Possible streamlining of skill roll.

[Acerak]

Those also look good, Christer. I'm surprised few people have posted anything about the odds - you're right, just about everyone takes ST+1, and a lot of people will take MA+1, I wager. So that means that the doubles rolls and the like get eaten a bit by the stat increases. This is overlap that could probably go.

I like the 2-4, 5-9, 10-12 bit for its symmetry, but I dislike it a little bit because coaches are generally rewarded for rolling higher. (That's not the case on the current table, mind you. I'm just noting a personal bias.) I also like the 2-7, 8-9, 10-12 bit, which also (tada!) mimicks an unadulterated injury table.

-Chet

[Vesticle]

- Fixed Auto Stat Increase (+AG on Saurus!??!)

I think that's part of the downside to specialization or having a specialized team. If you get an AG roll for a Saurus, it's probably worse than if you got one for a human lineman, while if you got an AG roll for a Skink, it's probably more useful than if you got one for that human lineman.

Of course, A) I'm biased, since I like the human team, which lean towards versatility, not specialization and...
B) That's analyzing under the false assumption that the game designers already took that analysis into account, and properly balanced it. We all know that isn't true, or we wouldn't be having these rule changes discussions.

[Pantera]

- Fixed Auto Stat Increase (+AG on Saurus!??!)

I think that's part of the downside to specialization or having a specialized team. If you get an AG roll for a Saurus, it's probably worse than if you got one for a human lineman, while if you got an AG roll for a Skink, it's probably more useful than if you got one for that human lineman.

Yes, true that a allround team doesn't suffer from +stat where you don't want it. A human blitzer would like both +1ST/AG (but if you already had put strength skills on him, you would like +1ST more of course). Anyway, the forced +stat is going to be fixed in the next RR, as per earlier threads that Deathwing pointed out at top of page 5 in this thread.

Also its logical, if you read my reasoning that if you can select any skill even if the player didn't do anythings resembling those in the game, why must you then be forced to take a stat increase even if you didn't do anything agile in the game with the Mummy? It's like the MVP, I never get it on a player who did something good.


Christers table is very good, very easy and should be fast to learn for players. It does increase the probability for "any skill" a bit. But now when Traits are harder to get, and some impossible, maybe its ok? It's not like you are going to get Jump Up on your Ogre anyway.


OT: Is neoliminal = John? It's hard when people refer to real names for a board n00b like me.

[Mestari]

My latest suggestion

Code: Select all

Skill Roll:

[b]2-7[/b]  = Normal Skill Access
[b]8[/b]     = Normal Trait Access or Normal Skill Access
[b]9[/b]     = Any skill
[b]10[/b]   = MA increase or Normal Skill Access
[b]11[/b]   = AG increase or Normal Skill Access
[b]12[/b]   = ST increase or Normal Skill Access

Merits of this version:
-Preserves the amount of off-category skills (4/36) (or actually increases the amount as they no longer compete with traits)
-Increases the amount of traits (5/36).
-Removes the problem with forced MA/AG
-Seems like the injury table
-Seems like the original SP-roll table
-Higher result is better
-Probability change is a light one (important to avoid unexpected implications such as way too increased anyskill access)


STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT SUGGESTIONS

Below is the development of this argument (assuming that stats are always preferred on doubles)

3rd ed
4/36 any skills
26/36 skill(traits included)
PROBLEM: traits available to wrong players (SFirm to Agility players)
FIX: Introduce traits

2k01
4/36 any skill or trait
PROBLEM: Traits are way too rare


FIX SUGGESTION #1 (2-6,7,8-9,10,11,12, i.e. My original)
FIX SUGGESTION #2 (2-4,5-9,10,11,12, i.e. Christer's streamlined [same probabilities])
4/36 any skill (i.e. on doubles)
6/36 trait
PRO's: This one is closest to the current version, simply increasing trait access. A secure option in a way that there are inbalancing factiors.
CON's: People like to get rid of doubles roll.

FIX SUGGESTION #3 (2-6,7,8-9,10,11,12, i.e. John's original)
6/36 any skill,
9/36 trait
PRO'S: The low number of anyskills and traits would certainly be fixed
CON's: There could be too many 'any skills' and traits - people might soon be screaming that there are too many dwarves with dodge.

FIX SUGGESTION #4 (2-7,8-9,10,11,12, i.e. Christer's)
9/36 any skill or trait
PRO's: Table looks like the injury table and is easy to remember
CON's: Any skills and traits are again competing against each other. Also, they are increased by a total of 5/36, which might again be too much.

