Obviously I can’t speak for wulfen but as far as I understand the system from his original post you’ve got it.BlanchPrez wrote:
Okay, let me make sure I've got this system down.
Code:
1. Post Game Wear and Tear: All players that played in the game (i.e., were on the pitch) for at least one turn get a Wear and Tear (WAT) point at the end of the game. a. Players with Thick Skull earn WAT points at half the normal rate. 2. Training: Determine which players on your team you want to participate in training. a. Players that are BH or SI cannot train. b. Players with Niggles that train must roll a die. 1=he aggravates his injury and will now miss the next game if he rolls a 1 or 2, not just 1. 2-5=he takes part in training but still has to roll for his injury before next game. 6=the workout does him good and his injury clears up and so he can play in the next game wihtout needing to roll for his injury. c. Players that train get another WAT, and those that don't cannot use RR's for the next game. 3. "Aging:" Aging now affects according to WAT points, as follows. at 30: Gain a Niggling Injury at 40: Gain a 2nd Niggling Injury and reduce by 1 either ST or AG, which ever is higher. at 60: Player must retire.
That about cover it?
How can you say it is? Look, from what I can tell it would work like this:Full-Block, how can you say this isn't complicated? See all the sub-steps listed up there? Lots of stuff to do and keep track of. It's more than just adding two columns to the roster.
1. At the end of the game, add one to the boxes in Column One (the WAT points column) for each player that played at least one turn in the game. That’s not difficult, is it? You don’t have to worry about the whole Thick Skull thing unless you’re coaching a Dwarf team (or if one of your players has the trait of course). (And I’d assume that Thick Skull-ers gain .5 per session/game but I could be wrong... it has been known!
)2. Next, decided who’s training and who’s not. Check all the boxes for those players who did (which will remind you in the next game who can use RR and who can’t) in Column Two (the training column). You don’t need to worry about any player who was BH or SI.
3. If any player has a NI and opts to train you have to roll the dice to see if he gets better or worse. Chances are he’ll stay the same, so don’t worry about it. If he gets better or worse, just scribble a note (maybe a code such as “worse” or “better”) by his row in the roster.
That’s it as far as I can tell. You don’t have to worry anymore at all unless the player gets to 30, 40 or 60 in Column One. It’s not complicated at all.
I would agree that it involves more steps than the LRB aging (which is basically one: roll to see if he ages!
) but I’d still rather have choice than random aging.Okay, I guess I also have to add a zero step (or pre-1) to erase the previous checks in the training column!
And personally speaking, I agree with you that I’d lose the NI thing. That would make it less time-consuming and more approachable/less complex. But I don’t think it’s all that complicated. And I feel the training aspect adds a lot, but you could lose that too if you wanted. Of course, then you’re down to the basic game-based aging system, i.e. one point for each game played, which most people seem to dislike and this would take away a lot of coach choices.By the way, wulfen, I assume you can still voluntarily retire players?
Yeah, I sympathise with that. But I also understand the creation of the training period to bring some coach input and reduce the finality of aging (either ordinary game-based or random aging) and I understand that a Blood Bowl training session would be almost as deadly as an actual game!I've already paid for RR's with cash, I don't want to have my players "age" in order to use them, and I don't like the idea of something making a Niggling worse or better.
Absolutely no idea. I’d guess you roll for each NI but does it matter which is which? All NIs are the same, aren’t they? I mean, you have to roll for each one, there’s no distinction between the two, is there? If you have two and one gets better and one doesn’t, you’d still have to roll for the second, right?What happens in Step 2 when you have more than one Niggle? Do you make that roll for EACH Niggle? If that's the case, that's a lot of extra paperwork to keep track of which Niggle is okay, which is worse and which is normal.
You sense? What, telepathically, or something?Jugular wrote:
I still sense that its a very convoluted and dice roll heavy system.
And it’s not really dice-heavy, is it? Seeing as how you can choose not to roll any dice at all if you want and even if you do it will probably be just a few.I’d agree with this. I’m trying to get some of the other players in our league to try to playtest it but I doubt I’ll meet with success. They tend to dig their heels in with new ideas.Otherwise it has a lot of positive aspects and I think it does approach a slight improvement of player choice and satisfies the label "aging".
I disagree. Under the LRB system, the only choice coaches had about aging was whether to perform an action to give a player the SPPs to get an advance, or in other words, not much. Under the EXP system, there was no choice whatsoever, as any fit player could randomly age at any time (or more accurately, gain experience, and then once past 6EXP age). Under wulfen’s system as far as I can tell, you have the choice not to field a player (slowing his aging), not to let a player train (slowing his aging again), and to make a player train in the hope of healing his NI temporarily. That’s four choices (including the option of performing a SPP-related action), compared to one or zero.I don't see that it is any great leap of player choice though. There is still a great deal of luck involved.
Now this is a very good point and something I missed. How do you deal with this, wulfen? Admittedly, the aging will still effect them (later rather than sooner though) but as you say the coach could slow the aging down. Would you make training compulsory for any player in good health?When a couple of key players get to a high level they can slow their aging process by not going to training as they rarely need to use team rerolls anyway due to their abundance of relevant skills.
I disagree, on so many levels. So far, I’ve yet to see a good handicap system!As you have already mentioned Full_block there are quite a number of in game random aging processes. I think they seem perfectly adequate for the turnover of Star Players given a good handicap system and a pressure from TR growth and monetary problems.
Galak’s point system would be the best but I’d prefer to lose the random nature and increase the number of different handicaps. Actually, I’d really like to see the return of the cards from DeathZone, even with it’s random nature, but that’s just me! I’m glad you like the random aging of the LRB but most people don’t, which is why people keep coming up with alternatives. Added to which, consider my previous post and my comments about game balance between skilled-up players.Ooh, I like this. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still a supporter of having to retire a player at a certain point. But maybe an alternative to the training thing could be to have the option of losing WAT points. Thinking off the top of my head, maybe an Apothecary can remove one (in addition to it’s normal abilities). Or maybe you can pay to remove some (which would cause problems for larger TR teams who don’t have the money).darkson wrote:
@ Wulfen - Is there any way to lose a WAT point? Else that means all players will retire after between 30 and 60 games (depending on injuries and wanting to use RR's of course). Not sure I like a system that means I have to retire a player, rather than retiring if I want to.
Come on, wulfen, let it go and reply! Several people have been nice now!
]