NAF World Headquarters
House Rules - ALTERNATE AGEING RULE
Wadedidit - May 07, 2003 - 06:56 PM
Post subject: ALTERNATE AGEING RULE
In my league, these are going to be the ageing rules for the next season. I posted this to see if anyone else uses something similar and to find out the general opinion on the subject.
Below is an example of a Lion Warrior in the first game and also our Aged Table.
Example of aged rule ruining a player:
Rookie Lion Warrior first game scores four TDs and the MVP. Ageing roll for first skill, snake eyes, Nig. Second roll a one and two, another Nig. I know this is a rare thing but it has happened and will happen again, how does this even a side up? No It makes a 90k purchase an absolute waste.
The first two skill rolls should be exempt and the first ageing roll be a four or more.
Eg. Below table is our leagues next aging table.
SPP’s Title Ageing
0–5 Rookie None
6–15 Experienced None
16–30 Veteran None
31–50 Emerging Star 4+
51–75 Star Player 5+
76–125 Super-Star 6+
126–125 Mega-Star 7+
176+ Legend 8+
GalakStarscraper - May 07, 2003 - 07:48 PM
Post subject:
My 2 leagues just completely scrapped aging.
Galak
dwarfcoach - May 07, 2003 - 07:53 PM
Post subject:
Hmm, well aging does make sense but I'm not really sure of a fair version, the current one does seem a little harsh...
Wadedidit - May 07, 2003 - 08:22 PM
Post subject:
May be a good idea to take the results to the BBRC in October Galak??!!
Dave - May 08, 2003 - 02:53 AM
Post subject:
this suits me fine but perhaps the ageing should start at 4+ at 31 and 6+ at 51
this gives you the chance to reasonably devellop your team AND cancelles out the loss of ageing effects when changing the table.
Doubleskulls - May 08, 2003 - 04:34 AM
Post subject:
ECBBL just scrapped ageing on the main competiton too. Personnally I don't have a big problem with ageing on 2nd or 3rd roll - but I've seen teams really screwed by getting unlucky ageing rolls early on (one player got -AG on both his throwers in one game).
Gattolardo - May 08, 2003 - 04:55 AM
Post subject:
As I said in the prev. topic..
Keep the rule, scrap the first two rolls.... 
Mordredd - May 08, 2003 - 06:38 AM
Post subject:
I seem to recall someone once suggesting a system based on how many times a player has been injured, rather than games played or SPP earned. I think it would fit better with the idea of a player picking up compounded injuries from too much play. Or should that be pain 
Maybe something as simple as keeping a tally of injuries (after apothecary/regenerate perhaps?) in the INJ column and making ageing rolls after certain numbers? Or make ageing roll after each increase if player fails to roll over their INJ number?
Darkson - May 09, 2003 - 01:27 PM
Post subject:
I think that rule would push the balance to far in far of high AV teams, as they suffer less injuries than low AV (dodgy) teams.
Dave - May 09, 2003 - 04:31 PM
Post subject:
Yeah, that won't work.
I think the current table is about the best thing that does work, only it's kinda sad to have your 1 comp + MVP thrower suffer a -1AG
The rolls should start little later (31+) but not on a 3+ then, perhaps 4+ at 31SPP and 6+ at51SPP
Wadedidit - May 11, 2003 - 06:28 PM
Post subject:
I thought that having expensive players was the disadvantage for the AG Teams. So with the current rule you will need to retire Elves quicker because they gain SPP's quicker and are more expensive to replace.
noodle1978uk - Jul 31, 2003 - 08:32 AM
Post subject:
See our leagues ageing and other house rules (under resources)
at:
http://usitweb.shef.ac.uk/~wargamessoc/whfb/bloodbowl/
p.s. - references to the team "Mordred's Apocalypse" in the Archives *DO* refer to an undead team coached by, Mordredd!
Tutenkharnage - Jul 31, 2003 - 11:29 AM
Post subject:
We don't use ageing here. After 14-16 games per team, we have 3 players with 51+ SPPs among 8 teams.
The trick isn't finding the right ageing rules; it's finding the right combination of all the other rules that could influence team and player growth. Examples include fouling, match winnings, and the SPP table.
