Niggling Injuries?

[Vesticle]

Quick question, it's probably been debated before, but I wasn't here then so...

Can someone just give me a quick fill-in on the reasoning behind testing out the +1 injury roll for niggling injuries? Nothing big or serious, or argumentative, I just want to hear "This is being tried out to do/balance/fix X" if you can simplify it to that. Thanks. =)

David

[Acerak]

Niggling injuries don't have enough impact on the game. Any change to them would add more bite to player turnover without altering the number of aging players or players affected by the SI table.

Other suggestions:

* Roll the D6 prior to each drive.
* Roll the D6 prior to each half.

-Chet

[GalakStarscraper]

The reasoning is simple:

The primary driver of the aging roll is Niggling injuries.

However, the average experienced coach laughs at niggling injuries and could care less about them ... this is not good as it effectively nullifies the whole "encouraging your player to retire" thing that aging was supposed to do.

Giving a player +1 to the injury roll for each Niggle is one of the proposed methods to make experienced coaches a little more interested in retiring niggled players.

Galak

[Vesticle]

Thanks a lot, that's exactly the answer I was looking for. =) I wasn't sure if such a change is too much or not, because I've never really had anything other than one-off games to actually see the niggling injury rolls in action... I mean, if you get 2, your guy basically misses a third of every game thereafter...

The one thing I'll note (and I'm sorry if this was already brought up) is that with the +1 to injury rolls per N, it winds up making it a worse trait than some of the rolls 'higher' than it (particularly -1AV). Personally, I'd just suggest trying to make it worse than it is now, but still a 'lower' result than -1 AV, MA, etc...

Off the top of my head, I might suggest adding +1 to the injury roll, but any rolls of a "casualty" after modification count as badly hurt... the player is then more likely to get injured, and miss part or all of the game, but it doesn't increase the chance to get another serious injury or death... maybe that's too complicated though.

David

[Dragoonkin]

I personally like the idea of checking for the player before each drive (though make it like a KO in that they can possibly come back after that...say on a 6 on D6.) It makes the players very unreliable, without making them "all or nothing".

[Thadrin]

I'm still nlt sold on the idea of +1 to the injury roll, but then again, maybe the testing Tom's league is running will show that my wories are unfounded.

I prefer the idea of once per half myself. I think it would be too vicious to roll before each half, though it could be modified to "misses the next drive" in that case. Not really keen on the "misses the next drive" thing though. Once per half would do me!