61 coaches online • Server time: 20:29
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post Secret League Americ...goto Post DOTP Season 4
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Garax



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 29, 2003 - 20:09 Reply with quote Back to top

Right heres my idea. All Undead players, unless they aren't actually undead, should have the undead skill yeah? Ok, now, since you can't use apoths on undead characters why not balance it out by making it so that players who are undead can't age. It makes sense, since a mummy can't really age. I may get abuse for this, but it does make sense. Anyone agree/have any other ideas?
Calador



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 29, 2003 - 20:16 Reply with quote Back to top

Well, I agree that aging is silly for undead, although I wouldn't use the lack of an apothecary as argument.
Regenerate is still better than 1 apoth (try asking an Undead coach if he would switch Regen with an apoth Smile
Garax



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 29, 2003 - 20:29 Reply with quote Back to top

It is, kinda. 4+ is kinda lame tho. It should at least be a case of being able to regenerate the aging or sumat. I dunno. I'm glad someone agrees tho.
SpIkEdDeAmOn



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 29, 2003 - 20:29 Reply with quote Back to top

Im a big undead player on and off table top and fumbbl. and in my experiance players do not actually age hat often, also you are taking the term ageing to literary, a mummy still cant age yes, but if some one where to bugger his leg he would still prob have the injury, how ever i do see some point, perhaps maybe undead should get a regeneration chance, or there rolls for aging should be different to make it less often??
Ixnatifual



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 29, 2003 - 21:57 Reply with quote Back to top

It doesn't make sense "realistically" that undead age. However, if you remove ageing for undead you are giving them a big advantage. That's it's there. Game balance. If ageing was removed from undead, they should get penalized for it somehow. The point of ageing is to ensure that there's a sort of ceiling for TRs. If you remove it, undead will continue to progress where other teams' TRs stall.
Bendrig



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 29, 2003 - 22:24 Reply with quote Back to top

you're falling over semantics.
instead of aging, call it "wear and tear".
problem solved.

no, I don't like aging, but everybody should be subjected to it. imagine the levels of brokenness without it. thingie.
Korkrest



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 29, 2003 - 22:29 Reply with quote Back to top

elves live to be 500+ years yet they age, ageing is a sign of the injuries you sustain from the rough sport that is bloodbowl, not a sign of your players gettin older.
Garax



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 30, 2003 - 00:27 Reply with quote Back to top

Then the name is bad, ok so Elves wouldn't age either. But theres more chance of an elf aging than a mummy thats already dead or a vampire whos immortal and actually can't age, and can't be injured. Ok I'm not saying remove injuries from Undead, but Aging really makes no sense. Wear and tear would make more sense, but still you have to see my point.

A Vampire aging? Defeats the whole concept, surely.
Nightbird



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 30, 2003 - 00:44 Reply with quote Back to top

Game balance first, fluff second. Saying that an undead player wouldn't realistically age is getting into fluff, not to mention it would make, in my opinion, the strongest team in the game even stronger.

No, taking ageing away for undead would unbalance things. If you want a fluff explanation for undead ageing; say that the necromancers magical raise dead spell has lost a bit of it's strength, thus the undead player is a bit weaker due to this effect.
Christer



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 30, 2003 - 00:52
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

I totally agree with Nightbird. Ageing is a mechanic which has been put there in order to limit the TR of teams.

If anything, I'd want to make players age even more but reduce the number of permanent effects from SIs.

-- Christer
Garax



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 30, 2003 - 13:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Then at least aging should be cut down to cause more miss next games than always niggling your good players. I've just put this point forward on mIRC, whats the point in building up a good team if half of them are just going to niggle and then never turn up?
Quilwood



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 30, 2003 - 13:35 Reply with quote Back to top

If you really hate ageing that much head on over to Talk Blood Bowl and post anywhere in the general board. Its filled with ageing options and rants. Personally I don't mind ageing at all. It makes it hard to keep a good Gutter Runner but I don't mind. Ageing is in the game to make teams recycle players and to maintain a TR somewhere around 200-250. I consider my self a pretty good coach and I find it hard to maintain 200 so I wouldn't mind ageing being toned down a bit.
EvolveToAnarchism



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2003 - 01:52 Reply with quote Back to top

As a coach of a team with 7 niggling injuries, which I think peaked at about 10 before a few deaths. I think ageing does do a pretty good job at capping teams TRs. If I was a sane coach, I'd retire a few more of my nigglers, but can't be an anarchist unless you are unreasonable. I enjoy the suprises that come with not knowing who is going to show up for any given match.
My only problem with ageing is it's impact at high end teams and low av teams when the handicap table is used. I'd never win a game because of the virus. What sane coach wouldn't chose that handicap? Considering that most of the other handicaps don't come anywhere close to guaranteeing a win, virus is a bit too potent. I'd simply suggest a change to "players niggle on a roll of 1 or 2".

I know my beef is primarily because I'm unreasonable (My team is based on the idea that you take on all challengers and you don't retire unless you reach legend status) and because we are playing in an online league, where it is possible for a team to play 50+ games. In tabletop leagues, I doubt that this is much of a problem.

With that aside, my other suggestions are:
1) Don't make an ageing roll on your first skill. I know it's rare to roll snake eyes, but it crushes my enthusiasm for my new star.
2) Only adjust the ageing rules for specific team balance issues. I'm sure with all the data this site is generating it might be possible to see if any teams suffer in league play. The hard part is making the rules consistent with the fluff. For example granting a bonus +1 to the ageing roll for elves would make it hard not to do likewise for the dwarves. Allowing a regen roll for the undead is fluffy, but do they really need it? From personal experience, I'd like to see the norse get a hardy rule (+1 on ageing roll) because combining ageing and all those niggling injuries from the av7 makes it difficult to keep your stars around.

As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism

http://indymedia.org

_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism
Guest





Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2003 - 08:25 Reply with quote Back to top

Undead and ageing is one thing but I don't see how someone who can regenerate could have a long-term niggling injury or ability score loss.
cjohnsto



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Apr 07, 2003 - 08:37 Reply with quote Back to top

It si the mechanics of the game people this is not real life!
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic