A serious look at ageing

[Shadow Monkey]

I say leave it as is. I currently have a lineman who got his first Star Player Roll. He got a +1 ST. Then my aging result gave him a Niggling Injury. Did it suck? Hell YEAH! Did I find it to be an unfair result? Not at all. It was a rare, sucky roll, but it happens. I've just been lucky enough so far that he hasn't failed a Niggling roll yet. I'm sure it will happen soon, though.

[Joemanji]

This poll, though no where near exhaustive, kind of shows how even TBB is spilt down the middle on the Ageing debate. I find it kind of frustrating that the staunch anti-Ageists always claim that "everyone" thinks Ageing is a terrible idea, and tries to put this point of view accross to the powers that be, when clearly it isn't the case.

I hope Ageing stays.

[NightDragon]

This has come up numerous times now, but just to repeat myself, I loathe ageing. It is unfair, unrealistic and takes alot of the fun out of the game. Consequently I won't use the rules, at all, ever. There are much better alternatives.

[Joemanji]

I loathe ageing. It is unfair, unrealistic and takes alot of the fun out of the game.

If it takes the fun out of the game for you, then I'm sorry. But it isn't unfair and it isn't unrealistic. I don't want to start all the old arguments up again - I'm sure we'd just be repeating ourselves. But statistically Ageing is perfectly fair, and realistic as long as you appreciate that it isn't meant to represent the linear ageing process - rather the wears and tears of a sporting career. This would be ridiculous - Skaven live for 5 years, Elves for 2000!

[Bifi]

Nazgit, I have also seen the other threads and I have to tell you sum it up very well.

I think Aging is OK as a development caps, but I would like it to be more funny (maybe attributing some chracteristics to the respective NIs would suffice, such as rheuma, weak lungs, drunkenness or else...). I personally like it since I like to start with new players in a developed team(after I fire/bury an old one). I don't think -1AG and -1ST is too harsh, but I vote for less niggles and more of more predictable results/funny negatraits (tends to forget who'he playing for from time to time, needs extra money to come to a match, acts randomly, shows off, etc.), but a part of the development could also be gaining a few positive traits(!) such as personal fan-club, roadies, personal apothecaries/masseurs/groomers, reporters, etc... (this has been in part covered by the fans rules in the BB Annual).

[Circular_Logic]

I would love to have a good player peak, than niggling him through aging.

Punishing the successfull players, that´s the most important flaw of the system. Those teams, scoring touchdown, perfoming well, will age alot more than looser-teams. A blodge-catcher, rarly getting knocked down is more likly to age than a lino, who gets beating on the LOS.
That´s the major flaw.

[Joemanji]

Yeah, but the point your missing is that Ageing is designed to effect WHOLE TEAMS. If you consider individual players in isolation, then you are bound to get upset.

[Blammaham]

I like the idea of aging I really do. I just don't think the current system is the best. I agree with CL and find it strange that the players that are generaly hit the least age the most, Also I agree that a peaked star player is better than a niggled star player, or a weakened star player. In fact if you have a peaked star player, say a gutter runner with 51 spp, you can have a very effective player who doesn't increase your team rating every time he scores. I don't hate peaked players and never have if they are peaked when they are good. I also see it as a fluff plus as a player who didn't achive his/ her full potential.
I don't think there is ever going to be a clear concensis, I would like to see some other options for aging though.S.

[Darkson]

I say leave it as is. I currently have a lineman who got his first Star Player Roll. He got a +1 ST. Then my aging result gave him a Niggling Injury. Did it suck? Hell YEAH! Did I find it to be an unfair result? Not at all. It was a rare, sucky roll, but it happens. I've just been lucky enough so far that he hasn't failed a Niggling roll yet. I'm sure it will happen soon, though.

+1ST with a niggle isn't the problem, it's when you get a basic skill and -1ST that really pisses people off.

[Joemanji]

I get pissed off when I fail dodge rolls. Can we get rid of those too, while we're about it?

[Robotorz]

St+ and St- at a time sucks also! I would make aging start with 2nd skill. It completly Sucks to retire a St 4 Ogre that got Block...

[Joemanji]

Why on earth would you retire him? He's still a ST 4 player with Block - and that's nothing to be sniffed at.

[Toby]

Ageing = Automatic -1 AV, and then let them die on the pitch.

Everyting else is crap.

[Joemanji]

Could work....

[Shadow Monkey]

Other sucky things happen in Blood Bowl all the time. You go to block a halfling with your ogre, you roll all skulls, fall down, and fail your armor roll, gat a 10+ on an injury, and then a 6 on the casualty, and die. I've seen things like this happen. Really bad rolls can do really bad things to a team/player. If you're gonna complain about 1, you might as well complain about all of them (that's not really what I'm suggesting, by the way). It's all part of the risk involved with the game.

How often do you really see someone fail an ageing roll on their first Star Player Roll? It's a 1 in 36 chance. That's about a 2.7% chance to fail the roll. I can actually see why some are saying that the ageing rolls should start at the second Star Player Roll, but to take ageing out of the game completely seems a bit much. If they take the ageing out completely, then there should be an automatic peaking earlier, like after your 4th or 5th Star Player Roll.