Why do we need ageing?

Smeborg · Post by **Smeborg** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:00 am

Hi guys -

I've read the threads on ageing with interest.

Maybe I'm being thick, or something, but I haven't (yet) seen a good case made as to WHY we need ageing in the first place.

Could you help me please?

Cheers

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:25 am

Why do we need aging!!

Cone on, it's part of nature. We have no choice, we all age and even if science made some big discovery, it would be only to slow down the process, not stop it.

Face it, we are all going to die!!

Oh, wait, you were talking about aging in BB......nevermind.

gallowin · Post by **gallowin** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:54 am

Basically aging slows the growth of a team down. As players age they become less usefull and you retire them to make room for more players.

Why would you want to slow the growth of your team? If your team rating goes on unchecked you'll be giving up 4 handicap rolls + 1 pick to every team you face. Aging is a "realistic" way of keeping those teams in check.

Personally I like killing my opponents to help keep their team rating down. Just all in the name of service.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 5:47 am

There are other threads asking exactly the same thing. Aging is to stop team ratings getting about 250-300, which is what jervis had originally intended. Having played with the 3rd edition and having played/faced teams with team ratings upwards of 400 its just stupid. Not everyone on the team should be a star player.

Post by **Dave** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 12:47 pm

xcept when you're the Reikland Reavers that is

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 1:51 pm

Ok, I'll stir this up a bit.

I have no problem with the effect of "ageing". The intention is good.

I do however have a problem with the fact that it is called "ageing"

I really can't understand why my elves suddenly get older. Hell, they live like what? a thousand years, unless they are killed. With humans, sure..
Dwarves live easily 4-500 years. And Undead??

What about the Khemri? They are already ancient by any standard you choose, and mummies in any team are ancient.

Treemen.. C'mon, It is even stated that only the sapling treemen even play the game.

The fact they get "older" is not the reason I Imagine them getting negative modifers after a while. Call it "wear and tear" or whatever. But the likelyhood that all the elf bloodbowl players start playing at the ripe age of 900 is ridiculous. And I really don't think undead have to worry about aeging all that much.

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 1:59 pm

Alot of ppl feel the same way Roy, so you are not alone on that one. The name Age on the rule has made alot of ppl react, for the reasons you said above. So now the EXP Age roll is more like the name sugest, you get a roll after you've actually played alot of games, so then it won't have to be a name change. We'll see what testing does with those rules, if they become the next thing, time will only tell, but i do expect them to be exactly that in a year or two.

gallowin · Post by **gallowin** » Sat Dec 07, 2002 1:33 am

Don't think of aging as chronologically getting older. It's the wear and tear on the body unnaturally aging you.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sat Dec 07, 2002 1:44 am

gallowin wrote:Don't think of aging as chronologically getting older. It's the wear and tear on the body unnaturally aging you.

Think of most sports stars, especially in contact sports, they are often considered to be 'old' at 30 an age usually not considered old in other walks of life.

Professional sports men and women must be extremely fit to compete and this level of fitness is only maintainable for a short amount of time owing to the abuse the body takes playing pro sports.

Translate this into blodd bowl terms, a sport comparable perhaps to gladiatorial combat and you can see why even elves and undead may 'age' after a few seasons.

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:35 am

The flaw in the system comes when someone "ages" after, say, a first excellent game...without being hit or doing anything at all particularly strenuous. And the fact that Joe Lineman who never accumulates any SPP can go for hundreds of games without aging at all.

So it's not exactly realistic; but it's about gameplay-balance, not realism.

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Sat Dec 07, 2002 11:10 am

That is a very good point. And also, the reason many pro athletes quickly get "old" is more a result of actual injuries gained during their carrer.
This is more represented in bloodbowl by the actual injuries you attain.

And as previously stated, a lineman, (or lineelf or lineorc or linerat), who's never gets more than one or two increases never get old. And I'd say my lineelves get the most wear and tear of any player in my team.

I agree with the consept, players suffering from a nervous tick, or starting to make excuses not to play, having had a bad game, and has become afraid of running so fast, or trying to block that mummy, or in the plausible case of humans, actual old age. They become worn. Not able to function as they should etc.

I belive players should be subjected to this sort of drawback based on the number of actual matches they've played, (not considering miss next games, as that is traumatising enough).

It a simple matter of adding a colum to the roster. Something like, SO (short for signed on..) This meaning the game the players were signed on on.. For the initial players, the number would be 1. You might have added you next player after 3 matches, so they would play the fourth match. Their SO would be 4.

And then create a table, based on nr. of matches, not SSP.

Just a thought.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sat Dec 07, 2002 12:07 pm

roysorlie wrote:then create a table, based on nr. of matches, not SSP.

Just like the proposed EXP rule?

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Sat Dec 07, 2002 1:02 pm

Oh it is?
Hey great.
Then it should be simple.

Haven't seen it yet.
Still.. guess it's a good idea then, since somebody else also thought of it aswell.

I'm all for it then.

Post by **Dave** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 11:23 am

Not the same exactly

The SO - list makes that all your players 'age' at about the same time (give or take one or two matches)

In real life sports some players have careers of many more years than others. (due to talent, health and other things)

The proposed ageing rule does work different as dice rolls are needed to get these EXP - points

The team won't advance as one but more like one at the time. Much more realistic, I'm in!!

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 11:45 pm

I've heard many times on this forum the argument that linemen suffer more "wear and tear" than any other player. That's just not true. In professional football, linemen have far longer careers than say, receivers. So i just don't buy the "linemen should age just as fast" line of thinking. Besides, aging is there for balance, and linemen aren't the problem.