TV add by skill name as opposed to category

[mattgslater]

How much more difficult would it be to have two different pricing levels (20k and 30k) by skill, rather than a normal/doubles price? That way, Block, Dodge, Guard, Side Step, Mighty Blow and such could always be 30k and less powerful skills would be 20k. Would this reduce the amount of bitching about the best, unchangeable skills? I understand that it would create a lot of controversy over which skill is in which category, but a two-tiered system does make balance a lot easier.

[tenwit]

Wouldn't you also want to keep the idea of some skills being more valuable to some positionals? Multiple Block is always going to be useless on a snotling, but it's a great skill on a treeman. Not many mummies would ever want Safe Throw.. and Deathrollers probably would prefer to avoid Sure Hands (unless maybe they won the Chaos Cup twice, picking up an Extra Arm each time? )

For house rules, I think that it's a great idea, but I'd go with 3 pricing levels, and keep the current singles/doubles. Singles/cheap = 20k. Singles/expensive = 30k. Doubles/cheap = 30k. Doubles/expensive = 40k. That'd also make TVs rise faster, meaning more Random Event cards for gobbo teams.. yay!

[Joemanji]

Interesting idea, indeed. For the sake of argument, the cons would be:

i) The current system was designed in a way to simplify and remove exceptions. Hence the removal of traits. This seems like a step backwards in this regard.
ii) Are these skills always worth 30K? Guard on a beastman worth as much as on a CW? Side Step as good as Block? MB, really? PO is harsher. etc...
iii) There will always be a skill that is seen as being the "best value". Overprice Block etc and something will take its place (maybe Wrestle).

However, I think this sounds like a very interesting idea.

[tenwit]

i) The current system was designed in a way to simplify and remove exceptions. Hence the removal of traits. This seems like a step backwards in this regard.

That's why it'd be a house rule. And not one that I'd use myself: I prefer to devalue other people's skills by getting other skills that break theirs (which is why I'm currently liking wrestle, as it completely devalues block, and hopefully encourages a few more people to get juggernaught, or however that word gets spelled on the other side of the pond).

However, I think this sounds like a very interesting idea.

Me too. But adding complication usually does make it more interesting, on paper (or monitors). The downside is the extra hassle in tabletop games.

[Joemanji]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't got more attention. If pointless waffling about Dwarfs can get 40 pages...

Ok, so having thought about it, the issue (this thread is addressing) seems to be Block, particularly in combination with skills such as Guard and MB. Is anyone really saying a Beastman with Guard needs to pay a premium? But once he gets Block too he leaps up a level in effectiveness. Add on MB and he becomes a uber-reliable star player. However, does he really need to pay a premium on all these skills? Are they really worth 90K in combination? Is such a player really worth more than (say) a Chaos Warrior with Claw and Piling On?

Dodge and Side Step are already doubles rolls for most players, and so a premium comes built in. The main exception being Elves of course, and they don't have access to ST4 players or ST skills (such as Guard and MB). Blodge really is their selling point, and they are overcharged on TV anyway. The other exception is catcher types, but they usually come with lower ST and/or AV, and so have built in disadvantages. Blodge on a Black Orc already costs more than on an Elf or GR, which I guess could be seen as an indication of a well designed game.

So that leads me to thinking, would we have to "tax" these combinations rather than the skills individually? Let the first cost 20K, but make the next cost 30K? But that would be patch-y and complicated. But what is the real deal breaker in these combinations? Well, it's Block again. MB and Guard only become grade A skills on a player with Block.

So, why not just charge the 10K premium for Block? Simpy add (something like) this line to the skill description: When taken from an Improvement roll, a player must always add 30K to his cost when taking Block, as if he only had access to it from a Doubles category. This charges a small premium, and gives some incentive to coaches who want to pick something other than boring old Block. However, it doesn't overly penalise coaches who simply want to pick effective skills. They exist in the game, and as such it seems churlish to disapprove of coaches for taking them.

[Rab]

While I understand why you would want to increase a sliding scale for skills and their combinations (block, dodge, sidestep, nerves of steel elf catchers, anyone?), I think that as an approach it would only ever work in house rules - the increased level of complexity would be a retrograde step imho.

However, Joemanji's Block suggestion is straightforward and might lead to a more interesting range of first skill choices in a tight TV league...

[edit] On the other hand, uber-skills (like Block) do have counter-skills, as tenwit points out. Like Wrestle and Juggernaught, Tackle to cancel Dodge etc.

[Joemanji]

On the other hand, uber-skills (like Block) do have counter-skills, as tenwit points out. Like Wrestle and Juggernaught, Tackle to cancel Dodge etc.

True, although there is the argument that this only exacerbates the Block/Dodge arms race. Not only must coaches get these skills asap, but they must then get their counter-skills too. This leaves even less room for other skills to be taken.

[stormmaster1]

personally i don't see any skill as overly powerful usually. The problems come when skills are taken en masse. Take dwarfs for example. guard isn't broken, but comes close when both blitzers and 5 longbeards have it. Or 7 players with mighty blow? Same with block, dodge and others.

[Joemanji]

There is some truth to that, unfortunately. It would be far to complicated to compensate for that precisely.

[Darkson]

Perhaps go back to one of JJ's original ideas for PBBL?

"If a player chooses a skill [from earning SPPs] no-one else may take the same skill until all players have learnt a [different] skill."



[j/k]

[Snew]

How much more difficult would it be to have two different pricing levels (20k and 30k) by skill, rather than a normal/doubles price? That way, Block, Dodge, Guard, Side Step, Mighty Blow and such could always be 30k and less powerful skills would be 20k. Would this reduce the amount of bitching about the best, unchangeable skills? I understand that it would create a lot of controversy over which skill is in which category, but a two-tiered system does make balance a lot easier.

Oh I can hear the cries of the Dwarf coaches now... You want to charge extra for the only skills worth taking...yadayadayada...

[Jural]

Oh I can hear the cries of the Dwarf coaches now... You want to charge extra for the only skills worth taking...yadayadayada...

Those would be some stupid dwarf coaches, as now the elf teams they are going up against would be paying a premium for skills which bring them up to par with the dwarf (block) or are useless against them (dodge.)

A line of 5 blodge High Elves would be worth an amazing 130k x 5 =650k under this scenario..., and be almost completely useless against the dwarven front which was 50% unskilled and 50% with guard.

No, many teams could complain about this change, but teams which start with the more expensive skills (dwarves, amazons, Norse, Lizardmen, as well as orcs, humans, and Dark Elves) should be thrilled- they already get skills at a discount, by keping their cost the same and increasing the cost for others to get the skill, they are getting a damn good discount!

[fen]

Yeah, the system would benefit Norse, Dwarfs and Zon's a lot. While really kicking the heck out of teams that start without skilled players, or with very few positionals (i.e. Chaos)

If you put a premium price on say, Block. You'd have to up the price of every player that starts with it. Or remove it from them altogether. (I prefer option two )

[David Bergkvist]

If a coach chooses, say, kick over, say, block, then obviously kick is better than block on that particular player (otherwise the coach wouldn't have chosen it). Therefore, there is no need to price certain skills higher than others.

[Jural]

If a coach chooses, say, kick over, say, block, then obviously kick is better than block on that particular player (otherwise the coach wouldn't have chosen it). Therefore, there is no need to price certain skills higher than others.

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.

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.

This could mean that they are too good, or that they are underpriced (I'm assuming most coaches choose skills based on perceived utility vs. perceived cost.)

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