How much is a point of "Cool" worth?

[Ikterus]

And finally I notice your question.

I think a decent value would be like double.

[Ergukrael]

Way to make a contribution Mr 7 posts. To think we used to have interesting discussions on this site.

Right, but hang on... it's actually a reasonable point. Adding +1 to a stat is a lot simpler than gaining a kind of half-stat-increase that adds +1 in some circumstances and not others. And when you're working out whether something is worth adding to the game, simplicity is a big plus. So what benefits would there be, do you think, to adding these quasi-skills - bearing in mind we already have both skills that give bonuses/rerolls to individual actions, and stat increases that give general bonuses? And do the benefits outweigh the added complexity?

Toby got what I meant. And FWIW, "KISS" is a well known acronym - I wasn't specifcally trying to infer that Joe needs to roll a dice to see if he can post.

The bottom line is a random player can come up with a whole host of "experimental" or "house rule" skills to fit their need. (Gee, how about "squirm" which gives you a +1 advantage when being fouled?) And while they can be fun, I think they muddy the waters and tend to heavily favor the coach/commis that came up with them in the first place.

BTW, post counters don't matter. If they did, I'd be filling the board with all sorts of inane off-topic and pointless drivel. Ask Da Spammer, he knows I'm quite capable there.

[SillySod]

Perhaps I'm too jaded by the rest of the online world, but I've seen very little here that even begins to approach what I'd call 'trolling'.

It exists, just in a very tame and nancy form. TBB posters are like elves... "I hate the way they Bat around instead of getting stuck in"

I wasn't specifcally trying to infer that Joe needs to roll a dice to see if he can post.

Nevertheless thats a damn good idea. Darkson could roll a dice every time Joe posts. "Oh dear that was quite a good post, what a pity"... delete...

[Joemanji]

My hunch is that in a tournament you'd really have to think about whether to take "Strong" or Block for example.

I would disagree.
Block increases your chances of successfully knocking someone down while staying on your feet by 1 in 6 or 16.7%. With block you will knock your opponent down 50% o the time (assuming no skills) vs. 33% without it.

Strong give you another die on most blocks. When you are hitting that means your opponent goes down and you stay on your feet 20/36 or 55% of the time. Strong is better than Block.

If you are getting hit, having block means you go down 33% of the time. Tough means you only go down 9/36 or 25% of the time. Again Tough is just flat out better.

The point is, compared to a ST+ they are each half as good. Each of these skills is demonstrably better than a normal skill but not as good as a double so, since, a ST+ is 50k, I would say a fair price would be 25k.

Except that Block works on both offensive and defensive block actions. So if you have Block you have a 67% chance of staying on your feet if blocked versus a ST3 opponent. Against the same opponent with Strong you have a 50% chance of staying on your feet. Against a S4 opponent Block lets a player stay up 44% of the time, Strong 25%. So here Strong is worse than Block. By a lot.

Not complicated.

Toby got what I meant. And FWIW, "KISS" is a well known acronym - I wasn't specifcally trying to infer that Joe needs to roll a dice to see if he can post.

The bottom line is a random player can come up with a whole host of "experimental" or "house rule" skills to fit their need. (Gee, how about "squirm" which gives you a +1 advantage when being fouled?) And while they can be fun, I think they muddy the waters and tend to heavily favor the coach/commis that came up with them in the first place.

BTW, post counters don't matter. If they did, I'd be filling the board with all sorts of inane off-topic and pointless drivel. Ask Da Spammer, he knows I'm quite capable there.

Yes, I know what KISS means. It's just a bit patronising to drop in quotes rather than engage with the topic. And here's where the post count bit comes in... especially when noone knows you. In real life would you walk into a room of strangers and start telling them they are stupid (however obliquely)?

And yes any random player can come up with house rules. Its fun. That is what I have done. And I'm asking people how powerful people think they are. The clue is in the title of the topic! I'm not asking for value judgements. Or I would have given the topic a title along the lines of "Do you like these ideas?" It's just basic comprehension.

[Darkson]

BTW, post counters don't matter. If they did, I'd be filling the board with all sorts of inane off-topic and pointless drivel. Ask Da Spammer, he knows I'm quite capable there.

True, met my match on another board (there's a reason he only has 8 posts here...[DELETE] ).


Personally, I think the splitting of AG via skills is a good idea, though not as good as giving every player 2 statlines for AG-tests (yeah, I know, we're not going to redo the rules AGAIN - just because we're not, doesn't make it a good idea). Not that sure on ST, but then I've never really had a problem with it.

In some ways, 2nd ed had far better mechanics than 3rd ed+.


As to cost, it's difficult. My head says "double", but then I doubt they'd be taken that much, so I guess they'd have to be a normal skill.

[Wightlord]

Cool/AgileLooks very interesting, I too miss the times when catchers were actually better at catching than they were at passing.

Strong/tough - These could become no brainer skills very easily, probably need a price somewhere between a double and ST increase.

[thechosengobbo]

Hmm, it's an interesting idea. One that gives quite a level of thought.

