NAF World Headquarters
Rules Questions - Player Value after an injury...
StoutYoungblood - Aug 31, 2006 - 12:46 PM
Post subject: Player Value after an injury...
Hey, in our league this week an Undead team had a Wight sustain a serious injury (-1 AV). That player received the MVP which gave the player a new skill. The coach rolled a '10' and took the +1AV.
Am I correct that the player's value is 120,000gp?
Injuries do not take away from the value of the player and an AV increase still increases the value by 30,000gp. So the wight (price of 90,000) now has a value of 120,000 even though, after everything, his stats are the same?
nyarlathotep - Aug 31, 2006 - 12:57 PM
Post subject:
Yup.
Notorious_jtb - Sep 01, 2006 - 07:20 AM
Post subject:
Its true, but it is pretty dumb!
TuernRedvenom - Sep 01, 2006 - 07:57 AM
Post subject:
Notorious_jtb wrote:
Its true, but it is pretty dumb!
No it isn't, the idea was to give coaches an incentive to fire players. With cost reducing injuries every Khemri coach would want his skellies to pick up a -AG injury.
Notorious_jtb - Sep 01, 2006 - 10:04 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
No it isn't, the idea was to give coaches an incentive to fire players. With cost reducing injuries every Khemri coach would want his skellies to pick up a -AG injury.
I do agree with the general rule of not reducing a players cost due to injury (using the improvement table increase values as a guide) as its really easy to make players free, like the skellies you mention.
However, it is dumb that an injured player with a rookie stat line is worth more than a regular player who still has more options to improve.
It makes "sense" for an increase which cancels a decrease to have no affect on value.
In fact you could even interpret the rules this way as "No
characteristic may ever be increased by more than 2 points over
its starting value or to a value greater than 10."
So an increase, which returns a player to the "starting value" does not prohibit a further 2 increases. Therefore, this is not a "real" increase and is not an improvement (relative to the starting position) and as a consequence it could be argued that the player's value should not be increased, as only improvements add to value.
I understand the desire to see players be retired, and the new rules are marvelous for that with the spiralling expenses being another tool.
bit of a rant, sorry 
just my 2 cents
JTB
p.s. I actually enjoy seeing crippled players as part of a team though 
So I'd actually be in favour of a system which did reduce a players value if injured but much less dramatically, say by 10% the cost of the gain of stat maybe? Anything to encourage 3/1/2/4 halflings to take the field 
Lycos - Sep 01, 2006 - 10:04 AM
Post subject:
Good point TRV......good point
Xeterog - Sep 01, 2006 - 01:29 PM
Post subject:
But by having a player with a rookie stat line (due to +av and -av) but costing 30k more than a rookie does encourage the coach to retire that 'veteran' for a less expensive, but just as effective, rookie.
there may be other reasons to keep him, but the incentive to retire him is definitely there. Remember, Player turnover is the goal...since there is no more aging, injuries are the chosen way to encorage this turnover.
Also, Bloodbowl isn't about what makes sense (we are playing Orcs and Dwarves and Undead teams), but what makes a good and relatively balanced game.
Xtreme - Sep 02, 2006 - 01:41 PM
Post subject:
There can't be much reason to keep the player. He is 10SPPs from his next skill, while a rookie would only be 6 points to his first. I would think as soon as you have the cash you dump that player for a rookie.
StoutYoungblood - Sep 02, 2006 - 07:53 PM
Post subject:
I don't understand, either. Unless the coach is keeping the wight until a replacement can be purchased.