanics independent of the other coaches choices.

Why shouldn't your opponent's strategy not have an impact on your strategy?

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 19:02

RandomOracle wrote:

Catalyst32 wrote:

Why should your opponents chosen fouling strategy affect your chosen fouling strategy?
The strategy of both coaches should be dictated by game mechanics independent of the other coaches choices.

Why shouldn't your opponent's strategy not have an impact on your strategy?

Because it's STUPID. That should be all I need to say. Because the Eye is a stupid rule.

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 19:06

Should a coach be allowed to choose that they will not Pass or Hand Off and have that choice keep their opponent from Passing or Handing Off? Should you be able to choose not to Blitz on your turns so that would mean your opponent cannot Blitz on his turns? No. Of course not. Then why should that apply to any other Action?

spubbbba

Joined: Jul 31, 2006

Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 19:08

Catalyst32 wrote:

RandomOracle wrote:

Catalyst32 wrote:

Why should your opponents chosen fouling strategy affect your chosen fouling strategy?
The strategy of both coaches should be dictated by game mechanics independent of the other coaches choices.

Why shouldn't your opponent's strategy not have an impact on your strategy?

Because it's STUPID. That should be all I need to say. Because the Eye is a stupid rule.

Never has Random's avatar seemed more apt.

The old fouling rules made it far more dangerous to be a brainless fouler. Back then you could either let the other team go foul crazy and get 1/2 their team sent off or target key individual players whilst feeding them useless linemen.

I saw many less bashy teams take apart killer khemri players by systematically removing the mummies from the pitch through tactical application of a DP gang foul.

_________________
British or British based and looking to join a League?
Then check out theWhite Isle Fringe

Calcium

Joined: Apr 08, 2007

Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 19:25

Catalyst32 wrote:

The Eye is a STUPID game mechanic.
To know that if you foul on turn 1 when receiving that the Ref is highly unlikely to spot the foul and ban your player makes that foul almost mandatory rather than optional.

This made me think about the whole topic of fouling. Personally I can't see a problem with the eye, after all, fluff wise most referee's are ex players that would initially let a suspect challenge go, much like what happens early on in a RL football game. Once a foul has been commited, then the ref is clearly gonna keep an EYE on that team. Seems to me to be a perfect system, as opposed to the crap we have to put up with at the moment thx to the tossers in the BBRC and their Necromicon that is LRB6.

And as for fouling being optional as opposed to mandatory? Um, they're not Mandatory? Damn, that's news to me!!!

_________________

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 19:39

Catalyst32 wrote:

RandomOracle wrote:

Catalyst32 wrote:

Why should your opponents chosen fouling strategy affect your chosen fouling strategy?
The strategy of both coaches should be dictated by game mechanics independent of the other coaches choices.

Why shouldn't your opponent's strategy not have an impact on your strategy?

Because it's STUPID. That should be all I need to say. Because the Eye is a stupid rule.

Good argument. Rolling Eyes

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

Wallace

Joined: May 26, 2004

Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 00:27

I know the thread has moved on, but I've got to say that the leap fouling thing PH suggested is awesome! How about an extension, if a player has leap, wrestle and DP they are able to take a special 'Axe Handle' action once a turn by leaping onto a prone opponent. Dunno what the mods to the injury rolls should be, but they should be awesome! Plus if you start the leap standing next to a friendly Big Guy you get an uber bonus (jumping from their shoulders).

Okay, so maybe this isn't the greatest suggestion, but just think of the hordes of pre-pubescent n00bs it would attract to BB! Everyones CR and BWR would go through the roof! Laughing

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 01:45

Mr_Foulscumm wrote:

Catalyst32 wrote:

RandomOracle wrote:

Catalyst32 wrote:

Why should your opponents chosen fouling strategy affect your chosen fouling strategy?
The strategy of both coaches should be dictated by game mechanics independent of the other coaches choices.

Why shouldn't your opponent's strategy not have an impact on your strategy?

Because it's STUPID. That should be all I need to say. Because the Eye is a stupid rule.

Good argument. Rolling Eyes

It was the trump card in the debate I was presented with. So I played it.

