Yet another suggestion to replace aging

[Zombie]

But you've stated elsewhere that your league is light on Tackle. In our League most teams have at least 2 or 3 Tackle players. That's enough to make a significant difference. In your League a Blodge player on the line stands a good chance of keeping his feet. In our league any Dodge player on the line is almost certain to have somebody with Tackle throw 2D against them.

Yes, they'll go down. They always do in my league also. With or without tackle, it's easy to push them so you can get more blocks, and it's extremely rare that they don't fall down. However, you don't get any mods on armour or injury, except the occasional mighty blow on one of the two rolls. Compared to +3/+2 with dirty player, that's a big difference.

As for Fouls, IGMEOY is a factor. Sure, if both players have DPs and are gonna trade fouls every turn then that's where your injuries will come from. However, if people tend to sit on the eye and have more Tackle players as we do, then they'll get more cas. from Blocks. My point is that what causes the majority of cas. is entirely dependent on League composition and playing style.

IGMEOY or not, when the other team's AG5 wardancer is on the ground, you foul him. Even if you get sent off and only KO him, it was worth the shot.

If the likes of Wardancers and Gutter Runners are really getting hurt more often, I'd suggest that they wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Even though they often get hurt, they remain a problem because the apoth is covering their back. If they still had to rest for a couple of games, they'd be less of a problem.

[Mestari]

I don't like the idea of uber players being able to stay uber with the minimal chance of ever hurting them.

But your one turn scorer, for example: he's a great burden TR-wise. If he simply sits on the bench and gathers 6SPP's per game by streaking in a one turner, he soon becomes more weight than worth. And if he's used in other occasions, a tackle player with MB has a pretty good chance of nailing that rat if he gets a 2 die block.

[Grumbledook]

i fouled a 1 turner 2 turns running as i got the ref with +3 each time and failed to break armour, 2 dice block with mb is no guarentee ;]

Sure the one turner will be a burden tr wise, but so will any other 7 skill player who didn't age. Ok they have more chance of getting injured than the 1 turner. If he is a guarenteed score (apart from a double 1) would it not be worth keeping him anyway. I can't see you losing many games unless you can't play him cause of a handicap. Still be a while before he gives away loads of handicap rolls and it makes more sense to retire him.

[Deathwing]

But you've stated elsewhere that your league is light on Tackle. In our League most teams have at least 2 or 3 Tackle players. That's enough to make a significant difference. In your League a Blodge player on the line stands a good chance of keeping his feet. In our league any Dodge player on the line is almost certain to have somebody with Tackle throw 2D against them.

Yes, they'll go down. They always do in my league also. With or without tackle, it's easy to push them so you can get more blocks, and it's extremely rare that they don't fall down. However, you don't get any mods on armour or injury, except the occasional mighty blow on one of the two rolls. Compared to +3/+2 with dirty player, that's a big difference.

As for Fouls, IGMEOY is a factor. Sure, if both players have DPs and are gonna trade fouls every turn then that's where your injuries will come from. However, if people tend to sit on the eye and have more Tackle players as we do, then they'll get more cas. from Blocks. My point is that what causes the majority of cas. is entirely dependent on League composition and playing style.

IGMEOY or not, when the other team's AG5 wardancer is on the ground, you foul him. Even if you get sent off and only KO him, it was worth the shot.

You're missing my whole point. My line-elfs are going to be in the line of fire for the entire game. It's their job to be in the line of fire specifically so that my key players aren't. I accept that my AG5 WD is going to be the target of any opposing DPs, but you think I'm just gonna let you knock him over and then get a bunch of assists in for the foul? Not without going through my line elfs first you're not. Not unless he screws up on a gfi or something anyway.
I simply don't agree that the injuries suffered by the sheer amount of blocks the rank and file suffer during the course of a game equate to the injuries suffered by the stars caused by targeting the stars with DPs/fouling.
A line-elf that gets put on the line every Kick Off is much more likely to get hurt than my AG5 'Dancer that I'm naturally going to protect. (And protect with said line-elf, see Orc Blitzer example above.)

[Heiper]

The only other problem i see with the current system is that if you get someone like a 1 turn gutter runner get through and not age, he is rather untouchable, unless they fail a dodge/leap/gfi/catch or the other team gets a blitz result.

I don't like the idea of uber players being able to stay uber with the minimal chance of ever hurting them.

I would say the clarification that said you didn't have to field 11 players, only the 3 on the LOS is what makes one turner more of a problem. If you would have to field as many as you could to get as close to 11 players, you would have your fair chance of hurting them IMO. One Turners are usually on teams with low AV, so forceing the one turner out should not be too much of a problem IMO.

The new rules review made it heaven for one turners, 2 changes (well for me its changes, cuz we played it diffrently), the No-need-for-more-than-3-players-on-field rule and the "you can go for it on leap". Had those been the opposite, one turners would not be a big problem IMO

[Zombie]

I don't like the idea of uber players being able to stay uber with the minimal chance of ever hurting them.

