Yet another suggestion to replace aging

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 8:39 am

The good sides of my suggestion are:

-Game mechanics apart from handling a BH (and dropping aging) remain intact

-Nr of injuries remains the same keeping games played before comparable to the games played after implementing the rule

-There is no increase in the amount of players missing games: thus even though injuries are more lethal, coaches still get to play matches where they have players on the pitch.

-The increase in BH lethality is a attrition mechanism that works in-game: coaches realise that their players are getting worse because they got beaten up in a game. It feels less like a mechanic (as aging) and more like a part of the game.

-The increase in BH lethality should also be sufficient to replace aging. If that is not the case, then non-guaranteed skill increases by Cervidal should be added in.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 11:08 am

I think skipping skill rolls is the worst suggestion ever imho

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 7:20 pm

Why? It certainly addresses the problems caused by the rather quick skill progression.

I like the more lethal BH's more, though, but it's a good idea too and could help the more lethal BH's my ensuring that those teams that get lucky with injuries do not rule supreme.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:43 pm

Well my skaven already had a hard time with injuries as they are, if you add in the harsher BH results then my team would have to be retired due to having 3/4 players available a match. I can just about cope with 8/9 available. A mecahanism to retire whole teams early on, or at any point is a ludicrous idea.

Pariah mentioned that losing stats through aging is no fun. Getting enough spp for a skill roll and then not getting a skill is even less fun. Also it makes a mess on team rosters unless your recording something like "no skill" for a skill roll that wasn't allocated a skill. I just think this whole idea stinks. If they get a niggle I can still play them but a player with that amount of skill points and less than the required amount of skills is giving away too much tr without any benefit and is a case for auto retire, more so than a niggle or a dropped stat.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 11:22 pm

The trouble with dropped stats is that a lot of the time they either mean instant retire or virtually no effect, especially as zombie said on 'the other' aging thread for AG and ST.

Most players losing an ST will retire straight away because of the huge effect it has (a -1 ST Black Orc is just a bad expensive lineman

), but a few such a already weak catchers might not really care too much.

Players losing AG is not so drastic as this merely reduces rolls by one increment, but on key throwers and catchers it is devastating and i would think twice about my blizters if they only had AG2. On the other hand AG 1 Dwarf Longbeards, who cares!

Essentially I don't mind aging but I don't want a result that means my player may as well have died for all the use he is now. Aging should make you think about retiring a player, not force you to do so.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:47 am

Grumbledook wrote:Well my skaven already had a hard time with injuries as they are, if you add in the harsher BH results then my team would have to be retired due to having 3/4 players available a match. I can just about cope with 8/9 available. A mecahanism to retire whole teams early on, or at any point is a ludicrous idea.

Remember that they do not cause MNG's! The harsher BH's only cause niggles and stat reductions (or nothing extra at all if a MNG result is rolled from the SI table).

I haven't seen skaven or wood elf teams have any devastating mass injury effects under LRB - they are definitely better off than in 3rd ed. More lethal BH's would help a lot in keeping them in check too.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:11 am

I just told you my team suffered loads from injuries. I certainly wouldn't like to add a further 30 niggles or stat decreases, to help me lose the games where i was players down even more. This would even cripple them further down the line.

There have also been other teams that have had to retire after1-3 games due to the current rules. Anything further is madness. As for keeping them in check, they are in check, they aren't running away with anything.

Indigo · Post by **Indigo** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:50 am

Big article - read it a few times before replying!!

An idea I have been throwing around that has NOT been playtested very much yet - it's just a little more than a theory!

What I propose involves adding a new column to team rosters to indicate a player's fitness level. Initially, all players start at 10 (or some other value, tweaked according to playtesting).

When a player suffers one of the following, their fitness level is adjusted accordingly:

Knocked Out = -1
Badly Hurt = -2
Serious Injury = -3
Killed = -5
"Rested" = +2
Apothecary = +2

The first three are self explanatory, each injury like that reduces the player's fitness rating. I have included a value for killed to represent a death that is averted by an apothecary - even saved, the player will still be sore!

If a player is rested, they CANNOT be placed in the dugout and used for the match, but they regain +2 fitness to the maximum value (10 in this case).

Before a match, a coach can use their apothecary to give ONE player intensive physio, and the player recovers 2 fitness and CAN play in the match. However, the apothecary cannot then be used during the match.
** I also toyed with the idea of allowing a team ONE physio coach (assistant coach) to give them this benefit before every match but it might be too powerful - maybe physio coach = +1 fitness?

