How do we bump the Aging effects best?

[Zombie]

I proposed about 2 years ago to just increase the injury table by one. That way, you'd get the following:

2-6 Stunned
7-8 KO
9-12 Injury

With that, you could maybe eliminate the aging table altogether. But most people at the BBC didn't like it at all. What do you guys think?

[Warprat]

Pink Horror wrote:

Getting a niggle and a skill for the first roll is bad enough, but getting nothing at all would be even worse.

On the first roll, I would agree with you. But, Ageing is aimed at the more experienced players, your best players. Would you feel the same on your third roll, after playing a few games building that player up?

I'd rather have a dependable player with two skills than a player with three and a niggler.

How would you feel if the Skill rolls were changed back to being more frequent, BUT combined with missing a roll upon ageing?

Would that make it more popular? I know that's what I want!


Warprat ;)

[Dangerous Dave]

Well changing the injury rolls to what Zombie has suggested:-

I proposed about 2 years ago to just increase the injury table by one. That way, you'd get the following:

2-6 Stunned
7-8 KO
9-12 Injury

With that, you could maybe eliminate the aging table altogether. But most people at the BBC didn't like it at all. What do you guys think?

will be an enormous plus for the Strength teams. In one foul swoop they will get more casualties, more players off the pitch and lose ageing rolls. Low av / agile teams will lose aging but will suffer more casualties.

Whilst I don't want to downgrade the Strength skills any more, I believe that this is going way too far.


Dave

[Zombie]

Well, the logic behind this is that strength teams used to rely on a better mighty blow skill, a better dirty player skill, fouling with lots of assists and no IGMEOY. I don't think it would make them better than they were in 3rd ed, but obviously it would require lots of playtesting first.

Personally, i like the idea of less casualties caused on fouls and more on normal blocks.

P.S. I'm primarily an agility coach (wood elf and skaven are my two favorite), so it's not the bashing coach in me speaking.

[neoliminal]

Well, the logic behind this is that strength teams used to rely on a better mighty blow skill, a better dirty player skill, fouling with lots of assists and no IGMEOY. I don't think it would make them better than they were in 3rd ed, but obviously it would require lots of playtesting first.

My problem with this kind of increase in casualties is that it targets the wrong players. Think of it this way, when have you taken the most casualties? For me it's been when I'm playing a new team against a veteran team. I just don't have the skills or man-power to keep up.

With Zombies injury table, it would only be worse. The problem is that veteran teams are less likely to be on the receiving end of this kind of rules change. What's needed, IMO, are mechanics aimed at the high end player. Higher Injuries might nick the veteran teams, but it will certainly cut through new ones.

[CplSaint]

I'm still proposing a peaking table. To me, downgrading statistics seems a bit over-the-top, so here goes:

Aging Table (2D6)
1st Skill 4+
2nd Skill 5+
3rd Skill 6+
4th Skill 8+
5th Skill 10+
6th Skill 11+
7th Skill 12+

If failed, roll 2D6
2-6: Player is 'peaked': Player can no longer gain skills. Note that SPPs are still accumulated, and player must still roll on aging table when he garners enough SPPs. If already peaked, consider this a roll of 7.
7-9: Niggling Injury: To be rolled at the start of each half, rather than the start of each game. Note that apothecaries can be used, but do not negate the roll at the start of the second half. (i.e. If your player uses his apothecary at the start of the first half, the player must still roll a N.I. roll for the second half.)
10-12: Old age. Player rolls a D6 on this table and applied immediately:
1-2: -1 MA
3-4: -1 AV
5: -1 AG
6: -1 ST

A few comments:
The official aging table does not address the fact that MA and AV are typically twice the level of ST or AG, and so if these latter characteristics are affected the player is far worse off. My proposed table addresses this by ensuring you are half as likely to have ST or AG affected as MA or AV.
More players will be affected by my table, but the result s are far less harsh. However, they are cumulative, so it's likely that over ten or so games, most players will be affected at least once, and especially vulnerable stars can be affected twice or more.

For basic linemen, this isn't a problem, as few need worry about being 'peaked' as few linemen get more than one upgrade. For more specialised players, such as blitzers and catchers (who gain more SPPs as a rule) the new table will ensure that 'uberstars' are kept to a minimum. It neatly encapsulates the growing ego of the emerging stars (Consider some N.I.s to simply be the player refusing to take the pitch unless he gets gold taps in his personal changing room!)

This table should also help new coaches quickly gain a 'leg-up' against veteran coaches.

A couple of potential problems:

The new table will ensure no team gets much further than TR200... Possibly a problem; depends on your P.O.V...

