How do we bump the Aging effects best?

[wesleytj]

I suggested something like 2+/3+/5+/7+/9+/11+/12+ as a progression, so you always got the first skill without aging, but from the fourth skill the aging roll was more strict than the current version. Nobody liked it much.

Cheers,
Martyn

This part of your post got me thinking. I think our point of view on this forum may be a little skewed. This sort of thing happens to me too in our local leagues, and I think maybe I know why.

Most of the guys here who debate rules changes about BB have been playing it for a long time under several different versions. We played it a lot...so much that we understand the intricate aspects of the rules that a lot of coaches fail to even notice. We argue for changes based on this. We've played the game so many times, and chances are we like it so much we'd play it no matter WHAT changes were made, within reason. (I myself am an example of an exception, as I refused to play BB while OSPA was in effect, but I think you get my point)

What I'm saying is, we're ignoring a significant segment of the people who play this game. The "weekend BB'ers", the coaches who like the game, own a team or two, and play occasionally when they can't get a Warhammer game, or when there's some BB event or whatever. The guys who like BB but don't necessarily love it (yet?)

These people don't like ageing rules, and no amount of explaining "long term game balance" and "Team Rating capping" and so on is going to fix that. They don't like constant rules changes, because it's enough for them to learn/remember the basic rules, to figure out how many assists they have on a given block, and so on. Coaches like that certainly have better things to do than talk about the game on here, because for them it's not a big deal.

Part of me wants to say "why should we worry about them?", and I'll bet some of you are the same way. The reason though, is a good one. It's because they are the lifeblood of the game. They are the difference between a BB league with 4 hard core guys who get sick of playing each other, and a BB leauge with 20 guys who don't. And they're the people who are going to buy new stuff and tell their friends about the game, wheras we've probably already told all our friends 20 times. They're the people who eventually BECOME people like us...but it doesn't happen overnight.

See what I'm saying. I hope I'm making sense here.

My point is that some of our new rules are going to turn off new players. And I think ageing is a major one. I think we should take more account of those types of coaches, and remember that when we do polls for example, we're ignoring that sector of the BB community.

Just food for thought, another angle to look at.

[sean newboy]

I voted for the first option. By the way i fully support Martyn's aging rolls. I think its ridiculous for players to more than very rarely age after the first 1 or 2 advances.

[Marcus]

I'm fully in favour of Thadrin's style. I like the idea of the aging rolls ramping up more dramatically as the player gets more skilled.

I also quite enjoy an end of season buy off kind of affair where you have to spend cash/beans/dicerolls whatever on keeping players at the end of the season. The whole "spend X gold for each die you roll then roll above the player's SPPs" system appeals to me but is better as an optional league rule than gospel.

Marcus

[Bevan]

What I'm saying is, we're ignoring a significant segment of the people who play this game. The "weekend BB'ers", the coaches who like the game, own a team or two, and play occasionally when they can't get a Warhammer game, or when there's some BB event or whatever. The guys who like BB but don't necessarily love it (yet?)

These people don't like ageing rules, and no amount of explaining "long term game balance" and "Team Rating capping" and so on is going to fix that.

I agree with this, with the proviso that aging was introduced to help the occasional players join in with existing leagues.

The aging rules are really only needed for leagues with teams that go on forever. Many leagues start fresh teams every 6 to 12 games, as everyone does in a tournament.

I suggest that aging should only be required for long term leagues. Then it can be totally ignored in tournaments and leagues that restart preriodically with fixed seasons.

[Dragoonkin]

There is always the idea that players are required to make an Aging roll after playing in X number of games, but that becomes a bit unwieldy to keep track of.

[Lucien Swift]

The aging rules are really only needed for leagues with teams that go on forever. Many leagues start fresh teams every 6 to 12 games, as everyone does in a tournament.

I suggest that aging should only be required for long term leagues. Then it can be totally ignored in tournaments and leagues that restart preriodically with fixed seasons.

bevan, house rules... house rules, bevan.

[neoliminal]

There is always the idea that players are required to make an Aging roll after playing in X number of games, but that becomes a bit unwieldy to keep track of.

Worse still, you have entire teams making ageing rolls at the same time. I had a team of orcs who never lost a player, they all had the same number of games played... nasty if they all were forced to test for ageing at once, eh?

[neoliminal]

Ageing table (1d6):

Code: Select all

Skill      Roll
1          -
2          -
3          2+
4          3+
5          4+
6          5+
7          6+

You get off scot-free on the first two skills, after that your odds go up.

Think about the effects and get back to me.

John -

[sean newboy]

I can live with that.

[Dragoonkin]

But then aging will be so rare it's not even funny. If you're going to skip the first two (3, actually...2+?) skills, at least start the table off where it should be...5+.

[neoliminal]

But then aging will be so rare it's not even funny. If you're going to skip the first two (3, actually...2+?) skills, at least start the table off where it should be...5+.

The existing chart is 2d6.

This proposed one 1d6

[wesleytj]

I like that one Neo...you shouldn't start aging until you actually get old.

However, I think I'd make it max at 5+...not that I ever get to 7th skill, but it should be POSSIBLE (however unlikely) to not age at that point.

[Zombie]

It is possible, you just need to roll a 6. What did you think that 6+ meant anyway?

For the record, i think it's not too bad, but i'd still rather see aging more frequent and less damaging when it happens.

[Dragoonkin]

I didn't know the 1d6 part. Seems okay, then.

I don't like the whole idea of aging on your first roll...anyone who ages on the first roll I'd probably retire straight off. Unless it was a niggle, of course.

[Thadrin]

And Neo comes up with the single best solution yet!
I'd buy that for a dollar. With that one I might even be able to convince my aging-hating-commish that it's OK.