Aging rule a better version.

vorner23 · Post by **vorner23** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 5:34 pm

OK.

Now I don't know if this has been suggested before but here's a different version of the aging rule.

Now those that think it should be done away with altogether, I disagree. Simply because some very tough players could improve unchecked, a mummy for example rarely has to take av rolls. They tend to get blocked to the ground less than other players. For the most part this is true.

But by the same token, I've felt that the weaker teams av wise have had to cope with the spectre of injury looming over them. Added the risk of their best players getting injuries when they advance and you have a tough time keeping the low av teams going. This isn't whinging, I play all manner of teams! It is just a fact. The whole point of enjoying BB is to see teams develop and progress. Take injuries after a significant defeat certainly, but be viable all the same.

I think that the current system is not ideal, something IS needed yes.

So how about:

A retirement roll?

Basically, done at the same time as skill rolls, on say failing rolling a 4+ on 2D6 you retire. Compulsory retirement. No annoying niggles or inj that practically insure you have to retire anyway. I mean players with 2 niggles or more just arent really viable to continue. So why not retire them gracefully? I think this system is cleaner and smoother.

The main reason being carrying lots of injuries spoils the game. It also makes TR a nonsense. If you have top stars who dont turn up, your TR is vastly inflated and doesnt represent the teams true strength.

Yes there will be some inj from matches but these tend to be less than those inflicted by aging!

So people's thoughts on this?

Asperon Thorn · Post by **Asperon Thorn** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 5:53 pm

Vorner wrote:done at the same time as skill rolls, on say failing rolling a 4+ on 2D6 you retire.

It still doesn't address the issue of Wood elf catchers or Gutter Runners ageing on thier first game. This is the major complaint out there I think. All this does is make that problem worse. Instead of getting a minus AV or a niggle, your player leaves after his first game.

Asperon Thorn

Agentrock · Post by **Agentrock** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:20 pm

Yeah, retirement of a player should be a choice the coach gets to make (though not counting the retirement of 51+ SPP players due to coceding in a game).

Sometimes a coach won't automatically drop a player due to an injury they suffer...could be because the coach is already strapped for playable players in up coming games or wants to toughen it out. I have a player in my league that has a -1 AV woodelf thrower...he has focussed this guy to be the star passer for the current season (and he is actually not to far off from that title).

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:42 pm

yer vorner you suck!

forced retirement blows

(please don't anyone take my comments to vorner the wrong way, its just some friendly banter between the two of us) ;]

vorner23 · Post by **vorner23** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:48 pm

Well I can understand people complaining about their brand new players aging, and it has happened to me. In fact the brand new ones have got in a habit of dying in my games!

But its far less annoying to have a brand new player age, just retire him and lose 1 skill advance. Than a star who gets another skill and gets maybe his second niggle after a few good skills. Then youre torn whether to retire him or not.

Better to have him retire and the decision made. Bang.

The worst, thing imo is when you have a player with about 5 skills, who just keeps on getting those spp, you dont want him to continue getting them cos he'll fail the next age roll. And the extra skill he'll gain isnt really needed.

Agentrock · Post by **Agentrock** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:20 pm

I still think that the coach should be able to make the choice of the cut or not.

I know that the odds of it happening are fairly unlikely, but I'd hate to have my brand new team of 11 players, with maybe 3 players making their first SPP rolls after the first game, get automatically retired because of bad dice rolls on my part.

Asperon Thorn · Post by **Asperon Thorn** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:55 pm

Yeah Vorner, I agree with Grumble

.

You could just be like me and adopt a 'retire at the first sign of weakness' policy. Then you have already made the decision whether or not you liked the player. (I have retired some pretty nice witch elves because of this, including one that would have had dauntless. (Aged on a Goddamn double.))

Asperon Thorn

And may your Tofu Rats meet a gruesome flaming death.