Talk Fantasy Football

Looking at Galaks list for the rules review, I can't say I feel really strongly about any of the changes except for the two mentioned below:

There are two things that I personally really would like to have in the rules review. Both of these are backed up by examples and statistical data that endure any kind of critical evaluation and the latter is also a widely adopted practice in several leagues.

I wanted to bring them up again with the justifications in order to more effectively campaign for them.

They are:
1. Skill roll -the (2-7,8,9,10,11,12)-table (discussed in "Possible streamlining of skill roll")
2. Passing procedure - roll pass after the accurate roll (discussed in several occasions)


1. SKILL ROLL

There has been some discussion about allowing for example to take a skill instead on 5,6 and 4,6 results.
In addition the fact that traits and anyskills are now tied together has narrowed the room for choice in the skill rolls. I and others have been searching for a way to separate anyskills and traits in order to promote a wider variety of skills.


The best suggestion so far is:
Skill Roll:
2-7 = Normal Skill Access
8 = Normal Trait Access (&Physicals) or Normal Skill Access
9 = Any skill
10 = MA increase or Normal Skill Access
11 = AG increase or Normal Skill Access
12 = ST increase or Normal Skill Access

Merits of this version:
-Increases the amount of off-category skills slightly to 4/36 as they no longer compete with traits and stat increases
-Increases the amount of traits slightly to 5/36 as they no longer compete with any-skills and stat increases.
-Separates anyskills and traits to avoid the competition between them and thus to create two different "which skill to choose"-situations compared to the only one given by the doubles roll.
-Removes the problem with forced attribute increases on 4,6 and 5,6
-No exceptions to remember(doubles mean nothing)
-Looks like the injury table
-Looks like the original SP-roll table
-Higher result is better

In addition, this suggestion (compared to other suggestions on the subject) changes the statistical appearance of traits and any-skills only slightly, thus avoiding the risk of "overdoing" the table so that we'd have leagues with huge amounts of traits and anyskills around.

There has been no evidence to counter the claims above that this suggestion is better compared to others.
This is definitely the way to go with the skill roll table.


2. PASSING PROCEDURE

Situation:
At the moment the interception roll is made before the pass

Problem:
Under current rules, when somebody is intercepting, the likelihood of fumbles drops to (Current likelihood)*(1-Interception likelihood) which makes no sense! Why should someone fumble less if there's somebody making an interception?!?

Example:
Let's say a human lineman is making a short pass, surrounded by 3 evil wood elves. The odds are: 1-4 fumble, 5 inaccurate, 6 accurate. Also, they have no RR available. So out of 24 passes, the odds for different scenarios are:
16/24 fumble
4 /24 inaccurate
4 /24 accurate

Wood elves have a AG5 Catch line-elf ready to intercept.
Under the original rules, the possibilities for different outcomes of the pass suddenly become:
18/24 intercepted
4 /24 fumble
1 /24 inaccurate
1 /24 accurate
which is pretty far from the original, isn't it?

With the solution suggested below, the odds are:
16/24 fumble
6 /24 intercepted
1 /24 inaccurate
1 /24 accurate
Which is pretty close the no-interceptor-odds. The 3/4 likelihood of interception is applied only to the cases where the ball actually flies in the air.

Note: The lower the likelihood of a fumble and the lower the likelihood of an interception, the smaller is the problem. But it is there anyhow.

Solution:
Make the interception roll after the pass roll!

I have not seen any evidence to counter these claims. Simply because there are none.
This, if any rules change suggestion, is a well founded, fully playtested and a more rational one than the current rule.

I must say I like the fact that on a doubles skill roll you have to choose between a trait and any skill.

I think it increases the difficulty of the decision for the coach - and difficult decisions make for more variety and less predictable team evolution.

Ian

personally, i think that in addition to looking at the 'when' of an interecept, the 'when' of modifiers still doesn't sit well with me... i know this horse has been quite beaten already, but i jsut don't like the fact that range mods are figured post-roll, thus making the odds of a fumble by a ag5 player the same as for an ag 1 player... mods should affect target numbers before the roll is made, that troll should fumble quite more often than that elf star thrower...

I agree with Ian and i like him, i like the current skill table better.

And I'm with Ian also ... which means I'm with Zombie ... ... ...

Changing the 10, 11 rolls to also include picking a normal skill roll instead of forcing the stat increase is all I'm looking for as an add on the skill table.

Galak

I´m afraid I like current rules too. I´m with Ian, Zombie and Galak here.
By the way, I´m also with Lucien on the second point.

Teemu you seem to be outnumbered here. I would have to say that changing the attribute increase rolls so that a skill could be picked instead is really all that is needed (I'm sure most people have house ruled this already).

I'm confident that the silent majority is behind me...


The current way is dull. It narrows up the skill selection because in essence you get doubles only 5/36 of the skill rolls (taking something instead of a ST increase doesn't happen often enough) and you have to divide those between traits and anyskills.

The fact that you're forced to choose between them promotes a less varied selection of skills. In the suggestion above there are different skill choice scenarios, namely trait/skill and anyskill/skill. If you get lucky and roll a lot of those results: if you roll lots of traits, you end up with a different player than what you'd get if you roll lots of anyskills or if you roll an equal amount of both. And this means more varied players and overall better game.

In addition, this table does not change the appearance of traits and anyskills dramatically so there's no big change to oppose.

Check out this discussion to see that there are people who'd like something like this to happen:

http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=1352

I realize that I'm in a small minority here, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having to take stat increases. Sure, +1AG seems like it won't help most longbeards or orc linemen, but it occasionally forces one to adapt strategy and player development . . .

What i like is the solution proposed by some guy (i think it was Cervidal or Pink Horror) about a year ago at BBC. Basically, on an 11, you can choose to get +1AV instead of +1AG. Everything else remains unchanged. +1MA is never totally bad anyway.

I like forced attribute increases too, but at the time of that discussion it seemed that the overwhelming majority wants to have the option of giving them a skill instead so that's the why it's there.

I don't like AV increases. Giving them away lightly (2/36 odds) is not the way to go. 1 point of AV means a lot what comes to player attrition through injuries.

Just a point to back up Lucien, in our league we already do our range mods before the roll and not after, it seems to work alot better (only fumble on a 1).

I am afraid I am with the majority in this discusion with the skill rolls, I just want the change of a 4,6 and 5,6.

We could probably have a poll on this, but i have to say i'm with the same old skill roll too. I like it as it is, no need to make it more complicated.

Having had people in our league bemoaning the loss of even the chance of an AV increase I worked out his alternative Star Player table.

Roll 2D6

2-9 As normal
10-12 Roll D6
- 1-2 +1MV
- 3-4 +1AG
- 5 +1ST
- 6 +1AV

Unlike normal stat increases +1AV can only be taken once.

Mathematically, there's not a huge change between this and the official table. (Table ignores using doubles for traits [can you do that?])

Official
+1MV = 1/12
+1AG = 1/18
+1ST = 1/36

My table
+1MV = 1/18
+1AG = 1/18
+1ST = 1/36
+1AV = 1/36

Mestari, it wouldn't be 2/36 though. It's almost always better to take +1AG. I don't think i'd take +1AV more than one in 10 times. That brings it closer to 2/360, or 1/180. Definitely not something that can noticeably affect the level of attrition in general.