Another idea to replace aging

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 4:26 am

Here's something to think about for all those who don't like aging, EXP, AF (appearance fees) and SC (salary cap).

I suggested a couple years ago that if we need to increase player turnover, we could simply change the injury table to 2-6 stunned, 7-8 KO and 9+ injured. Nobody (or very few people) liked that.

How about this one then? Change the rule so that you break armour when you roll equal or better than the player's AV. It seems at first that it would be unfair to low AV teams but that's not the case. Sure, you'd break AV7 21/36 times instead of 15/36, a 40% increase. But you'd also break AV9 10/36 times instead of 6/36, a 67% increase. Wood elves playing against orcs will get their AV beaten a lot more often, but now they'll be able to retaliate.

This would increase player turnover for all teams and eliminate the need for aging, etc. Some people will never like any of the proposed systems because they patch the problem by adding a layer to the game instead of fixing it at the source. This isn't the case with this suggestion.

What do you guys think?

gold_penguin · Post by **gold_penguin** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 5:28 am

I would say the biggest difference between the system you are suggesting and a pre or post game mechanic for increasing player turnover is that this means more players will become unavailable during the game. I think low AV teams have a hard enough time keeping players on the pitch during the game.

I also don't think the increase in armour breakage against high AV teams would make up for the fact that AV7 would now broken 58% of the time.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 6:14 am

Yeah, i thought about that too. It's true that in game (as opposed to between games), it would help bashing teams more because it's in their game plan to break the other team's armour and get some players off the pitch.

However, the current aging rule also helps bashing teams more than agile teams. It makes you have to buy new players more often, which is not a problem for bashing teams as they usually have loads of money sitting in the treasury with nothing to spend it on, while agile teams can barely stay afloat as it is without aging, and can't afford to fire players who get old.

I don't think it would affect the balance of the game too much, though it might affect the game itself as you'd likely see fewer players on the pitch at the end of long drives. It obviously needs to be playtested before we can draw solid conclusions.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 9:28 am

IMO your proposal hurts teams with expensive players - by increasing the chance of a KO or injury you increase the importance of having a large squad. Teams with cheap linemen can do this relatively easily while Elves, for example, would get hammered.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 10:19 am

Well, maybe that's a good thing. As it is now, teams that are cheap soon find that they have tons of money, but nothing to spend it on. They have a full roster, but cheap players means mediocre players.

If indeed my proposal would help cheap teams be more competitive, all the better!

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 10:48 am

Zombie wrote:Well, maybe that's a good thing. As it is now, teams that are cheap soon find that they have tons of money, but nothing to spend it on. They have a full roster, but cheap players means mediocre players.

If indeed my proposal would help cheap teams be more competitive, all the better!

Nothing to spend money on - LOL

TRRs and Wizards. Replacing those aged players. There are plenty of things to spend your money on.

From my experience of LRB cheap teams do quite nicely at the moment and don't need any further boost.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 11:59 am

Zombie,

Have you seriously seen an LRB team that was sitting on cash? I haven't that why I ask. Between the lower cash table, increased SIs, FF mods, and skill based aging, I have yet to see a team able to sit around and collect cash.

You mentioned teams collecting cash and since I have yet to see that with an LRB based team that didn't already have said cash from a 3rd edition rollover.

Just curious.

Galak

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 4:23 pm

ianwilliams wrote:Nothing to spend money on - LOL

TRRs and Wizards. Replacing those aged players. There are plenty of things to spend your money on

Wizards aren't worth much in the current rules, and when you start with 5 rerolls like i do with most teams (the last 3 teams i started had 5, chaos dwarf, halfling and amazon), there's really no need to buy anymore.

My chaos dwarves finished their second season with 240k in their treasury, and my amazons already have nothing else to buy after their first season (7 games).

And Galak, all those teams were created under the LRB. And another chaos dwarf team in our league are finding that they have to keep freebooting Hthark and a wizard for meaningless games just to keep their TR low.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 4:53 pm

Gees you must have been lucky my choas dwarf team is constantly having to replace players, or maybe i have been unlucky.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 4:56 pm

My chaos dwarf team doesn't even have a single player with a niggling or a stat decrease (a hobgoblin got a niggling and an MVP once, but i fired him), and neither does the other guy's chaos dwarf team.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 5:01 pm

From what I've seen, Zombie is correct. High armor teams have more wiggle room to stockpile money. Low armor teams are constantly replacing players. My Orc team hoarded 170k while my Skaven have replaced every player at least once, save a single gutter runner. Over the couse of three games, they lost both Storm Vermin and both Throwers. Hopefully a fixed Piling On rule will help compensate for the differential here, as most casualties in our league can be traced to Piling On mummies, big guys and the like.

Effectively lowering everyone's armor by a point does not seem to be the best way to fix this, though. It would probably only make the problem worse.

Cervidal · Post by **Cervidal** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:43 pm

Actually, I wouldn't have much of a problem with what Z proposes on the basis of increased casualties. Turns would actually go faster as more players are taken off the pitch in a heap, and shortening game time is always a good thing.

Where this wouldn't work, I think, is in the current kickoff system. Allowing what is usually three free hits in a lowered AV environment would spell disaster for whatever team had to kick the ball first.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 9:02 pm

What if AV was lowered as you played more games? Would that solve the problem? So after X games played, you got a -1 AV.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 9:21 pm

Zombie wrote:Wizards aren't worth much in the current rules, and when you start with 5 rerolls like i do with most teams (the last 3 teams i started had 5, chaos dwarf, halfling and amazon), there's really no need to buy anymore.

How do you start a Chaos team with 5 TRRs? I make that a minimum of 1020k. From what you said about your CDs you've been lucky. A CD player in our league lost both BCs over 3 games, and they are constantly replacing hobgoblins.

Have you reached 200TR? I have an with low teens FF I'm finding it really hard to get much money together - it all seems to be spent replacing players - and that is with Orcs.

As for wizards - used properly they should stop a TD being scored. Anyone can misuse one and blow it too quickly.

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Mon Dec 09, 2002 10:27 pm

I have been playin wood elf teams mostly. I have also seen what other players playing wood elves have said. It's hard even to field a full team most often.

Ever played against a hafling or goblin team?
Fun isn't it?

I wouldn't want that to happen to my wood elves, (who BTW can't field 16 players.) Not that I ever have that many.

What I'm trying to (and mostly failing at) here is trying to say that lower the AV on teams like skaven, wood elves etc. And you can't play them any more. You would never ever manage to field a full 11 players, except your very first match, or somebody was kind enough to cencede the match for you. probably not even then.

Most teams shouldn't have trouble with cash piling up. With the exception of undead. Between regeneration, and cheap players. Undead can quickly end up with cash to spare.