My new proposition to replace aging

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:38 am

Do the three players changed once they have suffered once of WAT even if they are TopSPP of their teams? Cos if not, I sacrifice three players of my sixteen players team, when other 13 lucky players continue to progress.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:57 pm

No, but like has already been said, there are 3 problems with this strategy:

1. You'll be limiting yourself to only 13 players, which in itself is a big penalty.

2. A lot of you TR will be stuck in useless players.

3. Since they'll become pretty useless after a while, they won't do much and the other players will eventually catch up and overtake them.

This strategy might well be the best to use in my system, but it doesn't stop WAT from crippling your team.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:07 pm

I'm with zombie, only thing that might be a problem is its rather severe after you get to 130spp

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:06 pm

Just like a hockey player in the last year of his career. They've lost any edge they used to have and are often worse than rookie players even. Eventually you'll have to retire them, but when you do it is up to you. That's what i like about WAT.

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 9:05 pm

Ok, I agree with the concept. But it will need a hard playtesting !

Icedman · Post by **Icedman** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 10:24 am

OK, just let me see if I've got this straight...

Code: Select all

WAT Procedure
* At the end of each game, determine your 3 highest SPP players...
* Add their SPPs together, and divide by 10 (we'll call this 'SCORE')...
* Roll 2D6...
* If either die shows '6', no WAT takes place...
* Else If 2D6 score equals(?) or beats SCORE, no WAT takes place...
* Else roll WAT for each of the 3 players.

Somebody please feel free to correct me, I'm a little confused as to the exact mechanics

, but the principle (at least as I understand it) seems pretty sound.

Sushé Wakka · Post by **Sushé Wakka** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 10:50 am

I think that you don't add the SPP of the top three togheter, but instead roll for each one of them separately. The SPP divided by ten are rounded down (i.e. just ignore the last digit), and since you have to EQUAL or go above to avoid the WAT effects, you won't starting noticing WAT until 30 SPP (which seems fine to me).

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:10 pm

Yer don't add them together, sushé is spot on

MickeX · Post by **MickeX** » Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:04 am

I really like Zombies suggestion, but I think it could be made faster and easier. I'd also prefer more -MA and -AV results.

1. NAME

Wear and tear 2 (WAT2)

2. LINK

This thread.

3. DESCRIPTION

After every game, roll 1D6. The player with that ranking in the team, based on SPPs, will have to roll for aging. If there is a tie, choose between them.

Roll 2D6. If you roll below the number of SPPs that the player has divided by 10 (rounded down), apply the effect below.

2 : Niggling injury
3 : -1 MA
4 : -1 AV
5 : Niggling injury
6 : -1 MA
7 : -1 AV
8 : Niggling injury
9 : -1 MA
10 : Nothing happens
11 : Nothing happens
12 : Miraculous healing: remove one permanent injury of your choice; if you don't have one, nothing happens

4. ADVANTAGES

Only two rolls per game.
And Zombies original:
No bookkeeping.
Doesn't start until one of your players gets to 30 SPPs, and even then starts off very slowly.
Not tied to skills, which means that gaining a skill is always a positive thing.

5. INCONVENIENTS

The balance hasn't been tried out at all.
No miraculous healing for players with <130 SPPs.
Most people won't be able to memorize the aging table.