BB2016 Rules - Seasons Completed start at zero or one?

[Lyracian]

Salutations Readers,

I can not see anywhere in the new rules where it says what the starting value for "Seasons Completed" is? I was thinking that since it says 'completed' not 'played' it would start at zero which would mean you are only rolling to see if players 'Want to retire' when re-drafting for your third season?

[dode74]

I think one. A "season" is until the final match of the playoffs (the Seasons's End period), then you're in the off-season to carry out redrafting. At that point you've completed one season and are in your first off-season.

[Regash]

I think otherwise, dode74.
A season is completed when the playoffs and finals are done. That makes sure that you can at least have a young, fresh rookie player for 2 seasons before he thinks about retiring and requires the 20.000 GP extra to keep him.

On page 26 of DZ it says:

For each player that has completed at least two seasons, roll a D6...

I think it meanst that you actually have to worry about players retiring when you redraft them for their 3rd season, not their 2nd.

I'd say, rookie players start with a value of 0 when hired for the first time, playing their 1st season.
The stat is called "seasons completed", not "currently playing in season".

[dode74]

I think we are talking at cross-purposes: I agree that the first roll is after two playoffs have been completed. That's what I meant by starting at one: you've completed one season in the first off-season, and two seasons in the second off-season, the off-season being the period after the playoffs are complete and before the first match of the next season.

[Regash]

So you agree that a just hired rookie player has a ZERO/blank field as starting value?
If yes, then we talk about the same thing.

[dode74]

On hiring, yes.

It begs the question: if a rookie is bought midway through the season does he get a 1 at the end of the season? After all, he didn't complete the season

[Regash]

Well, that would turn up another question:
How many games do you actually need for a season?

Small leagues with only 4 opponents have the same problems with retiring than larger leagues with a lot of games per season, although their players can get a lot more SPs and skills before they decide to drop the ball for good. Unfair?

[CyberedElf]

It's fair as long as teams from different leagues don't play each other. It is just a different environment.

[Wylder]

Well, that would turn up another question:
How many games do you actually need for a season?

Deathzone recommends 7 or 8, I think.

Small leagues with only 4 opponents have the same problems with retiring than larger leagues with a lot of games per season, although their players can get a lot more SPs and skills before they decide to drop the ball for good. Unfair?

If you've only got 4 players in your league, they should all play each other twice.

[Regash]

You are all assuming that teams tay in the same environment for ever and ever.
I don't think they do, at least, some of my teams were playing in different environments, although those were oneshots without results being carried over.

Oh well, what do I care? I'm not using the new rules anyway and I don't play a lot these days.

[Vanguard]

How many games do you actually need for a season??

Don't have Deathzone to hand to confirm, but sure there's a quote in there about 'typical' leagues being 8-10 teams playing each other twice. So a standard season would be 14-18 matches plus friendlies and play-offs.
Our current league will be ten matches, so I'm tweaking the re-draft values up slightly to accommodate that. Not planning to alter the Wants to Retire rules as I don't see it being a big impact on our league. Teams don't tend to go much past three seasons in most cases.

[siggyllama]

It begs the question: if a rookie is bought midway through the season does he get a 1 at the end of the season? After all, he didn't complete the season

This is the real question! I think the phrase "number of seasons they have completed" is ambiguous. Does it mean:

(A) the player was on the roster for the completion of the season (even if they were only hired for the Finals)?

or

(B) the player was on the roster for the complete season (i.e. on the roster for Week 1)?


I'm inclined toward A, unfair as it seems, because otherwise you risk shenanigans with coaches waiting until Week 2 to buy that positional just to lower risk of retirement.

And bonus question: I'm assuming that once a player Wants to Retire, the effect is permanent (you don't roll again next offseason). Is this correct? The rulebook doesn't say explicitly.

[CyberedElf]

It only seems ambiguous because people are confusing "complete" used as an adjective vs "complete" used as a verb.

having all the necessary or appropriate parts.

finish making or doing.

Verb use is about the ending not the entirety.

And bonus question: I'm assuming that once a player Wants to Retire, the effect is permanent (you don't roll again next offseason). Is this correct? The rulebook doesn't say explicitly.

It explicitly says to make a change to the roster when they Want To Retire. Nothing ever talks about changing it back. (As compared to MNG ticks.) Do you need a better answer?

[dode74]

Depends on the subject, I think. Does it mean "seasons that player has completed" or "seasons which have been completed". The incomplete phrase "Seasons Completed" leaves that ambiguous.

[siggyllama]

It explicitly says to make a change to the roster when they Want To Retire. Nothing ever talks about changing it back. (As compared to MNG ticks.) Do you need a better answer?

You're right, it never says anything about "unticking" the Wants To Retire box.

But, under Resolving Downtime, it does explicitly say to roll for each player that has completed at least 2 seasons, to see of they Want To Retire. It doesn't say to roll only for the players that don't already have a tick in that box. Why roll for a player more than once, ever, unless that box gets reset? That's where the ambiguity arises.