Getting to grips with aging

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Wed May 22, 2002 12:08 pm

Why do you want to increase the amount of fouling? Each coach gets at least 2 fouls a game and more if they want to run the risk of getting sent off or their opponent fouls too.

Given the odds of DP's causing significant damage - they cause casualties 40% of the time if they get through armour.

You can still build a team to foul, but instead of fouling every single turn that you can, you choose your targets carefully and worry about being sent off.

It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Wed May 22, 2002 12:38 pm

Why do you want to increase the amount of fouling?

I don't want to increase the amount, per se. I want to bring the odds of getting caught back in line with the chance to do damage.

Each coach gets at least 2 fouls a game and more if they want to run the risk of getting sent off or their opponent fouls too.

Two fouls a game? Cheer. A bit too predictable these days, I think.

Given the odds of DP's causing significant damage - they cause casualties 40% of the time if they get through armour.

Right, if they get through AV clean. You've omitted a few angles from this statement:

1. They don't always get through AV clean. In fact, it's the exception rather than the norm on a standard foul.
2. I already suggested a +1 to the Ref Roll for Dirty Player. So the odds of getting caught would be 33% (no eye) or 50% (eye). Do you feel that's out of line with your 40% casualty rate?

You can still build a team to foul, but instead of fouling every single turn that you can, you choose your targets carefully and worry about being sent off.

Right now, if I want to foul decently, I have to carry two or three DPs. In the old days, you could carry one; when he left the game, things went back to normal between the two teams.

It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

Well, that's what I'd expect to hear from someone who feels two fouls per game is enough!

Seriously, the original "doubles or non-doubles" rule swung things too far away from fouling. The new 6+/4+ rule was a good step in the right direction, but it's still not enough, IMO. If fouling is down to two fouls per game in the majority of contests, it's not a worthwhile part of the game. We're not going to get rid of it, so...

-Chet

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Wed May 22, 2002 1:12 pm

Chet,

You have me puzzled.....

First in the RABBL (PBEM League) you were concerned that the games might deteriorate into "fouling frenzies" since Coaching points were awarded for casualties caused by fouling.

Now you are saying that there is not enough of it!

I think the current rule is about right. Now I know you are not suggesting this, but in no way do I want to go back to the old rules DP @ +2/+2, Pro (reroll failed rolls), can assist in TZs. This ruined games (and teams) as a dirty player picked up 5 or 6 casualties per game - often the result might be decided by who won the toss at the first kick off (knock the line down and foul).

As I see it, there are 2 tactics to fouling. Either you have a lot of (cheap) players (eg skeletons, goblins etc), so you can afford to lose a few by being sent off. Or you target your fouling so that you have 3 or more assists on one of the opponent's better players.

Is 2 fouls a game not enough ... I dunno. But it is up to both players. If both players have a DP then it could easily be more fouls than this. If one has a DP then perhaps the other will not foul - however, it could still be worth the risk of fouling again...if you have a decent chance of getting through the armour - even a KO may well be worth it even if you are sent off.

In summary, fouling should remain part of the game. But IMO it should not become a major part of it - it should be a side-line tactic allowing one team to target one or two players to de-skill the other side.

Dave

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Wed May 22, 2002 1:37 pm

IMO,
the way the fouling rules stand now, games are not restricted to 2 fouls per game (per player). At least, not if you have a few DPs.

Usually, trading off your 1-2 skill DP for a good shot at a big gun is well worth it. Not to mention the times that you don't get caught.

As mentioned elsewhere, I've recently run a big resurrection style tournament. Generel sentiment was that fouling should rather be made less dominant than more dominant.

Martin

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Wed May 22, 2002 3:01 pm

First in the RABBL (PBEM League) you were concerned that the games might deteriorate into "fouling frenzies" since Coaching points were awarded for casualties caused by fouling.

Now you are saying that there is not enough of it!

Apples and oranges, Dave. In the RABBL, I was concerned because you chose to award league points for fouls. This encourages people to foul because they get a measurable gift beyond getting the player off the field.

Had I suggested that we award SPPs for fouls, you'd be right on the money in wondering why I'd take such a tack. But suggesting that we loosen the ref's grip is not the same thing.

Cheers!

-Chet

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Thu May 23, 2002 11:52 am

A DP against Av8, with 2 assists, has a 27% chance of getting a KO and a 33% chance of a casualty. I think that is a reasonable return for a 50% chance of getting sent off.

A non-DP has 18% & 12 % chance, which isn't such a good return. So maybe you are right that the send off ought to be modified by advantageous skills.

However I would say DP's are always more likely to sent off so the modification should always apply, whether they use the skill or not. After all notorious players are going to be dealt with more harshly than normal players.

Another thing to consider is a penalty for being sent off in the previous game. Perhaps and additional +1 to the send off roll. You would only have to mark it in the same way as a MNG.

Ian

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Thu May 23, 2002 1:26 pm

A DP against Av8, with 2 assists, has a 27% chance of getting a KO and a 33% chance of a casualty. I think that is a reasonable return for a 50% chance of getting sent off.

Right, so long as the eye is on you. And even if it isn't, I'm suggesting a +1 for using DP, so the odds of getting caught would be 33%.

A non-DP has 18% & 12 % chance, which isn't such a good return. So maybe you are right that the send off ought to be modified by advantageous skills.

This is a point in favor of relaxing IGMEOY so long as the fouler isn't using skills to modify the AV roll.

However I would say DP's are always more likely to sent off so the modification should always apply, whether they use the skill or not. After all notorious players are going to be dealt with more harshly than normal players.

It's a touchy subject.

Another thing to consider is a penalty for being sent off in the previous game. Perhaps and additional +1 to the send off roll. You would only have to mark it in the same way as a MNG.

Too much book-keeping for my tastes.

-Chet

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Fri May 24, 2002 7:58 am

About Fouling, I think the rules of Acerack are good. But you have to change / remove some rules to keep it simple.

About Aging, this rule seems good for short life people, but for Chaos Warrior, Mummie or High elf it's ridiculious

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri May 24, 2002 10:42 am

Hi Trambi,
my feelings exactly about ageing.

How can someone, who can easily reach age 200, become too old after playing a single BB game?

IMO, it should be called "Wear and Tear".
I mean, thats what happens in sports.
There doesn't have to be a particular point of injury.Wear and Tear builds up over a career, until the body gives in.

Martin

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Fri May 24, 2002 12:33 pm

Whether you call it "Aging" or "Wear and Tear" or "Father Time's Unescapable Grasp," it should be clear that the mechanic has everything to do with shortening the player's career, not his life. (Hey, he risks his life every time he steps on the pitch!) So whether the player is a Mummy or a Warrior or a Goblin, the game takes its toll on the player. This is reflected with the "aging roll," which has a better ring, in my opinion, than the "wear and tear" roll

Cheers!

-Chet

Blackmore · Post by **Blackmore** » Sat May 25, 2002 4:32 am

I like the aging as is. I've seen in various forums people chatter about how it needs to be a bit harsher but it makes me ask why?

I'd rather have my players die on the pitch in combat(er...playing a game) then retire them because they have so many niggling injuries as a reuslt of aging(wear and tear, whatever you wanna call it.)