A serious look at ageing

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:51 pm

keep it its fun and it works and negative winnings will help in conjunction of aging not as replacement

Robotorz · Post by **Robotorz** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:57 pm

I dont like aging. My Orc teams Star Player Ogre St 6, Block Pro Guard died after he was fouled to death. I replaced his corpse with a nice shiny and polished new rookie ogre. He got a skill the first game. He earned block and lost 1 St

I realy dont see why a player should age at his first skill. 2nd, 3rd, 4th.... I dont care but not whith the first star player roll!

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:58 pm

I don't like the idea of peaking a player, as that's wasted SPP's you could be gaining. I like the current ageing system, really.

Chris

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:11 pm

NO NO NO!

Don't even start with that whole peaking nonsense! Goddamn!

Peaking is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a player. I have always HATED it, from way back in the 3e special play cards. It was the thing I dreaded the most. A peaked player is a complete and utter waste of time. Having a peaked player has made me drop entire teams before, just because I couldn't stand that one peaked chap! And now you want to inflict peaking on half of my team!

Urrrrgh!

Ageing is fine as a system. Over a long enough timeline it is perfectly balanced. People have just been experiencing some harsh results in the short term that have turned them off for good.

Niggles are absolutely fine IMO. The problems arise when you have a lot of niggles spread throughout your team, and the possibility of too many missing any given match. But the solution to this still lies in the coaches hands. He can choose which players to keep (with the risk that they won't play every game) and which to replace. After all, every sports team has one or two old and weary mavericks who are too knackered to play every week. They don't have problems unless they try to play a whole team of "oldies".

Peaking takes the choice away - you have to, eventually, get rid of ALL your peaked players, if you want the team to progress. And this is the fun part of BB after all - team PROGRESSION. Peaking = no more progression! duh!

But I agree tweaks could be made to the Ageing system to make it less harsh on newbie teams.

I think dropping the Ageing roll on the first advance is something that the vast majority of people agree on. This should be the first thing to change.

Maybe change the niggle roll to a D8?

Change the effects table for Ageing - maybe make it a D66 roll?

Definitely get rid of ST and AG decreases - I think these are where most of the "horror" stories originate.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:42 pm

How about the following Ageing proposal:

A player does not have to make an Ageing roll on his first advance. The score for the subsequent rolls do not change - so the Ageing roll on the second advance is still 4+ and so on.

The Ageing table changes to something like (D66 roll):

Code: Select all

11    = becomes Really Stupid
12    = becomes a Wild Animal
13    = becomes a Bonehead
14-16 = Niggle

21-26 = Niggle

31-36 = Niggle

41-46 = Niggle

51-55 = Niggle
56    = -1 AV

61-63 = -1 AV
64-66 = -1 MV

Chance of -1 MV, -1 AV and niggle stay the same. Introduce negative traits in place of -1 ST and -1 AG.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:22 am

Let me say for the nth time, that IMO Ageing is fine, and that most coaches cannot see the wood for the trees on this subject. You aren't supposed to like it! Just as you aren't supposed to like your player failing a 'Go For It' roll, falling over and dying.

Ageing, remember, does not simply represent the linear ageing process. This would be ridiculous - Skaven live for 5 years, Elves for 2000! It represents the effects of a sporting career, of general wear and tear, plus training ground injuries, freak horse and cart crashes etc. So a training ground accident etc. is less likely early in a player's career, but still not impossible. This is how it should be.

Robortorz wrote:I dont like aging. My Orc teams Star Player Ogre St 6, Block Pro Guard died after he was fouled to death. I replaced his corpse with a nice shiny and polished new rookie ogre. He got a skill the first game. He earned block and lost 1 St

Do you know how unlikely this is? The actually is, about as likely as a Snotling killing an Ogre with a block! (0.03% v. 0.08%). This is a freak result. You haven't mentioned all the Ageing rolls that you didn't fail, or that didn't result in you losing a point of ST, of course....

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:42 am

I voted "modify" (I think).
If it stays as it is I'd rather lose it.

I know everybody is throwing ideas into the air, but here is mine:
1) ageing only gives nigglings.
2) nigglings are checked at the beginning of each drive, and failing a niggling only lasts for that drive.

We've been playing with rule 2 now for quite a while, and it is very popular here.

Martin

Oni · Post by **Oni** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:33 pm

[quote="Nazgit"]NO NO NO!

Don't even start with that whole peaking nonsense! Goddamn!

Peaking is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a player. I have always HATED it, from way back in the 3e special play cards. It was the thing I dreaded the most. A peaked player is a complete and utter waste of time.

What about the people who feel aging is a complete and utter waste of time? There should be no aging since there are in game effects that cause the same permanent injuries. There should be no cap on team TR. If people feel it is needed then house rule in optional rules to cap a team.

Oni

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:50 pm

Oni wrote:What about the people who feel aging is a complete and utter waste of time? There should be no aging since there are in game effects that cause the same permanent injuries. There should be no cap on team TR. If people feel it is needed then house rule in optional rules to cap a team.

What about them?

But seriously, don't you think it is a lot more sensible to have a perfect Ageing-like system that people can choose to ignore if they want? Rather than have NO system, as you suggest, and leave everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion p*ssing in the wind? What about the people who feel that Ageing is completely necessary and balanced? You are clearly suggesting that they should all be hung out to dry! I'm actually quite annoyed by this, Oni.

p.s. - get your quotes sorted out, dude

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:44 pm

I'd be quite happy to see the Ageing table changed to:

1-4 : Niggling Injury
5 : -1 AV
6 : -1 MV

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:41 pm

I like aging as is. I think everyone has a story to tell about how it ruined their bestest player ever (In my case, it was -ST on a +ST beastman) But I've never heard of it destroying a team, except through bad roster management on the coach's part.

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:18 am

Skummy wrote:I like aging as is. I think everyone has a story to tell about how it ruined their bestest player ever (In my case, it was -ST on a +ST beastman) But I've never heard of it destroying a team, except through bad roster management on the coach's part.

Its not going to destroy a well-managed team, but if fails on its basic purpose- which I find a flaw.

Aging is applied too early, so that new teams can be too easily affected where older teams can more afford to replace aged players. It is a pretty dislikable rule generally, but the first roll at a minimum should be dropped. Hitting hard at the higher levels of SPPs satisfies its purpose.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:22 am

36 to 1 chance of failing that first roll! Then more than likely not going to be crippled by -1 ST or AG.

And, to be honest, if I was going to fail an Ageing roll, I would prefer it to be early in a player's career. Rather than after I had garnered all the right skills. And since when did high TR teams have more money than noobie ones? Negative winnings.

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:35 am

Nazgit wrote:36 to 1 chance of failing that first roll! Then more than likely not going to be crippled by -1 ST or AG.

And, to be honest, if I was going to fail an Ageing roll, I would prefer it to be early in a player's career. Rather than after I had garnered all the right skills. And since when did high TR teams have more money than noobie ones? Negative winnings.

Still 1 in 36 too many if it goes against its intended purpose. And I do agree, negative winnings is a damn good idea

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 6:13 pm

Nazgit wrote:I'd be quite happy to see the Ageing table changed to:

1-4 : Niggling Injury
5 : -1 AV
6 : -1 MV

That's a genius idea, I was thinking recently that AG and ST are too often too high a price to pay or completely ignorable.

Trouble was I was trying to balance out extra AV and MV on a 2d6 roll, much easier to just make it a d6. Cheers

Talk Fantasy Football

A serious look at ageing

What to do with ageing?