New EXP/Ageing Rule

Post by **Dave** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:57 am

A thing I just came up with and haven't given more thought than 'Hey, that might work' !!

Why not keep the ageing rules but with one minor tweak:

The Die rolls stay the same but the player doesn't have to roll for ageing untill just after their third skill roll (or second, I don't mind)

This does counter the effect of a lucky lineman (1 Comp and an MVP) becoming an unlucky one (age)

I realise it doesn't reflect 'real' AGE - ing but It might be better than how it is now ...

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:29 am

There was one that was like that, but EXP came up and everyone jumped on the wagon. It had no roll on the first skill roll, but became worse than the current one after that if i'm correct. If you do a search you can probably find it.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:00 am

That would still leave the rolls tied into skill progression, which is unpopular

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:29 am

Not all like it when its tied to games eiher

and to the one that wanted the no-age-on-1st-skillroll, here is one that i liked

http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB/view ... e&start=45

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:36 am

GalakStarscraper wrote:I definitely would not retire just from having 6 EXP.

The problem is that certain players are quite specialized and if once they have reached 6EXP there is a reasonable chance that they might miss the next game. As an example, I have only one player that could be described as a catcher on my MBBL dark elf team (he's a Blitzer 7/3/4/8/Block,NoS,Dodge). If he reaches 6EXP (I think he's currently on 5EXP), then I will struggle (at least more than I currently do anyway!) if he misses a match.

Overall, I think the large presence of MNG in the aging table are bad. They encourage you to have lots of clones rather than individual players with different skills.

Cheers,
Martyn

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:54 am

Dark elves should be running it a lot and its not like a basic elf lino can't catch the ball with ag4. See how it goes, its not that often he will miss a game.

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:58 am

Hey Grumbledook, I actually agree with you on this thread for once. Amazing isn't it

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 12:24 pm

Not really, I am always right, its just taken you some time to realize ;]

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 1:50 pm

Grumbledook wrote:Dark elves should be running it a lot and its not like a basic elf lino can't catch the ball with ag4.

Hmmm... "should"??? I would have thought it was more sensible to create an alternative to the running game by creating a catcher or two. This forces my opponent to cover for two ways I might try to score - running and passing.

See how it goes, its not that often he will miss a game.

I suspect here you are probably right. My gut feeling says that the various MNGs will turn out to be nasty, but until we've played with them for a while we won't know. Once we have seen what happens when a good proportion of a team get to 6EXP then we will be able to judge whether the aging table needs toning down (or up).

Cheers,
Martyn

Post by **Dave** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:21 pm

If you fear the loss of the 'catcher'

Why not sent another player to 'catcher school' in advance ??

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:35 pm

Dave wrote:If you fear the loss of the 'catcher' Why not sent another player to 'catcher school' in advance ??

Mainly 'cos I'm struggling to keep them alive. With my original team (2 blitzers, 9 line-elves), I was grooming 1 blitzer as a catcher and the other as a cage breaker. I bought an apothecary and then 2 witch elves (who are going to be my standard 'blitzers' - gaining Block, Side Step and then Tackle) and then a thrower. My next purchases were going to be a re-roll, then a blitzer, then another re-roll, then the fourth blitzer. One of the latter two would also be groomed as a catcher, while the other would become a shadower. Unfortunately in my last game, a witch elf and a line-elf with Kick died. Since we are using the Kicking rules, I've needed to buy a Kicker to get a player with Kick back on my team (you can't get it with a standard skill roll anymore), so I'm back to 12 players and my next purchase with be a witch elf to replace the one that died. Hopefully you now see the problem... it's going to be a while before I can afford the new catcher-in-waiting.

Anyway, 'nuff said, I'm now *way* off topic!!

Cheers,
Martyn

Sushé Wakka · Post by **Sushé Wakka** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 1:56 am

Ageing roll:
2 ST -1 and Miss Next Game
3 AG -1 and Miss Next Game
4 MA -1 and Miss Next Game
5 AV -1 and Miss Next Game
6 Niggle and Miss Next Game
7 Miss Next Game
8-12 No Effect

This is the suggested Ageing table. I spot two major flaws to it, which have already been mentioned: Too many chances of "Miss next Game" and it is too much easy to down armour (when it is impossible to get it up unless you can get Physical abilites)

The main argument to keep it that way is because "lower rolls are related to worse effects". Well, you've never played "Call of Chluthlu", did you? (for those who don't play RPG, in "Call of Chluthlu" as well as in many other games, you use percentile dice, so the lower you roll the better). It seems a not-so-good reason (to say the least) to keep bad things easier to roll out (you may say I am biased because I play a lightly armoured team, but since nobody -except mutants- can replace a lost AV, I think most people agree that it's the worst decreasing stat result). If you allow a rookie like me to post an optional table, I'll go for:

2) ST -1
3) MA -1
4-5) No Effect
6) Miss Next Match
7) Niggling Injury
8) Miss Next Match
9-10) No Effect
11) AV -1
12) AG -1

Now, allow me to compare both (statistically, because my league co-commish will drive mad if I add just another change, and I won't be able to playtest any of the rules):
The Stat decrease rate is dramatically dropped (10/36 chances in the starting table and 6/36 on mine). No effect also droppes down a bit (15/36 to 14/36). Niggling injury goes up a little (5/36 to 6/36). Miss next game as a standalone result goes up (6/36 to 10/36), but drops down in the overall account (21/36 to 10/36).
The option I suggest increases the chances of getting a bad result, but It'll be ONLY a bad result (I mean, you won't get a niggle AND miss next game). Also, since the table is simetric, it's fairly easy to memorize.
You can also switch the "miss next game" and "no effect" results to make the table look worse.
Ah, and I think that Ageing was an inaccurate name for the rule, and that its intention was to avoid "uber-players" to dominate the field. And I think that's fine (I'm a team player, you see).

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:09 am

But under LRB Aging, it was "easier" to roll -1 AV than -1 anything else, and the new Aging table reflects that (although in a backwards way).

I would prefer to leave the table as it is.

Garax · Post by **Garax** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:51 pm

In all seriousness I'd agree to any system but the current one.

Five games in, my Norse team has had four guys age. How is that ever giving lower TR teams a chance to catch up with higher TR teams? Its not, all its doing is forcing me to retire my norse team even tho I've only had one in game casualty on them. I really, really hate aging...

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:57 pm

Sorry folks its just me putting up my simple thoughts. I know few would agree, but I don't see the need for any of these systems at all. There was nothing wrong with seeing players develop and no reason to change things in the first place. If teams were getting to powerful then hit a limit on the TR. That way players are not ruined by unrealistic impositions. The coach can retire a player when he becomes expendable instead. Just like real life.