TV add by skill name as opposed to category

[mattgslater]

Norse and late-season Amazons would be improved by these rules, I'll agree: for the 'Zons, it's not such a big deal as they often fall behind late in the season; for the Norse, I don't have a fix but I don't think this improves them above maybe bottom-of-Tier-One status. Frankly, these rules are more-or-less the same for Dwarfs, Elves, Humans and Orcs: most of those players start out by getting the upper-tier skills anyway. G-access players go Block first, Dwarfs go Guard, and Elves go Block, Dodge, Side Step, whatever.

It could be set up such that the 10k increase is a one-time thing: if you have any of these skills, you pay 10k extra, and otherwise they're 20k each.

[David Bergkvist]

That doesn't logically follow. All one needs is a single idiot choosing break tackle on their Ag4, Str 3 Elf and you have proven that for this player, block and break tackle are equivalent.

I had an unstated assumption: that we're talking about coaches who know the game. And apparantly, you use this assumption too since you are talking about utility vs cost.

No, one needs to look at how often skills are chosen overall, by the population of Blood Bowl players as a whole. When doing so, I'm willing to wager that Block, Dodge, Mighty Blow, Guard, and perhaps Claw are taken more often than any other skills.

Yes, block, dodge, and guard etc are, on average, better than the other skills. If that is a problem, I'd suggest you tweak those skills rather than change their cost.

(I'm assuming most coaches choose skills based on perceived utility vs. perceived cost.)

But the utility of a skill vary depending on circumstances. If you price skills depending on their average utility, it means that in situations where a skill has higher utility than it normally has, it will be undercosted and you're basically giving out a free bonus to the coach, despite the fact that the coach hasn't done anything that merits said bonus.

The action of a single coach, be he an idiot or a genius, does not have any bearing to the argument, right?

My point wasn't about one coach ("a coach" is not the same thing as "one coach" -- my argument applies regardless if one coach or 100% of all coaches take kick over block).

[Jural]

Yes, block, dodge, and guard etc are, on average, better than the other skills. If that is a problem, I'd suggest you tweak those skills rather than change their cost.

I think that's probably the best choice, I just don't understand why it is illogical to tweak the cost of the skills? After all, I personally like some skills being better than others on the pitch (with cost ignored) and I also like a variety of skills to be in play, Block Guard and Mighty Blow against Block Dodge and Side step can get old

It seems like this idea is at least worth considering... although once again I do prefer tweaking some skills, not tweaking the costs.

[tenwit]

Or you could house-rule aging (sic) back in... No more dwarven block/tackle/guard/mighty blow/stand firm/piling on/strip balling linement then..

[tenwit]

Bwahahahah! Dwarven linement! Those longbeards are smelly injury-creams!

Ahem. Sorry. I meant "linemen".

[Storch]

I would actually suggest an even deeper level of sophistication.

As team development decision are, by definition, made between games, would it really be so hard to simply have a table that say normal skills and has a list with a cost for each, and a column for doubles skills with a points cost for each. Basically each team would have a single page with everything about the positionals as well as the advancement table rather than having 3 teams each getting a little box on a single page.

An added benefit is that it would allow for certain skills to be eliminated entirely as options. I think it would make for much more characterful teams if there were some skills you couldn't get no matter how well you roll. For example, a Minotaur could simply never get Dodge. He's just not smart/talented/coordinated enough. It simply can never happen. While that is clearly an extreme example, a simpler one might be that Dwarf linemen never get Passing skills, those would be relegated to dedicated positional players.

If done right, I think it could really make for more specialized players who have to work together rather than, for example, the standard dwarf or Chaos teams where everybody is pretty much kitted out for hitting with a couple other useful skills peppered in.

[Darkson]

Basically each team would have a single page with everything about the positionals as well as the advancement table rather than having 3 teams each getting a little box on a single page.

From what I recall from the time Galak was making the pdf, the LRB has to conform to a set size that GW use for printing (in the unlikely event we ever get a proper printed rulebook), so an idea that would add approx 16 pages to the book size won't pass muster.

(Yes, I know it doesn't matter in a pdf, but while GW/SG/JJ believe oneday there "might" be a printed version the pdf has to conform to that.)

[GalakStarscraper]

Basically each team would have a single page with everything about the positionals as well as the advancement table rather than having 3 teams each getting a little box on a single page.

From what I recall from the time Galak was making the pdf, the LRB has to conform to a set size that GW use for printing (in the unlikely event we ever get a proper printed rulebook), so an idea that would add approx 16 pages to the book size won't pass muster.

The final Handbook PDF had to be exactly 84 pages. That was one of the rules that JJ gave me. (Note the handbook includes the game's background)

Galak