Aging modification

Cervidal · Post by **Cervidal** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:23 pm

No one likes that their player gets worse when aging happens. What about a player failing their aging roll simply doesn't get better?

Take the current aging chart and roll for aging just like you would with a player, but make sure to roll it before you roll for skills. If the player fails their aging roll, they don't get a skill.

Their SPPs still count against the team's TR, so these aged players are a burden on the roster. They'll likely still stick around, especially if they have two or three skills, however, as they would be a real pain to replace.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 9:11 pm

That's kinda like peaking them but still allowing them to earn SPPs even though they can't use them. Interesting, but is a contradiction to the rules (peaked players can't earn SPPs).

zeroalpha · Post by **zeroalpha** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:15 am

Do you then get another roll when you get to the next level?

So you would effectively "miss" a skill?

Good idea, not sure how it would pan out. It would still be really annoying however. Especially for players like lineman who take awhile to advance. Would you prefer a lineman with a niggling injury and block, or a lineman who has missed a skill? its a pretty tough call i think, would certanily make things very interesting

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:34 am

i personally think it's a great idea...i'd take that over the current aging any day, and i think most rookie coaches would too.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:11 am

Doesn't solve the problem of early aging or the fact that players don't like aging linked with getting a skill

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:42 am

(peaked players can't earn SPPs).

Dont forget that used to be the standard rule, after they clarified it, just b4 they got rid of the special play cards.

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 2:33 pm

I think he was saying that they just miss this skill. THey still need to earn SPPs because they'd be eligible to roll again at the next skill level.

I've kicked this idea around a few times too. I think I may have even proposed something similar once. As such, I find it simple and elegant. Just the sort of mechanic this game needs to replace aging.

Either that or I liked the EXP based aging too.

Cervidal · Post by **Cervidal** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:55 pm

I meant that they simply don't get a skill for <i>that</i> skill.

For example, my HE Lineman with Block/Dodge rolls a 4 for aging on his third skill. He does not gain a skill/trait/stat upgrade. At 51 SPPs, my HE Lineman rolls 8 for his aging roll, meaning he rolls for a skill as normal.

Yes, it would still be annoying if a player aged on their first skill. So what? It's an ugly sight when a player you just sign gets a stat decrease from injury in his/her first game. Bad stuff happens in Blood Bowl!

What this would do, instead, is make it unlikely to ever achieve a seven skill player because that player isn't talented enough, not because s/he's too beat up to go on. This also takes away the 'punishment' of getting a skill, like what recently happend to Zombie's troll.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:29 pm

OK, so I misread what you meant, I guess that's not so bad.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:57 pm

Not bad, and that would increase the "dead weight"-effect from SPP's that the player causes.

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:37 pm

That what I was thinking too. It adds to the elegance of it. Simple and effective, it sounds.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:54 pm

Quite like this idea, though I'd advocate voluntary peaking be included.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:57 pm

Grumbledook wrote:Doesn't solve the problem of early aging or the fact that players don't like aging linked with getting a skill

Well, you could link ageing with played matches instead. Apply the Ageing table, but roll after, for example, 10-20-30-etc. matches rather than for each level. Not too much bookkeeping involved IMHO.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:46 pm

People don't like aging linked to games played either. In fact, i believe that they like that even less. The EXP system for example is very controversial at the moment.