Fitness plays no part in the game until a player reaches or exceeds 0. When this happens, roll on a table very similar to the aging table to see what permanent effect of exhaustion has occurred. Note that these effects are in addition to any effects suffered on the pitch. For each number below 0, that value is added to the exhaustion roll (e.g. -3 = 2d6 + 3)

Note that a player with fitness of 0 or less can still play in matches, but every one they do results in a roll on the exhaustion table.

=========

I'd appreciate any comments on this idea. I know that at first glance it does not appear to have any effect on limiting high TR teams, but it does in a subtle way.

If a coach has his star player on 2 fitness, they might be tempted to rest them more often to regain fitness, rather than risk an injury. This means that, although the TR is constant, the good players don't actually play for risk of injury - it is thereby limiting the prowess of such teams. This system also has the advantage of allowing new handicap effects to alter fitness levels, e.g. Virus - d3 random players lose 5 fitness points due to a stomach bug.

The trouble is, ageing works too fast - players dont get a walking stick after 3 matches cos of old age, it is because of injury! This system relates the degradation of players to their antics on the field.

This allows the development of stars, while at the same time limiting their progression through forced rest periods. It will be rare cases indeed if a coach can have his entire squad fully fit.

=========

I know it has problems though, as it is possible for players to be totally untouched by this system. However, if a superstar player with 7 skill rolls is on the field, as good as he may be, he's a target and eventually his fitness will decrease to the point of injury.

Anyway, PM, mail or reply to me to let me know what you think....

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:55 am

Its certanly an interesting system but it will require even more bookkeeping than the EXP system, so I would expect its not suitable.

Indigo · Post by **Indigo** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:00 pm

not really - if a player inflicst a CAS you record it then, and this system just has the other coach record a fitness loss at the same time.

before every match you check fitness levels and roll

pretty simple really, v similar to SPP system!

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:25 pm

It's an interesting system, Indigo. The beginning fitness level and the amount of fitness lost due to injuries might have to be tweaked after playtesting. But with the anti-bookkeeping sentiment and the widespread support for other alternatives this will probably not gain immediate support. It is definitely good house rule material and if you can persuade some leagues to try it out it might eventually gain more support.

Still, my suggestion has a more immediate effect by increasing the BH lethality and I like it more.

dakkakhan · Post by **dakkakhan** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:35 pm

What about an injury system similar to 2nd edition where the serious injuries put a player down for more than 1 game? I seem to recall, though I couldn't find my books, that a fractured skull could put a player out for 2D6 games or something like that...this would limit participation etc. of the players tht were injured, a bit more severely than the current system.

Though I sometimes am impressed how fast professional athletes can take the field after suffering a heinous injury, they certainly don't bounce back like bloodbowlers do. Of course they die less too.

Indigo · Post by **Indigo** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:37 pm

well IMO adding another column to record fitness is not a great deal of book-keeping - the recording of SPPs and rolling for skills after a match is simply already established book-keeping.

The book keeping in a match is negligible - assume that you suffer 2 KOs and 3 CAS on average (averge being the key word)

That results in 5 occaisons to refer to your roster. At the beginning of the match you CAN, but not necessarily WILL use an apothecary/physio, so the book-keeping beforehand is light and occaisonal.

But I agree - this needs more testing... all I ask is you don't write it off immediately!!

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 1:33 pm

dakkakhan wrote:What about an injury system similar to 2nd edition where the serious injuries put a player down for more than 1 game?

The one we use in our two-coach test league has the following system:

After a serious injury, roll 2d6:
2 = miss no game
3-10 = miss next game
11 = miss two next games
12 = miss three next games

Works fine and has forced some additional retirements.

Indigo · Post by **Indigo** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 3:05 pm

That's a good idea - I'm definitely in favour of slightly more detailed injury systems than 2 - 9 being niggling and everything else is a stat loss (or whatever)

IMO there could/should be two rules sets - hear me out!

one for tournament play/small leagues which has little pre/post-match detail and the other that has expanded rules for running long term leagues. I love bringing a team up from nothing, with a good league of similar minded coaches, and exploring the background as well as fleshing out other aspects - stadiums, coaches etc.

Anything that creates a richer, more detailed game playing experience is good in my book. If you can't be bothered with all the extra paperwork, then just use the more limited rule set.

I'm not talking about seperate games of course... just different sections in the same rulebook.