Talk Fantasy Football

Chet, JKL, and I fully reviewed all the teams that have played under LRB rules for more than 20 games and those teams would be topping out a really good TR level if the Niggled/Aged players were begin retired (which they clearly were not).

Basically this means that the new SI table and the aging rolls are working perfectly. The effects of these changes just need more UMPH! .... so which UMPH! would you prefer to have made.

Oh and I left off the no change is necessary option on purpose. You can work with the system or rail against it. The vast majority of folks agree that the aging system is almost working and just need tweaked. So rather than complain about aging ... just tell us which method would be the most preferred to you.

Galak

since i made up that table (with help of course) I think it'd be silly for me not to vote for it.

Nigglers are too common as a current aging result. I think movement downgrades "He's lost a step", or armor downgrades "He's just can't take that punishment forever" should be just as common...that's why I made the table as I did.

I don't like the +1 to all injuries, armor downgrades do the same thing, are easier to document on the stat sheet, and aren't really warranted.

Actually what I would say is make the aging move back a skill...aka no roll on first skill, 3+ after 2nd skill, and so on.

Now, as for changing how a niggling injury works, that's for another poll but I think it'd be a good one too.

Gee we have a slightly even distribution of opinion as of my vote...

1/1/1/1/1

Rolling at the end of every half for each niggling injury is fine, but I have to say that once every drive seems a bit harsh. Espescially for teams that score relatively often. That would be a very unbalancing effect. Some teams only TRY to score once or twice a game anyway, while others go for at least 3. You'd have dwarves with nigglers playing the whole game easy, while wood elves with nigglers would be lucky to make it to halftime. (In an "average" game)

wesleytj wrote:Rolling at the end of every half for each niggling injury is fine, but I have to say that once every drive seems a bit harsh. Espescially for teams that score relatively often. That would be a very unbalancing effect. Some teams only TRY to score once or twice a game anyway, while others go for at least 3. You'd have dwarves with nigglers playing the whole game easy, while wood elves with nigglers would be lucky to make it to halftime. (In an "average" game)

If I had a player roll a 1 for niggling at the start of the game, would an apothecary make the player ok for the entire game (as if they didn't have a niggling injury) or would they have to roll again at the half/next drive?

I really like the proposed aging chart and also the idea of removing the aging possibility for the 1st skill up. Keep the aging as is otherwise (4+ 2nd skill, etc). I've suffered two 1st skill agings (bad dice). It made for a tough season on key positional players.

I don't like +1 to injury at all. Cheap SPP in my opinion.

I personally don't find anything wrong with aging as is. In the TBBF, the general concensus is that after about 2 nigglers, coaches are retiring players unless they are superstars. Most of us want some reliability from our squads. I don't think that more UMPH is needed.

If the rules are "Working perfectly" then why change them at all? If people aren't retiring their players that's their choice to play with a less than perfect player. If the idea is to modify the rules to the point where a coach is basically forced to retire a player or live with a useless player then I have to say that's a step in the wrong direction.

My opinion hasn't changed since aging was introduced a year ago. I'd like players to have a bigger chance of aging on every level up (up to 100% or almost at level 7), but each aging effect made less drastic. That way you'd have a more even distribution.

Zombie wrote:My opinion hasn't changed since aging was introduced a year ago. I'd like players to have a bigger chance of aging on every level up (up to 100% or almost at level 7), but each aging effect made less drastic. That way you'd have a more even distribution.

I agree with Zombie.

Zombie wrote:My opinion hasn't changed since aging was introduced a year ago. I'd like players to have a bigger chance of aging on every level up (up to 100% or almost at level 7), but each aging effect made less drastic. That way you'd have a more even distribution.

I disagree with Zombie.

To be more specific, in my high elf team that I run in Galak's MBBL2, no player has more than 2 skills, but my Phoenix Warrior developed a niggle on his second aging roll and a Lion Warrior developed one on his first aging roll. In my opinion, there shouldn't be more aging happening on the first few aging rolls. I would, on the other hand, be quite happy if the aging rolls got more severe later on.

I suggested something like 2+/3+/5+/7+/9+/11+/12+ as a progression, so you always got the first skill without aging, but from the fourth skill the aging roll was more strict than the current version. Nobody liked it much.

Cheers,
Martyn

martynq wrote:I suggested something like 2+/3+/5+/7+/9+/11+/12+ as a progression, so you always got the first skill without aging, but from the fourth skill the aging roll was more strict than the current version.

I had a similar idea and it got met lukewarmly. I'd fully support that sort of table.

I for myself would prefer an retire-system. The aging seems a bit silly for elves and far mor silly for dwarven teams.

For wear-out effects the injury system suffice from my point of view.

A roll for each season or bundle of games to check if the player thinks of retirement (one which can be modified by extra cash you pay the player to stay - this would give you a bit more control which player you want to stay and which you won't mind to loose)

"aging" has always been a problematic euphamism, relborn, people seem to think it has something to do with age, when really, it is just how much abuse your body has taken playing the game...

galak, you just left out wayyyy too many permutations... i mean, two that i would be likely to have voted for:

- roll before each drive, sit out _this drive_ on a 1
and
- change niggles so you once for all your niggles, and must roll over teh number that you have (so, if you have 3, you need a 4-6) in any of the various permutations of when you roll for niggles...

etc and so forth...

prolly a better discussion topic than poll...

I don't like the concept of ageing !
So don't niggling injuries for that !
So I vote for the new ageing table

martynq wrote: To be more specific, in my high elf team that I run in Galak's MBBL2, no player has more than 2 skills, but my Phoenix Warrior developed a niggle on his second aging roll and a Lion Warrior developed one on his first aging roll. In my opinion, there shouldn't be more aging happening on the first few aging rolls. I would, on the other hand, be quite happy if the aging rolls got more severe later on.

On the other hand, Ageing hits taken when your TR is low tend to be easy to remedy (fire and forget). You have the cash to buy new guys. The reason these rolls exist for the lower levels is so that when you get really high TR, you have a tougher time building up players.

I suggested something like 2+/3+/5+/7+/9+/11+/12+ as a progression, so you always got the first skill without aging, but from the fourth skill the aging roll was more strict than the current version. Nobody liked it much.

I've got no problem with a roll like that.