Will teams earn enough to replace Niggled out stars? Since their TR is lower, but FF will continue to rise, they ought to make more money, so this ought not to be a problem...

Comments?

[Zombie]

The official aging table does not address the fact that MA and AV are typically twice the level of ST or AG, and so if these latter characteristics are affected the player is far worse off. My proposed table addresses this by ensuring you are half as likely to have ST or AG affected as MA or AV.

The current aging table takes care of that well enough, better than your table even.

You've got
1/36 chance of losing ST
2/36 chance of losing AG
3/36 chance of losing AV
4/36 chance of losing MA

That's pretty much perfect with regard to the value of each.

[neoliminal]

I'm still proposing a peaking table.

Peaking was often seen as an advantage, since you had the best TR to skill ratio possible. You don't want people to be happy about peaking. Also note that a peaked player would never age again. He's ideal, with the exception of not getting better.

John -

[sean newboy]

Actually thats not quite true, or it doesnt have to be, at least one person in here suggested that u still accumulate spp's for the player and give aging rolls for them. U just would not give them advances.

[neoliminal]

Actually thats not quite true, or it doesnt have to be, at least one person in here suggested that u still accumulate spp's for the player and give aging rolls for them. U just would not give them advances.

That was discussed as well. Peaked would then simply mean that you can't get new skills.

Another idea was that you would peak and from that point on you would only get worse.

John -

[Marcus]

Just thought to mention:

Remember that increasing the effects of niggles hurts the long term viability of poor fools like those of us who play skaven.

I'm all for seeing more niggles through aging. I'm less keen on just making niggles nastier.

Marcus - living in fear of what's going to happen to his poor skavs.

[Haar]

I'm okay with JKL's d6 table for aging, but either way, I'd like to see niggles get a little more powerful (miss the game on a 1-2, or roll for each drive). Just a little. As it stands now, niggles have very little effect on a player, and it's only when you get a guy with 3+ of them that you really think about retiring him (he might miss some games, but when he's in, look out! he's got 5 skills!)

[Mestari]

I don't share Marcus' fear of what's going to happen to skavens (or woodies). Those teams have a huge advantage over the others under the current rather non-violent rules, so increasing the effect of niggles might just be the right thing to do to them.

Still, if we have to choose a way of increasing the effect of aging, I think the roll after failing the aging roll is the thing we should change.

However, I dislike the small portion of niggles in the suggested d8 table - they account for only 25% of aging results.

IMO the fact that people feel that the aging table isn't doing enough is indication of the fact that it has been done wisely - it didn't do too much, as often happens when something like this is introduced.
Therefore, the increases in the aging effects should also be slight, in order to keep this balance.

Therefore, I'd suggest slightly modified version of the current table, in which the amount of statistics decreases increases from about 25% of the failed aging rolls to about 40% of the failed aging rolls.

2-7..........NI (21/36 about 60%)
8.........-1AV (5/36 about 14%)
9.........-1MA (4/36 about 11%)
10.......-1AG (3/36 about 8%)
11-12.. -1ST (3/36 about 8%)

The d8 suggestion almost triples the amount of statistics decreases from about 25% up to 75%! And that might be too much as the statistics decreases are certainly more effective than niggles are.
The table suggested above makes aging more efficient, but does not certainly make it too efficient.

It's all about whether we want a pendulum or a converging motion towards the perfect BB rules. In the pendulum version (which I'm afraid most of these suggestions represent) a rule is fixed by going towards the other extreme, then back again, and again and again, until we find the correct value. Like a pendulum which finally comes to rest in the middle point.
I prefer a converging motion, where we do not aim for huge drastic changes, but instead for gradually moving towards the correct value. In that motion we'd first try the table I've suggested above - if it isn't enough, then we change it a bit again, until we've found the correct value. By this we will certainly avoid the situation where coaches get too frustrated about aging because it's too effective.

[Zombie]

Personally, i'd always rather get -1AV or -1MA than a niggling, with the only exceptions of a one turn scorer or a MA3 player getting -1MA. For many players (all those with AG2 and AG1, and all linemen), i'd rather get -1AG than a niggling.

In my mind, your suggestion makes aging less powerful, not more.

[Marcus]

Even if you disagree that skaven won't be put further at risk (I found that skaven and woodelves have been far less viable since the change to the handoff rule). Increasing the number of times you roll for niggle still targets young teams just as much as old teams; if not more.

Lower TR teams can't afford to replace the niggles they pick up in their first season. They're also the teams that need those players most.

Marcus