On the surface, I like the idea of both 'cool' and 'agile' (I see them as doubles skills, OR using Monkeybowl style skill costing 40k skills).

Though I must say that the idea of 'Strong' and 'Tough' does not appeal to me at all. If a high scoring catcher gets offered a +1ST on a skill roll, AND has the option of picking up tough (even on doubles) it has the opportunity to turn them into a monster, and frankly that scares me (picture Skaven/WE teams developing GR's/Catchers that are ST4 when blocked, I have ENOUGH trouble dealing with them already!).

I can go with the idea of strong, I don't see that being as useful as tough would be, but then without tough to counterbalance I don't see as much point to the skill as before.

[mubo]

Though I must say that the idea of 'Strong' and 'Tough' does not appeal to me at all. If a high scoring catcher gets offered a +1ST on a skill roll, AND has the option of picking up tough (even on doubles) it has the opportunity to turn them into a monster, and frankly that scares me (picture Skaven/WE teams developing GR's/Catchers that are ST4 when blocked, I have ENOUGH trouble dealing with them already!).

Good point, I think you have to see the end of +AG and +ST advances for this to work.
I think strong/tough would be a very frequently taken doubles roll (although the absence of block/wrestle makes it much less effective). 30k seems ok for TV. 1/6 rolls seems rare enough, considering there is a 1/12 chance of getting +1ST/AG which is (arguably) twice as good.

I'd also definately take cool/agile, especially on AG 3 players. Might go some way to making humans (and skaven throwers) more viable as well. This is possibly better value than strong/tough, as if you have an agile blitzer he can doesn't have to handle the ball. Have a cool thrower as a ball handler.

For me, at least a doubles skill, and possibly a dominant option.

[thechosengobbo]

Good point, I think you have to see the end of +AG and +ST advances for this to work.

I wouldn't go quite that far.

Cool, for example, will only really break things open when combined with +1AG on things like Saurus, and BOBs (and who would accept one of those upgrades in the hopes of the other?). Aside from that it'd only really be good pared with +1AG for throwing.

Agile, as simply nowhere near as useful as it looks. Possibly fun for goblin landing rolls, but if it's put in as a double skill choice I see many other choices for the teams with agility/dodging players to take instead (except Humans). Putting it down as a single makes it too powerful IMO.

The strength ones, however, I see getting out of hand. Weak key players would be getting more defence because of tough, and I simply don't like the idea of 'strong' without 'tough' to balance it out (a little

[jammydodger]

a direct answer to the question is;
cool = 35k
agile = 30k
strong = 40k
tough = 40k (might want to put it up to 45k though)


if i'm not going to get flak for explaining and commenting, please read on;
i think these rules would work best if they replaced the +characteristic rolls we currently have, so that you could have a player with an effective +2st with two LUCKY skill rolls.
these are very effective skills and i think that should be reflected in the costs of the skills - hence they are high. similiarly they should be relatively rare otherwise every player is going to have at least one...
i think agile makes two heads kind of useless and removes one of the charming (not sure its the right word) aspects of the creepers. plus if it was a double only i forsee it becoming much more common.
i do like the distinction between the two skills, although i can also understand the KISS point (sorry to raise it again) as this does involve the internal harmonics of the rules and could confuse and complicate things for people not used to the original rules. my immediate reaction was the same as ergukrael (alright, not the same, but similiar) - this is just wierd. actually i think it makes sense and would necessarily complicate the issue much. i don't think it would be necessary to change the stat lines (e.g b.o.b = M4 ST4 T4 A2 C2 AV9) but i think for the first few tries it would be really easy to forget how this works - especially for us post-lrb joiners.

[Darkson]

Don't think 5k prices are allowed.

[Jural]

Joe,

Exactly what are you asking? I can see two questions which you might be getting at:

1) Do you like the advances I just posted?

2) Given the advances I posted, how difficult should they be to get, and how much should they cost?

To answer 1, I really like the concept, although agile might be too much on leaping players. But that's not a knock, just a first impression. Also, +1 strength when being hit combined with guard may be too much...

To answer 2, Grumbledook is spot on. These skills are very similar to mutations, and should be costed and given access to roughly the same.

So off the top of my head, I would propose:

All players can take the skills on doubles for a 30k cost. Humans and orcs can take the skills on a normal roll.!

[Joemanji]

Joe,

Exactly what are you asking? I can see two questions which you might be getting at:

...

2) Given the advances I posted, how difficult should they be to get, and how much should they cost?

That one.

[Khar-peth]

quite a good idea, maybe some teams would need rebalancing though.
Slann teams should benefit of Agile a lot for example...
these new skills on doubles for a 30k cost seems alright to me.

[WildAnimal]

As i see it, its the "old" idea" that agility stat should be split in two:

Agility: ballhandling: Pass, catch, handoff, pickup
Dodge: dodging....simple....

Anyway they makes the game a bit more complex, but really forget all about extra skills, this is what should be done if you want more immersion in the game.