Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

[Joemanji]

BTW, before I become the hate figure representing the pro-Ageing camp, let me clarify.

- I think TR-capping is very necessary.
- I think Ageing is the best TR-capping system that has been tested so far.
- If Galak's system works, it is by FAR a more desirable and elegant system than Ageing, and I would fully support it.
- But it hasn't yet been fully tested, so I will continue to support Ageing for now.
- I really want Galak's system to work though.

Galak posting through Nazgit ... sorry Naz. ... you had a good break point from the other thread.

To describe the above. Long term balance solutions:
1) TR Cap. The BBRC adds to the LRB a hard TR number they decide on that in league play you cannot go over. If you do, at the end of the game you'll have to trim a reroll, retire a player, drop some cash, etc to get back under the TR cap during the post game.

2) TBB Package:
Step 1: Remove Aging from the game.
Step 2: Move to a better handicap table like the CHUBB table for example: http://www.chubbleague.com/chubb/handicap.html
Step 3: Rule Change: In addition to the preGame rolls for Niggling injuries if a player is STILL in Reserves or KO (ie is a casualty or already missing the game/niggled out) at the beginning of the 2nd half or overtime, he must successfully roll for his Niggling Injuries again or miss the remainder of the game.
Step 4: Add the Simplified Coach's Choice Negative Winnings rule:
Note: If your cash roll at the end of a game is negative, this amount is deducted from your treasury. This may cause your treasury to go negative. If it does, the negative amount is recorded to your roster as a team debt (ie negative cash). Negative treasuries will be treated as if they are positive treasuries for Team Rating points. You cannot purchase anything for your team if your treasury is negative.
Step 5: Change the Apothecary from being purchased for 50k to having to be freebooted for any game for 10k. (Much like the wizard was changed from being purchased for a team to being only freebooted in the LRB 1.0)

[GalakStarscraper]

I've had a Dragon Warrior DIE in his very first game from failing a 2+ dodge roll. Do I complain that a player is just as likely to die from falling over as he is from having a spike shoved in his face in a block? What would happen if I did?

You'd be told that on-pitch effects are part of game. You CHOOSE to dodge even though you knew it could injury your player. Aging I didn't get to choose anything. H*ll, I could leave my Dragon Warrior on the bench with 30 SPPs for the entire game and he could still DIE from getting -1 ST from aging after getting the MVP for the game. Where was my CHOICE there?

This is the other part of my soapbox. I as a coach should have complete say in the negatives I expose my team to. Aging tries to establish long term balance by forcing players to get worse and because of bench MVPs there isn't anything you can do to avoid it. It is the difference between the Triple B negative winnings and the one we developed on TBB. One is FORCED decisions, the other is completely coach's choice.

Aging is a forced long term system that effects the short term as a side effect of it working.

In my opinion, Aging has 4 major strikes against it:
1) Its an off-pitch player killer
2) Its a forced negative as there is no way to avoid it
3) Its kills off the enjoyment of skills rolls which should be a moment of fun
4) Its a long term effect that effects short term teams

The above 4 reasons are why I cannot stand aging to be honest ... compare it to negative winnings with 10k freebooted apoths:
1) No players directly killed offpitch by the system
2) Complete coach's choice on each element
3) No negatives applied to the skill roll event
4) Its a long term effect that will never effect a short term team

These 4 points are FOR ME what seperate a good long term balance rule from a poor one.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

BTW, before I become the hate figure representing the pro-Ageing camp, let me clarify.

- I think TR-capping is very necessary.
- I think Ageing is the best TR-capping system that has been tested so far.
- If Galak's system works, it is by FAR a more desirable and elegant system than Ageing, and I would fully support it.
- But it hasn't yet been fully tested, so I will continue to support Ageing for now.
- I really want Galak's system to work though.

Okay now ... I can agree with everything in this post.

So Nazgit ... can I get you to spend 5 minutes and send one of those "please put this 5 step rules package in the playtest vault" emails to JJ ... please ...

Galak

[ScottyBoneman]

You'd be told that on-pitch effects are part of game. You CHOOSE to dodge even though you knew it could injury your player. Aging I didn't get to choose anything. H*ll, I could leave my Dragon Warrior on the bench with 30 SPPs for the entire game and he could still DIE from getting -1 ST from aging after getting the MVP for the game. Where was my CHOICE there?

This is the other part of my soapbox. I as a coach should have complete say in the negatives I expose my team to. Aging tries to establish long term balance by forcing players to get worse and because of bench MVPs there isn't anything you can do to avoid it. It is the difference between the Triple B negative winnings and the one we developed on TBB. One is FORCED decisions, the other is completely coach's choice.

Aging is a forced long term system that effects the short term as a side effect of it working.

In my opinion, Aging has 4 major strikes against it:
1) Its an off-pitch player killer
2) Its a forced negative as there is no way to avoid it
3) Its kills off the enjoyment of skills rolls which should be a moment of fun
4) Its a long term effect that effects short term teams

The above 4 reasons are why I cannot stand aging to be honest ... compare it to negative winnings with 10k freebooted apoths:
1) No players directly killed offpitch by the system
2) Complete coach's choice on each element
3) No negatives applied to the skill roll event
4) Its a long term effect that will never effect a short term team

These 4 points are FOR ME what seperate a good long term balance rule from a poor one.

Galak

*BANG*BANG*BANG*

[Deathwing]

I've had a Dragon Warrior DIE in his very first game from failing a 2+ dodge roll. Do I complain that a player is just as likely to die from falling over as he is from having a spike shoved in his face in a block? What would happen if I did?

