Negative winnings & Ageing

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:38 pm

How would people feel about Galak's neg wins idea in combination with a tone down Ageing? I have always been a big fan of Ageing, and would like to see it survive in the game somehow or other.

How about:

Experienced -
Veteran -
Emerging Star 6+ (on a D6)
Star Player 6+
Super-Star 4+
Mega-Star 4+
Legend 2+

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:17 pm

I wouldn't be against that but:-

I am not against ageing - I am against the way niggling injuries work and I don't like stat decreases

Prefer "in game" niggle effects and peaking.

Peaking makes sense - not everyone is uber talented...

Blammaham · Post by **Blammaham** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:35 pm

I would also like to see aging moving to a peaking system rather than the current system. I don't mind the aging as it is as far as the table goes but I'm with noodle on this.S.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:37 pm

I'm the other way - I don't like peaking, but don't really mind injuries and niggles. With NI and stat drops, you still got the same player - he's just less reliable.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:08 pm

Or how about the current Ageing system with slightly less harsh effects for NI?

E.g. If you fail a NI roll then the player may choose to play the game as normal, but with -1 MA and -1AV. If he fails two, he may choose to play with -2MA and -2AV. If he fails three then he must miss the game.

Choosing to field a player who had failed a NI roll would then be risking further injury, but would still be in the coach's hands.

I would leave the Ageing effects table as it stands - stat penalties are "effective peaking", in that a crippled old player can only go on for so long.

The thing I don't like about peaking is that it ends a player's career. A NI or stat decrease doesn't - a coach still has a choice to play him, and a reason to do so. He may not fail any more Ageing rolls. He may get a stat increase that cancels out a decrease. A peaked player is just dead weight.

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:43 pm

Nazgit wrote:Or how about the current Ageing system with slightly less harsh effects for NI?

E.g. If you fail a NI roll then the player may choose to play the game as normal, but with -1 MA and -1AV. If he fails two, he may choose to play with -2MA and -2AV. If he fails three then he must miss the game.

Choosing to field a player who had failed a NI roll would then be risking further injury, but would still be in the coach's hands.

I would leave the Ageing effects table as it stands - stat penalties are "effective peaking", in that a crippled old player can only go on for so long.

The thing I don't like about peaking is that it ends a player's career. A NI or stat decrease doesn't - a coach still has a choice to play him, and a reason to do so. He may not fail any more Ageing rolls. He may get a stat increase that cancels out a decrease. A peaked player is just dead weight.

Have to disagree with you there. Because of Ageing, there are a few of my players that I would be tempted to 'Peak' myself if I had the choice. I have a very successful Ghoul that I take measured risk to avoid scoring wiht. They are are about at the level where adding a 4th skill is not as important to me as not having my TR climb and risk lost Stats. If they had no effect after their 4th I would dread SPPs as risking that player too much.

If anything, I think that might be the problem.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 4:58 pm

removing aging off the second skill means longbeards who only need 2 skills guard and mighty blow are going to almost never face aging

and as for peaking i simply hate peaking

the only tweak thats (not really) needed is to just remove the roll for aging on the first skill and leave the rest

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:42 pm

I would be opposed to anything that keeps ageing. I think it sucks. The negative winnings sounds great and I can't wait to try it out.

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:29 am

I would keep aging as it is since it's quite fun.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:32 pm

I think you will find that ageing and team capping are the most divisive issues in Bloodbowl as it stands....

I would leave it for each league to decide.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:11 pm

But you still need an official rule.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 9:04 pm

I like aging but one thing i've been considering changing is the -1 ST and AG to some combination of -1 MA and AV (and injuries also).

The reasoning is that -1 ST or AG is nearly always either instant dismissal (ie. might as well be dead) or completely ignorable (eg. -1 AG on a Black Orc, -1 ST on a Gutter Runner).

By contrast -1 MA or AV affects everyone, by increasing the chances of armour breaks or just by reducing movement. Only wrinkle is that some players sit on the scrimmage line and don't move but then these players probably didn't need AG either so it's no worse than before.

If we still need some harsher rolls then maybe -1 to both on a 12?

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:00 am

NightDragon wrote:But you still need an official rule.

Why?

You could have a set of optional rules instead. Its not like they are used in tournaments...

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:17 am

Sort of like a pick n mix? Not as mad as it sounds actually.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 9:42 am

@Munkey - Yeah, that's a really good idea. I have thought along the same lines myself on occasion.

How would you work it though?

2-9 Niggle
10 -1 MV
11-12 -1 AV

gives the same chance of losing either stat. I think that would probably be best. Introducing a penalty to both stats on a 12 would mess up the probs. I don't think any of the ant-ageists would really accept it anyway!

Bring on Pick 'N' Mix team development rules!