Alternative Rule to ageing

[Relborn]

Okay there is a lot of fuzz around the new ageing rules. Some players like it, some hate it and some still have not deceided yet.

Personally I do not like the official rules abaout ageing as they penalize player that advance fast and I do not like the Experience roll instead of the MVP award as this means a lot of rolling after each match.

The way we (the players in our league) try to solve this is by adding an "Peak-Roll" to every Skill Roll your player makes to see if he reaches the hight of his abilities. This alone would not limit teams enough to keep them in balance compared to newer teams (and that's the main reason for an ageing-like rule isn't it ?).

The other rule would be an retirement rule where players decide to leave your team after a season. As not all leagues play fixed schedules this roll would be made after each tournament in your league. This roll would be modified by the amount of lasting injuries the player has suffered so far (NI's or Ability decreasing Injuries).

You could avert the player from leaving your team by paying him 1d6x10.000 GC as after season bonus.

Here the table you roll on (2d6):

Code: Select all

Rank             ---       Roll to peak       ---     Roll to retire
Rookie          ---              -                 ---           -
Experienced          ---         -                  ---             11+
Veteran                ---         3+                ---            10+
Emerging Star       ---         4+                ---             9+
Star Player           ---          5+                ---             8+
Super Star            ---         6+                ---              7+
Mega Star             ---         7+                ---              6+
Legend             ---          automatically    ---              5+

Thanks for reading this all. Your opinion would be very appreciated.

[GalakStarscraper]

Personally I do not like the official rules abaout ageing as they penalize player that advance fast

The system you proposed below penalitizes fast advancing player even worse than the current aging system. I'm not sure how you can be in favor of your suggestion based on your quote above.

I do not like the Experience roll instead of the MVP award as this means a lot of rolling after each match.

If every player on your team got a skill roll at the end of game Relborn would you decline to make the rolls. Under 3rd edition when you got 3 extra MVPs for playing a 101+ TR team did you decline the rolls.

Okay, on this topic, yes, I'm being a jerk ... I'll freely admit it. I find the too much rolling at the end of the game argument against EXP just complete nonsense for a dice rolling game. Marcus was much more eloquent than I ... but Relborn honestly did you read the 10 benefits that this system brings the table? Rolling 16d6 at the end of the game instead of the MVP roll is really worse than all the benefits gained? I just don't see how coaches that make 11d6 Sweltering Heat rolls per a DRIVE could be concerned about 16d6 rolls at the end of the game when it solves virtually all the problems with the current aging system.

I'll go back to my statement in another thread. If the biggest complaint is the dice rolling than the system is the best one I've seen yet as ALL the others have much larger problems than the number of dice.

Galak

[Relborn]

The system you proposed below penalitizes fast advancing player even worse than the current aging system. I'm not sure how you can be in favor of your suggestion based on your quote above.

Sorry to disagree Galak but I can't see how my rules should be worse for fast advancing teams ? The worst effect would be that they reach their personal maximum faster, but on every other point of view they are the same as all other teams.

I think you should read more properly before judging anything. I read the whole Exp-Ageing rule and rolling much dices is just one aspect I do not like about it.

Your argument about all players advancing an level is not very reasonable from you and I think you would not make this comment again if you take the time to think well over it.

[/quote]

[GalakStarscraper]

Sorry to disagree Galak but I can't see how my rules should be worse for fast advancing teams ? The worst effect would be that they reach their personal maximum faster, but on every other point of view they are the same as all other teams.

Its just my opinion. I personally would much rather have a niggle for my Wardancer at 2 skills than have him peaked and he'll peak a lot fast than a bashing player.

I did read your entire post really I did. I just really dislike Peaked players. I'd rather have the chance of the injury than the certainity that the player's career growth is completely finished. I also really don't like any system that forces me to retire a player no matter when that retirement roll is made.

Zombie posted earlier that BB should try to avoid things that remove strategy from the game. Retirement rolls always do just that. You've removed my option on whether and when I wanted that player to retire.

I'm not speaking without thought. I've played for a year in a league with a retirement roll. We lost 4 coaches due to retirement rolls destroying their teams in their eyes and have more damage done to their team by Lady Luck on a post season roll than their opponent's did to them all season. After that season, we realized that forced retirement removes too much strategy from the game.

So I wasn't be slight with you Relborn. I just see Peaking as worse than injury based Aging and more punative with its effects, and I believe that Retirement rolls are never a good addition to the game from experience.

That's where I'm coming from on this one.

Galak

[Relborn]

Thanks for your honest opinion Galak.

The way you explain your point explains good enough why we have a different point of view on that matter.

You (and a good number of other players) want just the strategic game elements in Bloodbowl and from this pow it is totally understandable why you want to leave out rules that lessen your controll of the game.

but Me (and also quite a good number of players) like to have coaching elements in their game. And as silly as this might sound, from this point of view it is good for me to have not toal control of every player. I see it this way: when your beloved star player retires, it challenges your coaching abilities to tweak the rest of the team to come to success finally.

As a final point to say is, that it is really important to remember, that different people like different aspects of the game (And who could deny it to them ? Definately not me)

[Zombie]

Well, since we're on the subject, here's my take on this.

I don't like the current system because it's too random. Some teams get dealt with harshly, others escape unscatted. Because of this, the system doesn't keep teams from becoming too powerful, it just increases the amount of time it takes to get there.

I don't like Galak's proposition because it doesn't target the problem players that the rule was made for in the first place, and because it's way too many rolls.

What i do like is the appearance fees rule that we had in 4th ed. It dealt with powerful teams, and it dealt with them all equally. And it was simple. It was the best system i've ever seen and everyone in my league loved it. I wish aging was scrapped and appearance fees were brought back, but i know it won't happen because too many people discarded it before they even tried. It's a shame because it's was so perfect and you're never going to find a system that does the job better.

[neoliminal]

It's a shame because it's was so perfect and you're never going to find a system that does the job better.

Sounds like you really liked it. I could take it or leave it. It was a good system, (and might even be better now with more limited funds) but it did fall short in some ways.

[Heiper]

Well, since we're on the subject, here's my take on this.

I don't like the current system because it's too random. Some teams get dealt with harshly, others escape unscatted. Because of this, the system doesn't keep teams from becoming too powerful, it just increases the amount of time it takes to get there.

I don't like Galak's proposition because it doesn't target the problem players that the rule was made for in the first place, and because it's way too many rolls.

What i do like is the appearance fees rule that we had in 4th ed. It dealt with powerful teams, and it dealt with them all equally. And it was simple. It was the best system i've ever seen and everyone in my league loved it. I wish aging was scrapped and appearance fees were brought back, but i know it won't happen because too many people discarded it before they even tried. It's a shame because it's was so perfect and you're never going to find a system that does the job better.

I agree Zombie, the AP rule was great, a shame this age thing replaced it IMO. We seem to be the only ones that feel that way on this forum though.

[Joshua Dyal]

Pshaw! I don't like either of them!