The Living Rulebook VS House Rules

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 1:15 pm

Why under 300? An Elven team can reach that quite easily whereas Skaven, Undead can take a while and be much better teams as a result. DD.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 1:56 pm

You asked me for a number .... I gave you one.

Personally that is why I like aging. The TR isn't fixed. There are just penalties involved with no retiring stars.

Galak

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 2:09 pm

But high TR's could be a real problem under 3rd edition because of the cards you got as a result of TR differences. Seemed to balance it out fairly nicely. Teams which got over 350 started to get in to real problems so it made sense to cul them. Laters DD.

Mumster · Post by **Mumster** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 5:27 pm

I just thought about this.

What if a league waited until the end of the season and made all of the ageing rolls for each team then. Meaning if at the end of a season if a player had 3 star player rolls then you will make three ageing rolls in accordance with the ageing rules. That way it would be based more on time than on that rookie ageing after his first game. What do you think?

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Fri Jul 05, 2002 12:59 pm

I do not like the aging rolls at all, because it does not treat the different teams the same (Orc or Dwarfen Teams will laugh about on niggling injury, an Elf or Goblin who is much more likely to get injured will be suffering more)

Although I understand that most coaches do not like the idea of player that decide for themself to retire (by 2d6 roll), IMHO it is a far better solution than the actual aging rolls.

In my League every player has to make an retirement roll based on the seasons played (or tournaments played if you play the open game style) which is modified by some other factors (like injury or championship win - a injury plagued player has a higher chance to retire than one who hasn't suffered any serious injuries).

Further this rolls would be made at the end of every season and the teams are a little bit compensated by getting access to rookie players the do not have to pay for.

Sorry for this long post

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Jul 05, 2002 1:42 pm

I've had players (yup more than one) quit my league because of 2d6 end of season retirement rolls .... never lost a coach yet to a failed aging roll.

Galak

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Sun Jul 07, 2002 1:30 pm

Well loosing players while in mid-league is never fine, I think that is one of the main problem Bloodbowl has.

I have lost also some players, not because of retiring players but because they lost some of their matches.

I think it is very important to have some mature players when playing Bloodbowl in a league, some player who have fun to play BB at all and not only to win.

I for my part would never quit just because my best player(s) retire, just as long the team is still playable. I think thats the point where one should focus on when valueing the different retiring rules.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 8:30 am

Our friends from Sweden have some valid points and I do think the RR should look at aging again. DD.

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 3:18 pm

1. Not every league uses seasons. And some play longer seasons than others. The BBRC couldn't use seasons as the basis of the aging system. (We tried. Really, we did.)

2. Per-game rolls are too intrusive. Imagine making 12 or more rolls after every game! We tied the rolls to the skills because that's when a player gets more powerful, and that's when you might need to take him down a peg.

3. Aging players based on the number of games played doesn't work very well on a game-system level. For example, a do-nothing Lineman who gains 0 SPPs in 12 games doesn't "need" to get any worse. The SFirm/Pro/Guard Blitzer, on the other hand, is a prime candidate to get a little worse.

4. We're talking about niggling injuries for the most part. Most of us can deal with them. And the rolls are rather simple to make, for the most part. Half of all players can still get to 4 skills without aging at all! Most of the rest have an additional niggling injury.

5. The more times I read the words "stupid" and "stupidity" in this thread when describing the aging rule, the less inclined I am to pay attention. I'm sure that goes for most of us.

-Chet

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 4:36 pm

Fair point Chet, I should not have used the word stupid, you guys do a great job, well done, thanks and hats off etc.
What about setting a maximum TR? This would end up like the capping system in the NFL would it not, forcing coaches to retire players.
Laters, DD, and apologies once again.

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 5:47 pm

Don't sweat it, Dawg. We could all - myself included - watch what we say a little more closely. It's easier to spot after taking a few weeks off. That's all.

As for a forced maximum cap, that would be akin to the forced retirement, I think. Hey, if your league doesn't like aging, there's nothing wrong with not using it! (There's nothing wrong with making it more powerful, either.)

As a game system, Blood Bowl wasn't built to handle teams that big (JJ's words). Now it can handle just about every team that you can throw together. I think that's a good start. Is the system perfect? Well, it won't ever match the tastes of every coach; no rule will. But I think it's pretty good at what it does. (Some feel it's too weak, some feel it's too strong, many feel it's just right...that's a pretty good measure, isn't it?)

Cheers.

-Chet

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Jul 13, 2002 8:39 am

Its still the greatest game ever produced whatever system is used. To be honest I don't know what version we play we have so many house rules, probably why I get so many things wrong! Laters DD.

Kruppe · Post by **Kruppe** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:07 pm

I just thought up a new ageing rule. Instead of rolling for niggling, one could use a system where, for example, the 4th skill and up required you to make and 4+ roll or the armour value decreases by one.

That player will still play brilliantly, but has become more injury prone due to his advanced age. That way the coach has to protect his star more or suffer the niggling injuries, stat decreases or even death.

I personally like this idea untill someone points out a major flaw I hadn't thought about

When this rule kicks in and what the dicerolls should be is offcourse a balance issue, but I like the way the ageing carries on to the field instead of a boring nig roll before the game.

Post by **Dave** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:32 pm

I think the 'flaw' as you call it might be the fact that elf players will reach this point fiarly fast as opposed to hitting players that may never reach a 4th skill..

the idea to ninbble off the AV might be worth something though

Kruppe · Post by **Kruppe** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 10:00 pm

But Dave isn't that the same problem with the other aging methods?

Elves a fragile anyway and can dodge. But a lower armour orc or chaos player will recieve some hurt! or not

I just liek the idea that you have an ageing problem that you have to adjust your play with and nut just a teamroster management issue with the nigg.

Talk Fantasy Football

The Living Rulebook VS House Rules

Retiring

Loosing players