-Chet
Doubleskulls - Aug 01, 2003 - 02:51 AM
Post subject:
Tutenkharnage wrote:
We don't use ageing here. After 14-16 games per team, we have 3 players with 51+ SPPs among 8 teams.
I'm glad to hear you are trying the "no ageing" option.
ECBBL has used that for the current season, but after 10 games it isn't enough to see what longer term effect is has. Hopefully by Xmas we will have some more useful data.
Mestari - Aug 01, 2003 - 03:03 AM
Post subject:
Even though I agree that other rules should be the main factor in keeping teams and their players in check, I have to say I like some sort of an aging rule to exist, albeit a very light one.
Something close to what Wadedidit suggested, perhaps add in some results that give aging a more of a "roleplaying" feel. Some negative personality traits etc.
Indigo - Aug 01, 2003 - 03:44 AM
Post subject:
Although I agree that aging is needed, I think Chet's league rules are better. TBH I'm surprised to see so many people supporting this, although that's not meant to be detrimental to the idea in any way!
Ratin_Mutants - Aug 01, 2003 - 05:13 AM
Post subject:
We uses the possibility to heal nig. It cost 1d6 + 50K, and the critter has to be left out for 1d3 matches.
noodle1978uk - Aug 01, 2003 - 08:44 AM
Post subject:
The reason I'm actually all for a kind of ageing (although thats a bad word for it - you don't AGE after 2 games of BB!!) is because we had a situation where teams would get to 400, 500, 600+ team ratings (after a LONG LONG time) and NEVER level off. That was bad IMO
Also - that was 3rd ed and a long time ago.
Now with less winnings from matches and our semi-reasonable "wear and tear/peaking" ageing rule, I think we might find a place, say around 350 - 400 where teams just won't get much BETTER. They will still eveolve but not keep getting BETTER.
Also there was the problem of a 300 rated team not playing its rookies who would never get skills because of this. Now I think we have an interesting (and expensive) training rule to hopefully mean that teams can take deaths and retire players without having to immediately field a total rookie.
GalakStarscraper - Aug 01, 2003 - 09:57 AM
Post subject:
My two leagues the MBBL and MBBL2 dropped aging altogether at the start of our new season. My coaches were pretty darn happy about it and I cannot say that I see my league spiralling to new and incredible TR heights.
The tighter Cash table, FF mods, the increased SPP table, and a revised better Handicap table seem to keep both leagues in line pretty well.
Galak
AnthonyTBBF - Aug 01, 2003 - 11:34 AM
Post subject:
We dropped the first roll in our league. Dunno if it will have an effect or not, but the guys are sure a lot happier.
Quote:
Something close to what Wadedidit suggested, perhaps add in some results that give aging a more of a "roleplaying" feel. Some negative personality traits etc.
I'd really like to see something along these lines.
Tutenkharnage - Aug 01, 2003 - 11:48 AM
Post subject:
The BBRC considered "quirky" bits in 2001 - items like "Bad Back" (roll to stand up), "Bad Hands" (-1 to handle the ball), things like that. After testing this during the summer, we shelved the idea for a few reasons, including these:
1. Each item was individually rare. Remembering which players have which of six different quirks quickly becomes tiring.
2. Some items were rather useless (e.g., "Bad Hands" on a Black Orc). Useless items exist now (e.g., AG -1 on a Black Orc), but they're rare.
The closest I've come with any success is Bonehead, for three reasons:
1. It's a popular mechanic. Many coaches employ Ogres, so everyone understands Bonehead.
2. It universally affects all players.
3. It fits the "max loss of two" clause very well, because a second Bonehead results in a Really Stupid player; further brain trauma is ignored
Mind you, we're incorporated this into our Serious Injury table, a quick-and-easy 2D6 construct that looks like this:
2-7: No effect
8: Bonehead
9: AV -1
10: MA -1
11: AG -1
12: ST -1
No, we don't use niggling injuries; and, yes, we have a smaller percentage of negative effects (by 3 out of 36) than the standard SI table. But niggled players usually play without any effects; in fact, if they're playing, they are by definition unaffected by their "serious" injury. But something's always risky about activating a Bonehead, more AV -1 players result in additional injuries, etc.
-Chet