128 coaches online • Server time: 22:31
* * * Did you know? The best blocker is Taku the Second with 547 casualties.
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post BB2020 Icon and Port...goto Post BB2020 - Current thi...goto Post New Rules breakdown?
Last seen 4 hours ago
Chaos Chosen
Emerging Star
Chaos Chosen
Win Percentage
Dark Elf
Dark Elf
Win Percentage
Emerging Star
Win Percentage


2020-08-01 01:51:16
rating 5.8


2018-07-29 00:27:56
rating 4.8


2016-02-24 23:51:07
rating 5
2016-02-18 19:48:31
rating 3.1


2013-03-23 20:41:13
rating 2.7


2012-11-20 19:23:15
rating 4.6
2012-07-19 13:01:15
rating 4.4
2012-07-18 09:38:15
rating 4.8
2012-02-29 14:31:25
rating 1.3


2011-12-11 00:35:00
rating 5.2
2011-11-15 08:30:29
rating 3
2011-11-11 08:48:18
rating 1.7
2011-05-11 00:59:03
rating 4.1
2011-04-20 01:13:41
rating 3.9
2011-04-11 00:00:46
rating 2.8
2011-02-24 10:30:07
rating 4.6
2011-01-18 13:30:46
rating 3.4


2010-10-02 18:05:51
rating 2.5
2010-09-23 19:23:54
rating 2.8
2012-02-29 14:31:25
13 votes, rating 1.3
Alternative Attrition : Updated Aging
I didnt mind aging too much. I just didnt like the fact that it could hit players after their first skill.

What if aging were based upon games played as opposed to skills gained?

That way, after a certain number of games a player would make an aging roll regardless of skill progression?

Each race could have a different aging profile which could be adjusted to either fit the fluff or balance the teams. (as elves can get lots of spps quickly where as orc maybe less so)


Race : Orc / Elf / Chaos
Aging Roll 1: 10 / 7 / 15
Aging Roll 2: 19 / 17 / 25
Aging Roll 3: 27 / 27 / 33
Aging Roll 4: 34 / 32 / 40
Aging Roll 5: 40 / 38 / 47
Aging Roll 6: 45 / 50 / 55

In this way one could assign an attritional rate to a team over time as aopposed to people opting to not skill players as they would have to age roll.

Just a thought, any feed back welcome
Rate this entry
Posted by Woodstock on 2012-02-29 14:41:22
Yeah... no... Biased as hell this...
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2012-02-29 14:48:06
Ageing was a god awful mechanic.
Posted by Raughri on 2012-02-29 15:19:59
If you were going to bring this in (which I don't think would be a good idea) it would have to be an equal number of games for every team, otherwise there is no way you could introduce this.
Posted by stej on 2012-02-29 15:24:09
Could maybe someone elaborate on why the bias would cause an issue? Vs old aging, fast to skill players hit the rolls a lot earlier. Having different aging rates for each race would account for some of that surely so wouldnt be more biased in any way?

I appreciate this wouldnt work in isolation as other methods of attrition are in play in the new rulesets.

I'm all for people feeling it wont work but would like to see an example or something explaining it a bit more
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-02-29 15:32:58
I like the tought process behind this, not sure of the implementation and I'm not sure I'd like to see aging back at all.
Posted by uuni on 2012-02-29 15:34:26
What harvestmouse said.
Posted by Raughri on 2012-02-29 15:54:17
A simple example Stej.

How would you decide when Lizard players age, seeing as Skinks skill quickly and Saurii slowly.

If you divide the two onto different ageing schedules then shouldn't there be different ageing schedules for all teams (Orc Blitzers and Black Orcs?) (Linemen and Catchers?) (Big guys and marauders?) (Chaos Warriors and Beastmen?) (Mummies, Zombies and Wights, Ghouls?).

This all adds unnecessary complication to the process of basically trying to stop players living forever.

For it to work all teams would have to be on the same ageing structure which is also inherently unfair because some players do take longer to skill than each other. Which is why everyone was on the same ageing structure in the first place and why it was based on skill development rather than number of games. However as you can see from what other people have posted, it was not particularly popular.