NAF World Headquarters

House Rules - Modified SI Table

Tutenkharnage - May 30, 2003 - 07:51 AM
Post subject: Modified SI Table

Elsewhere on this forum, Indigo said:

Quote:

lol I really like the idea of converting all niggles to bonehead... that'd mean half our league would stand around doing nothing!

My local league uses a streamlined SI table. Here it is, with the focus on the permanent effects:

2-7: None
8: Bonehead
9: AV -1
10: MA -1
11: AG -1
12: ST -1

No stat may be reduced by more than 2 points; a Bonehead who rolls 8 will become Really Stupid instead. (Yes, we have an Ogre with RS because of this.)

My coaches provided the impetus for this table. You'll note that it looks similar to the basic skill table (and very similar to our modified skill table, posted elsewhere). This makes the table very easy to remember.

We removed niggling injuries because (a) nobody likes them and (b) they don't make the player worse when he's actually on the pitch. I've surfed quite a bit, and I've seen plenty of rosters loaded with niggled players. So I have a hunch these players don't get retired very frequently. But Boneheads and such add a lot to the game, and I suspect this is slightly more damaging. On the plus side, the coach knows that the player will show up to play every week, and slightly LESS than half the table entries contain permanent effects (which is a slight bonus).

Thoughts?

-Chet

Indigo - May 30, 2003 - 08:15 AM
Post subject:

Although I am not sure there is a need to remove niggles from the game, this is interesting.

Why not have this as a table for injuries, then when a player ages they pick up a niggle automatically, without rolling for anything? That way really old players will probably not play and will be (quite rightly) retired, whereas "slightly old" players still have a shot at keeping their place in the team.

GalakStarscraper - May 30, 2003 - 09:51 AM
Post subject:

I like it.

However since both my leagues dropped aging altogether. I'd probably modify it so that a 7 was a Niggle.

Galak

Tutenkharnage - May 30, 2003 - 12:01 PM
Post subject:

We've also dropped ageing here. Our fouling is healthy, our attrition is good, and our TR/game growth is still below 6.

-Chet

Doubleskulls - May 31, 2003 - 05:01 AM
Post subject:

I can't say I'm a big fan for increasing the number of boneheads in the game. For one it increases the chances of people "forgetting" and it means more dice rolling. Keep the nega traits to the big guys.

IMO Niggles work fine, but I wouldn't have a problem replacing the D66 with 2D6.

Actually I'd like to see more -Av - as this has the effect of decreasing the player's on pitch reliability and increasing the chances of them getting injured/killed normally

Tutenkharnage - May 31, 2003 - 08:35 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

I can't say I'm a big fan for increasing the number of boneheads in the game. For one it increases the chances of people "forgetting" and it means more dice rolling.

"Forgetting" has not been a frequent problem here. It's self-correcting in two ways:

1. The other team doesn't have more than 1 or 2 Boneheads.
2. You keep an eye on those players.

So it's not much worse than having to remember that a player has AG -1, for example.

Quote:

Actually I'd like to see more -Av - as this has the effect of decreasing the player's on pitch reliability and increasing the chances of them getting injured/killed normally

After 47 games - 94 team-games all told - our coaches have retired ONE player. We've lost 24 to unhealed death in that time. We also have the following players floating among our 8 teams:

ST -1: 1
AG -1: 2
MA -1: 5
AV -1: 11
Bonehead: 6

Remembering Bonehead is no more difficult than remembering most of the usual array of stat subtractions.

-Chet

Mordredd - Jun 02, 2003 - 05:19 AM
Post subject:

It may mechanically work ok, but it has some severe deficiencies in background logic.

A niggling injury is one that never quite heals properly, or perhaps one that recurs easily in training. Back injuries being good examples. It does not affect a persons mobility most of the time, but every now and then immobilises them in agony. The sort of thing that you could foresee happening regularly in a high impact 'sport' like BB.

Bonehead, on the other hand, implies either very low IQ (Ogres) or brain damage (everyone else). Apart from near fatal head trauma this sort of thing takes a long time to build up, yet in your table is more common than the results of broken bones and torn ligaments (-1 MA, AG and ST) which in BB would be much easier to come by.

I think that the injury table as it stands works just fine, and that there is no need to change it.

Tutenkharnage - Jun 02, 2003 - 06:41 AM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

It may mechanically work ok, but it has some severe deficiencies in background logic.

Yeah, but would I be playing this game if I wanted solid background logic? Wink

Quote:

A niggling injury is one that never quite heals properly, or perhaps one that recurs easily in training. Back injuries being good examples. It does not affect a persons mobility most of the time, but every now and then immobilises them in agony. The sort of thing that you could foresee happening regularly in a high impact 'sport' like BB.

