Hated the salary cap in 4th edition.

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 11:01 am

I felt it artificially developed teams...I would just get all my players to a nice level with spp's evenly distributed throughout the team...easy to do with elves. So ultimately this is going to hurt the non-ag teams that won't be able to spread out the spp's as easily. This puts a TR cap on teams? I don't like where that is headed.

At least with the aging rules it was still possible to develop a powerhouse team, just takes longer and more time to do it. The goal shouldn't be to eliminate these teams, just make it harder.

And for the most part all these discussions are doing is getting rid of a team that most of us will never see. How many 300+ teams have you guys seen developed with the current rules? I would doubt not that many. The reason these rules were made in the first place was to help out the newer teams in competing in leagues by making the older teams shed unwanted players that aged. When two teams of equal TR compete they will have a competive game. The problem comes in when a newbie team plays the 200+ team.

I'm just ranting now. It just disappoints me that people are attacking something they haven't seen but just anticipating. But if there is that 300+ uber team then I'm sure theres' another one in that league to give him competition because that 300+ team just didn't appear. He had to play to get there so there has to be a couple other teams of equal or close TR for him to have played.

Ken

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:33 pm

i agree with your points against the salary/tr cap

thought the current system still has some flaws

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:50 pm

Why should my lineman who gets his fist SPP roll get a str down?

This is what can happen under the current aging rules. One of many reasons why aging sucks. Come up with a logical, fun, and effective replacment for aging, then I might agree with you. Untill then a SPP cap for the team sounds like the best soulution to me.

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 9:36 pm

the chance of a player getting "aged" on his first roll is low. But not all players have the stuff to play bloodbowl. He doesn't practice as hard, got hurt in practice, drinks too much, etc.
there could be any number of explanations....maybe he was an old rookie...didn't break into bloodbowl til late in life.

ken

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:34 pm

I personally think the current age works good. I can't see a reason atm to try X number of new rules, tweaking the one we have is alot better imo.

Smeborg · Post by **Smeborg** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 12:27 am

I thought the 4th Ed. appearance fee system was an excellent idea (as JJ's tend to be). It's just that the appearance fees were set at far too high a level (again, a typical tendency of JJ to be too revolutionary with his new ideas).

I believe a system with the following parameters could work well:

4 Skill Advances: 10,000 gps per match
5 Skill Advances: 20,000 gps per match
6 Skill Advances: 30,000 gps per match
7 Skill Advances: 40,000 gps per match

Or perhaps (more insidiously):

3 Skill Advances: 5,000
4 Skill Advances: 10,000
5 Skill Advances: 15,000
6 Skill Advances: 20,000
7 Skill Advances: 25,000

Of course, you would need to use the old money table with this.

The reason I would prefer a system of this type is because it leaves some choice in the hands of the coach (unlike ageing, which is a purely random event, which is why it is unpopular).

Cheers

D'Arquebus · Post by **D'Arquebus** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:18 am

Heiper said

I personally think the current age works good. I can't see a reason atm to try X number of new rules, tweaking the one we have is alot better imo.

Amen to that!!!

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 5:02 pm

I'm in total agreement MistWraith. The very fact that this can happen with aging is why it should go. As for appearance fees, they were awful! No one had any money left before long.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:04 pm

I thought the goal of aging was to prevent the über-teams (300 TR+) from developing.

The difference with the salary cap is that it puts an absolute cap on team ratings (or at least players contribution to TR) rather than a variable one caused by random dice rolls.

It also hands control of the team back to the coach and only effects teams at the top levels.

At the moment i'm leaning towards this system as my favorite but i've never tried it, so maybe I wouldn't like it if I did. I would like to try though, now if only I can convince my league...

Edit: Whoops typo!

littlemute · Post by **littlemute** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:25 pm

I don't understand the facination with playing a team more than 15 games or so. The fun of the game seems to breeak down when all players have a skill or two, or three because there's no way to tell what skills a player has on the pitch. In the early version of a team, you can tell that the blitzer models probably have block, the catchers dodge, and so on. With later teams it gets a bit tedious when linemen have Block, Tackle, Shadowing and Dauntless.

We play a couple seasons with a team and then all start over. It keeps it fresh, and it's easier just to start a new team because the rules keep changing every 6 months or so.

darthnoir · Post by **darthnoir** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:35 pm

I guess different styles of play appeal to different leagues and coaches.

I run 2 leagues. My oldest league (which dates back to 1998) has teams that have built up serious rivalries over the years. It's kind of like some of the real world rivalries that exist in professional sports (Red Wings/Avalanche for example). It's hard to build up a long standing rivalry in just 15 games. Also, we have a few players that have managed to avoid the ravages of time and become near legends. This has made them targets of opposing teams big guns. When one of them gets taken out for good, it's cause for much celebration and trash talking. In 15 games, it would be near impossible to make these legendary players. Again though, for some people this isn't their idea of fun.

That being said, my other league (which is run at a local store) just started this year. There is a great level of excitement when a new coach gets their first upgrade on a player. The games also tend to go faster because most of the players are just stock rookie players. When you get a ton of skills on a team, the games tend to take a bit longer (now...what skills does that Line Elf have again???).

I personally enjoy both environments.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:42 pm

I can't understand that Littlemute. Half the fun of playing the game is surely to see players develop?! Also by playing with one team you get a record/reputation and you have fun in remembering games and can develop rivalries.

littlemute · Post by **littlemute** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:26 pm

I agree, that IS a huge part of the fun. But our problem has always been 1) new players dislike getting beaten on 2) the most experienced coaches want to try something new EVERY season and the biggest one: 3) the RULES keep changing. First it was allow star players/ disallow star players, use Chet's Modest Proposal rules, then 4th edition (ugh) and now the more toned down BB in the revised third.

Especially with the new rules, there is no reason at all for a 100 point team to play a 150-200 point team and with the open format the experienced team is going to find it difficult to get matches. No one wants to go into a game that they know they will lose. Not by choice.

What you have in a league in my experience are 3-4 diehard coaches that are there every week. Then maybe 3 more that will show up if they are doing well in the league, then 3-4 more that show up for a few games and then drop out. Our leagues have started with 20+ coaches and by the single elimination tournament at the end of the season, the slots get filled up not by winning record but by who is still playing.

In this way I think it's IMPERATIVE that teams have a chance to reach parity. It's what the NFL strives for every season (and accomplished it during the last one certainly). That teams that suck have a chance to catch up, and I think the old Handicap system helped enormously in keeping the non-super die hard coaches playing and getting their asses kicked week after week, they would still have that ONE badass player with magic helmet and +2 ST or the chance to get so many cards/ bonus SSP's that it would still be a fun game. All this "one game only" stuff on the handicap table does little to keep this pairity and the table is not nearly as exciting as the secret cards.

It's important that coaches that aren't in the top 4 in a league feel they have an effect on the league instead of being just a punching bag, easy win. Granted Agility based teams that start to tank usually get disbanded, but a skaven team that's doing poorly will still continue in the league if it's players are getting casualties, a woodelf team if they can still score in one turn, or a norse team that still pushes a few people off the pitch during a game.

This has been true in both Mordheim and Necromunda as well. Keeping parity and giving weaker gangs the chance to get a BIG boost in $$ or skills if they play a super badass gang even though they lose is a pretty tried and tested game mechanic. At the moment, this is not in BB, and that makes carrying over teams into a new season with a lot of possibly new coaches even more detrimental. The ideal is that all the coaches will be super die hard and play no matter what, but that's just not the reality.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:03 pm

Now I'm in total agreement with you here and well said, especially about all the rule changes. The problem we all have is trying to make rookie coaches a part of the League. The solution is not to go with some of these new rules like aging, but to fall back on some of the old rules like bonus SPP's. Why should the die hards be penalised when the new boys won't stay around for long anyway?! But to re-emphasise I'm in total agreement with your emphasis.

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 5:00 am

There's no rule that you can't play more than one team. If I didn't have a team that was close to the rookie/new players team, I would just make a new team and play them with that. My old league didn't put a limit on how many teams you could have. Just make a couple new teams and let the new guys get a couple games in against them. It lets them develop their team without getting smashed, get experience and most importantly have FUN. This let's the diehards who are there every week not get too many games ahead of other people and helps balance everything out.

I like the current aging rule and hated the old salary cap rule.

Oh well, just my opinion.

Ken

Talk Fantasy Football

Hated the salary cap in 4th edition.

Hated the salary cap in 4th edition.

I think the current system works

Appearance fees

For rookie teams