Hey, i never wrote that! I agree with it though...

[Zombie]

You're missing my whole point. My line-elfs are going to be in the line of fire for the entire game. It's their job to be in the line of fire specifically so that my key players aren't. I accept that my AG5 WD is going to be the target of any opposing DPs, but you think I'm just gonna let you knock him over and then get a bunch of assists in for the foul? Not without going through my line elfs first you're not. Not unless he screws up on a gfi or something anyway.
I simply don't agree that the injuries suffered by the sheer amount of blocks the rank and file suffer during the course of a game equate to the injuries suffered by the stars caused by targeting the stars with DPs/fouling.
A line-elf that gets put on the line every Kick Off is much more likely to get hurt than my AG5 'Dancer that I'm naturally going to protect. (And protect with said line-elf, see Orc Blitzer example above.)

Elves might be the exception to this rule, because they score more often, so they have to get 3 guys destroyed on the line more often. But i've played elves a lot (wood elves are actually the race that i've played most often), and in my experience, wardancers and catchers get hurt a lot more than line-elves. This might be a question of playing style and how reckless/conservative you are. I'm more on the reckless side, and so is the other great wood elf coach that i know. You seem to be on the conservative side.

[Deathwing]

Elves might be the exception to this rule, because they score more often, so they have to get 3 guys destroyed on the line more often. But i've played elves a lot (wood elves are actually the race that i've played most often), and in my experience, wardancers and catchers get hurt a lot more than line-elves. This might be a question of playing style and how reckless/conservative you are. I'm more on the reckless side, and so is the other great wood elf coach that i know. You seem to be on the conservative side.

Agreed, although Skaven linerats are pretty vulnerable to this too. Differing playing styles/League set ups are always going to make discussions of this nature pretty much academic anyway. (The 4 Goblin thread pretty much proved it.)
I don't consider not letting my opponent kick the crap out of my Wardancer with a DP and assists (if I can at all help it) conservative though.

[Mestari]

As the Aging replacement steam train is once again happily driving onwards, I thought I'd revive this thread to re-emphasise this in-game mechanic for replacing aging (and Indigos suggestion at the same time too - the thread did get somewhat side-tracked from discussing my suggestion...).

Specifically, allow me to re-state the good sides of this suggestion:

-There is no other in-game mechanic that can be incorporated with as few rules changes as this.
-The amount of niggling injuries and stat reductions is increased (assuming no apothecaries) by a factor of 2.5!
-Permanent injuries by a factor of 1.75!
-Still, as the amount of MNG's stays the same as before, teams can keep playing as usual. So the likelihood of having too-boring-many players missing a game due to MNG injuries stays the same.
-When apothecaries are counted in, the high-AV teams suffer more than low AV teams(*)
-Bundled with the lower income of the LRB-era, this system should remove the need for an aging system altogether (with the Playtesting-Shall-Tell reservation, of course)

The problem, of course, is that this system hasn't gained even as much support as EXP did (this system has only the developer behind it, whereas [according to some rumours] EXP also has the support of a certain influential person )... oh well... I thought I'd still bring it up.


(*) How come high-AV teams are affected more?
A high-AV team suffers definitely less injuries per game. Thus, they can heal a higher proportion of them with the apothecary! Often they can even escape a game without a single permanent injury. Enhanced badly hurts go a long way to preventing this.

[NightDragon]

Only just raed the thread Mestari but I like your idea a lot. I have no problem with players getting injured before they gain a skill, its a violent game, or supposed to be. I do have a problem with players picking up a stat decrease because they have earned a right to a skill which is what aging can do. Good idea.

[Mirascael]

Geeze! I'm lucky if my Woodie-Roster contains 11 players at all (including all those nigglers), though I am avoiding the pain as much as possible.

That said, I think that, basically, your suggestion would make Woodies and Skaven unplaybale.

[Mestari]

Geeze! I'm lucky if my Woodie-Roster contains 11 players at all (including all those nigglers), though I am avoiding the pain as much as possible.

That said, I think that, basically, your suggestion would make Woodies and Skaven unplaybale.

How come? There are no additional miss next games! Those two teams fair so good in leagues nowadays that it shouldn't hurt too much.

But to be honest, only playtesting will tell whether this would make those teams a bit too hard to play. And as apart from DDawg I've yet to see any additional support (even if the system is very elegant), I'm not keeping up too big hopes that this will see any widespread playtesting

[Mirascael]

How come? There are no additional miss next games!

As far as Woodies are concerned Woodies would almost automatically get an additional NI or Stat-decrease when they play against bashing teams.

Those two teams fair so good in leagues nowadays that it shouldn't hurt too much.

Woodies?

C'mon, give me a break!