Certainly. But my league members have a severe bias against niggling injuries for two reasons:

1. They never impact players on the field.
2. They're too scattershot - you might make all the rolls or miss a bunch, which can severely impact a game.

On the flip side, AV -1 doesn't do much beyond get a player crippled later on. (That's a good thing.) Bonehead will simply put a hole in your plans every so often.

Quote:

I think that the injury table as it stands works just fine, and that there is no need to change it.

Semi-related question: Has anyone ever used an Apothecary to allow a niggled player to play the game?

-Chet

Indigo - Jun 02, 2003 - 07:05 AM
Post subject:

I have to admit, the one and only time I have used it was when a really good star was going to miss a tournament semi final. In my case it paid off and no-one else was hurt more than SI - miss next game, but it is usually a risk I never take.

I've wondered whether something like a niggle could be upgraded to 4+, then you can hire upto say 5 physio coaches, each of which allows a niggle re-roll (but only 1 re-roll per niggle). This then expands the coaching staff area for leagues which is one area I feel is lacking.

skummy - Jun 02, 2003 - 07:15 AM
Post subject:

[quote="TutenkharnageSemi-related question: Has anyone ever used an Apothecary to allow a niggled player to play the game?-Chet[/quote]

Yes, most certainly. A Piling On Ogre was apothed after he failed his niggle for two straight games, and that's just the example that springs to mind the most quickly. Very often this is only done for playoff games.

Indigo - Jun 02, 2003 - 07:23 AM
Post subject:

I think the point is that niggles rarely force people to use apothecaries and as such have a negligible impact on the game.

What about this - ageing only does the following. EVERY time you gain a skill, inc. the first one, you roll for ageing using the existing table. If you age, then before every game you roll a D6 and on a 6 you miss the match. The next ageing result increases this to 5 & 6 and so on until the only way they play is on a 1.

This way you can have an injury table that reduces on field stats, and an ageing system that lowers a players chance of not playing at all cos of creaky bones Smile

Mordredd - Jun 02, 2003 - 08:58 AM
Post subject:

Quote:

Yeah, but would I be playing this game if I wanted solid background logic?

You need to maintain solid background logic in order to decide what fits. IMO Blood Bowl always has. I'm sure, for example, that the Ogre team would be a lot easier to get right if you didn't have to match it to the background.

Niggling injuries are not meant to be popular. In my league any player with a NI is usually only so many games from being fired (about the time it takes to save up for a replacement). Even if they are a real star they are unlikely to be let off with more than 2 or 3.

To answer your 2 points:
1. There's no real reason why they should. IMO.
2. That's just part of the luck of the game. You could just as easily fail a whole bunch of 'first action of the turn rolls'. Really bad luck, and gives your opponent a huge advantage, but still part of the game.

Tutenkharnage - Jun 02, 2003 - 11:05 AM
Post subject:

Indigo wrote:

What about this - ageing only does the following. EVERY time you gain a skill, inc. the first one, you roll for ageing using the existing table. If you age, then before every game you roll a D6 and on a 6 you miss the match. The next ageing result increases this to 5 & 6 and so on until the only way they play is on a 1.

This way you can have an injury table that reduces on field stats, and an ageing system that lowers a players chance of not playing at all cos of creaky bones Smile

It's a good idea - if you allow that ageing is a necessary evil. I'm not convinced that it is. And extra stat reducers and Bonehead entries on the SI table give our league more turnover than niggling injuries.

-Chet

SBG - Jun 02, 2003 - 01:17 PM
Post subject:

Chet: I really, really hope that these two proposed tables will become official ruling as of October, it would make the game better and more interesting.

Fred

Indigo - Jun 03, 2003 - 03:12 AM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

I can understand the idea, and I think it is a good one. However, it is my experience that the really good players that avoid injury become increasingly hard to injure later on as their skills & stats build up. For example, a wood elf wardancer with a few skills (and god forbid a stat increase) is still useful with a -AV or even a -ST. Although -MA might result in a retirement, and -AG certainly would, their lethal skills tend to protect them from harm. Once other players get to similar states then they too are fairly (but not totally) invlunerable.

I think something is needed that can keep these players in check, and IMO ageing (or a similar system) is probably a solution.

Indigo - Jun 03, 2003 - 03:13 AM
Post subject:

this isn't to say I'm opposed to your proposals though, they look interesting and I'd be more than willing to try them out in a league.