You'd be told that on-pitch effects are part of game. You CHOOSE to dodge even though you knew it could injury your player. Aging I didn't get to choose anything. H*ll, I could leave my Dragon Warrior on the bench with 30 SPPs for the entire game and he could still DIE from getting -1 ST from aging after getting the MVP for the game. Where was my CHOICE there?

And before anybody says that could happen through injury, there's a world of difference between in-game effects and off-pitch bollocks.

So I'm 100% in agreement with Galak. Whacking teams at low TR through off pitch effects in order to control the uber teams just plain sucks.

[DoubleSkulls]

So I'm 100% in agreement with Galak. Whacking teams at low TR through off pitch effects in order to control the uber teams just plain sucks.

Absolutely.

[Deathwing]

So I'm 100% in agreement with Galak. Whacking teams at low TR through off pitch effects in order to control the uber teams just plain sucks.

Absolutely.

You could at least have banged a shoe!

[Soapyfrog]

Ageing IS an "on-pitch effect". You can only age if you play and gain skills on the pitch. A failed ageing roll is an abstraction of general wear and tear suffered by the player on the pitch.

Don't give me this on-pitch, off-pitch bullcrap it makes no difference at all.

You think a BOB who loses a point of strength is DEAD?? Wow. If it were me I would accept such an extreme unlikely event without question. And i would play the Black Orc (who is still ST3 after all) until I could replace him.

It is no different than if he had rolled double skulls and given himself -1 ST. There is NO practical difference.

Seems to me like you just want less risk in the game.

[GalakStarscraper]

Ageing IS an "on-pitch effect". You can only age if you play and gain skills on the pitch.

Actually this isn't true. I could have a player never take the pitch even once and age. How was that an onpitch effect was this?

Seems to me like you just want less risk in the game.

All I respond to this is I don't think you've been reading what I've been posting.

Galak

[Joemanji]

So Nazgit ... can I get you to spend 5 minutes and send one of those "please put this 5 step rules package in the playtest vault" emails to JJ ... please ...

Sure... where is it again? I saw it a few days ago, but now I've lost it. And am I sending it to the generic Fanatic email addy or JJ personally?

[GalakStarscraper]

Sure... where is it again? I saw it a few days ago, but now I've lost it. And am I sending it to the generic Fanatic email addy or JJ personally?

Okay so if you want to endorse "the plan" ... here is my best answer for that. Use the below as a starting point and edit it to your words and then send it to: fanatic@games-workshop.co.uk AND to: JervisJ@games-workshop.co.uk

Fanatic/JJ:
After seriously thinking about the changes with the current Rules Review, I am concerned with the number of changes being made for "long term" balance. My league goes 15 to 20 games and resets and I'm find a lot of the changes having a negative impact on my shorter term league.

On TBB, Galak (Tom Anders) with the input of TBB has developed a long term league balance package that removes the long term balancing effects from short term leagues, but still keeps the game balanced over the long term. Both of Tom's leagues are using this system with their new seasons, and I would like to sincerely request that the entire 5 step package be put in the PlayTest Vault for folks to test as a complete package for long term league balance. This is a plan that I would like to see tested.

The 5 step Galak/TBB long term balance plan:
Step 1: Remove Aging from the game.
Step 2: Move to a better handicap table like the CHUBB table for example: http://www.chubbleague.com/chubb/handicap.html
Step 3: Rule Change: In addition to the preGame rolls for Niggling injuries if a player is still in Reserves or KO at the beginning of the 2nd half or overtime, he must successfully roll for his Niggling Injuries again or miss the remainder of the game.
Step 4: Add the Simplified Coach's Choice Negative Winnings rule:
Note: If your cash roll at the end of a game is negative, this amount is deducted from your treasury. This may cause your treasury to go negative. If it does, the negative amount is recorded to your roster as a team debt (ie negative cash). Negative treasuries will be treated as if they are positive treasuries for Team Rating points. You cannot purchase anything for your team if your treasury is negative.
Step 5: Change the Apothecary from being purchased for 50k to having to be freebooted for any game for 10k. (Much like the wizard was changed from being purchased for a team to being only freebooted in the LRB 1.0)

It is my understanding that the 5 components work together to cover any loopholes created by each step by itself, so I would like to see this entire 5 part system added to the PlayTest Vault as a packaged system to playtest. Thank you for your time.

[Joemanji]

'kay

[Soapyfrog]

All I respond to this is I don't think you've been reading what I've been posting.

I read it all. I'm voracious that way. I think your substitute for ageing is terrible for long term leagues, and simply eliminates the occasional ageing "problems" for short terms ones.

You are trying to insulate your players from the possible negative effects that go along with team improvement (that you currently cannot control), implementing a system where the player has more control.

Why is that a desirable thing?

[ScottyBoneman]

....implementing a system where the player has more control.

Why is that a desirable thing?

Why is allowing coaches to make their own decisions a desirable thing? Are you serious?

Ageing is purely luck based and squeezes the joy out of one of the fun parts to the game. The roll on the 1st skill goes directly against the stated purpose of the rule. The suggested replacement turns the same problem into interesting Team management where the coach directly makes their own call based on the risks- core of what the game is about. At the same time introduces nothing into leagues that don't have the problem Ageing is intended to fix.

[Soapyfrog]

How could a coach of a team possible be able to CHOOSE when a player wears out???

Hey I know lets eliminate the skill roll too, so you can just pick whatever skill/trait/stat increase you like...

Because you know, it would be unbalancing if one coach were really lucky with his skill rolls and another not as much.