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 01:52

Calcium wrote:

Catalyst32 wrote:

The Eye is a STUPID game mechanic.
To know that if you foul on turn 1 when receiving that the Ref is highly unlikely to spot the foul and ban your player makes that foul almost mandatory rather than optional.

This made me think about the whole topic of fouling. Personally I can't see a problem with the eye, after all, fluff wise most referee's are ex players that would initially let a suspect challenge go, much like what happens early on in a RL football game. Once a foul has been commited, then the ref is clearly gonna keep an EYE on that team. Seems to me to be a perfect system, as opposed to the crap we have to put up with at the moment thx to the tossers in the BBRC and their Necromicon that is LRB6.

And as for fouling being optional as opposed to mandatory? Um, they're not Mandatory? Damn, that's news to me!!!

You are talking about Football/Soccer and how it is officiated.
I am talking about American Football and how it is officiated.
The EYE may be more like how Football/Soccer is Officiated... but that is moot.
Blood Bowl is based around an interpretation of American Football not Football/Soccer.

NO OFFICIAL in an American Football game would allow someone to Foul another player in the way it is done in Blood Bowl without immediately ejecting that player. The random element to fouling associated with the Ref banning a player is there to signify the times a player lands a blow the Ref doesn't see OR to allow for Ref's that may be cheating in favor of 1 team or the other OR to allow for the Ref being to dumb to remember the rules.

Luohghcra

Joined: Nov 18, 2008

Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 02:31

Catalyst32 wrote:

NO OFFICIAL in an American Football game would allow someone to Foul another player in the way it is done in Blood Bowl without immediately ejecting that player. The random element to fouling associated with the Ref banning a player is there to signify the times a player lands a blow the Ref doesn't see OR to allow for Ref's that may be cheating in favor of 1 team or the other OR to allow for the Ref being to dumb to remember the rules.

Officials in American Football also don't have to deal with chainsaws, bombs, ten foot tall ogres(ok, maybe thats arguable), and homicidal assassins.

On topic, I have to agree with the original sentiment of:

paulhicks wrote:

stand around shouting "omgz teh lulz!!! did you just lie down your favourite playa??"

At this point, theres just so little reward for fouling vs the risk, its pointless. It really should NOT be safer on the ground on a bloodbowl pitch.

_________________

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 04:12

Catalyst32 wrote:

NO OFFICIAL in an American Football game would allow someone to Foul another player in the way it is done in Blood Bowl without immediately ejecting that player. The random element to fouling associated with the Ref banning a player is there to signify the times a player lands a blow the Ref doesn't see OR to allow for Ref's that may be cheating in favor of 1 team or the other OR to allow for the Ref being to dumb to remember the rules.

Orcs, goblins or the undead don't play American Football and real life refs don't have to worry too much about getting killed either (depending on country of course). You do know this is a damn silly debate right? It's a board game. Very Happy

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 07:17

Mr_Foulscumm wrote:

Catalyst32 wrote:

NO OFFICIAL in an American Football game would allow someone to Foul another player in the way it is done in Blood Bowl without immediately ejecting that player. The random element to fouling associated with the Ref banning a player is there to signify the times a player lands a blow the Ref doesn't see OR to allow for Ref's that may be cheating in favor of 1 team or the other OR to allow for the Ref being to dumb to remember the rules.

Orcs, goblins or the undead don't play American Football and real life refs don't have to worry too much about getting killed either (depending on country of course). You do know this is a damn silly debate right? It's a board game. Very Happy

Silly debate or not due to it being a board game... if we are going to debate it the MODEL the game is designed to resemble must be a consideration in the discussion. Trying to say the rules should resemble the way Soccer is played rather than the way American Football is played is ABSURD.
Why not base the rules on Volleyball, Baseball, Swimming or Canadian Lumberjack Competitions? Those events are officiated a certain way. Why not use them as your model to improve upon the rules of Blood Bowl? Maybe because that would be STUPID.

Azure

Joined: Jan 30, 2007

Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 07:27

Is a simple solution to just give a foul a straight bonus (say +1 to armor/injury roll) IF the player you fouled has just piled on?

Essentially a nerf to PO...making PO more tactical instead of easy decision every time.