FIX SUGGESTION #5 (2-7,8,9,10,11,12, i.e. my last - see the beginning of the post)
4/36 any skill
5/36 trait
PRO's: Another suggestion like #1 & #2, which does not change the odds dramatically, thus being a tempting choice. Also, the table is simple and has all the merits listed in the beginning of the post.

---------------------------

Even though the suggestion is mine, I'm not afraid to say that FIX SUGGESTION #5 is the way to go:

Why? Let me explain:

History of Blood Bowl rules changes follow a pattern:
-a flaw is noticed (fouling)
-an 'overkill' fix is introduced (fouling practically disappears)
-a fix to fix the fix has to be introduced.

Now, we should try to avoid that in this case. Even if we want to increase the amount of traits closer to what it used to be in the 3rd ed (see statistics above), we don't want to at the same time give players too many any-skills or too many traits!
The fact that some people can claim that the "system is not broke, then don't fix it" backs me up when I'm saying that the change should be light!
And the suggestion #5 above does it best.
The 4/36 increase in trait access is already a huge (but justified) increase, and at the same time we manage to remove the double-roll exceptions from the SP roll table.

[christer]

You misread what I meant with what you call "fix suggestion #2".
The double-roll shouldn't be anything in particular. 2-4 is any skill or trait.

The thing is, I don't like the idea of having special cases for 2-4.. Doesn't seem to fit the rest of the system too well, as it rewards low rolls.

And while I'm at it, I'll defend "fix suggestion #4" too..

CON's: Any skills and traits are again competing against each other. Also, they are increased by a total of 5/36, which might again be too much.

I believe the real point of the skill/trait divide was to disallow some players getting particular skills (favourite example seems to be jump up on mummies). The current skill roll table reflects more or less what JJ et al thought would be a reasonable way to advance players. Now, back then skills were all equal, and the probabilities for gaining "weird" skills were chosen to keep a low probability of good combos over skill categories. With the new system, some skills converted to traits, I don't believe it would be such a horrible thing to increase the probability of these.

And to be honest, I think there should be more traits. Agility, Passing and Strength only have one each.. I could easily accept mighty blow, hail mary and sprint being moved to traits as well.. Possibly even more skills.. But I'm digressing.. This is a matter which could be discussed separately if anyone's interested...

-- Christer

[Acerak]

Traits were designated as such for three reasons:

1. Distinguish some "technique" skills from some items that were as much mental attitudes as anything else.
2. Limit skill combos.
3. Forbid certain skills to certain players. (The Mummy with Jump Up is the most frequently cited example.)

More than one TalkBB member has painted #3 as the most important consideration during the creation of traits, but the third item in that list is more a function of the first two points than the driving force behind the concept.

I think Teemu's numbers were very helpful. I still favor #6 (2-7, 8-9, 10, 11, 12) but that's because I weight the "looks like the INJ table" factor a little more highly than I do the pure numbers. (In other words, these numbers are very close to other numbers. Given the similarity between the numbers, I think the similarity between the tables compensates for the difference.)

-Chet

[neoliminal]

Skill Roll:

2-7 = Normal Skill Access
8 = Normal Skill Access or Normal Trait 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

This works for me. I would rather not see players choosing between any skill and a trait. This would force more variety in skill choice, which is good IMO.

[Toby]

I think this would really be cool:

Star Player Roll
1-3 Choose a normal skill
4 Pick a trait or choose a normal skill instead
5 Chose any skill
6 Roll for an player statistic increase

Statistic Increase Roll (Statistics may only be increased up to two points over their original value, maximum value is 10)
1-4 Choose to increase MA or AV
5-6 Choose to increase AG or ST

[Mestari]

I still favor #6 (2-7, 8-9, 10, 11, 12) but that's because I weight the "looks like the INJ table" factor a little more highly than I do the pure numbers. (In other words, these numbers are very close to other numbers. Given the similarity between the numbers, I think the similarity between the tables compensates for the difference.)

The similarity between the numbers is not too big, actually:

The problem with this one is the reason why I originally suggested that only traits would be given out on a '7'.

Because this would give a 9/36 chance of getting an any skill or a trait. And the any-skill part is the problem, as that is still the way to skill combos (blodge) that are very powerful.
Every fourth skill that my Longbeards would get would be dodge.
If we increase the availability of non-allowed category skills too much, there is no way telling how much it will affect the balance in the game: the restrictions imposed on player types by available categories would be reduced quite a bit. And probably too much.
4/36 compared to 9/36 means that the appearance of such skills is more than doubled, and I'm afraid that will be too much. A dangerous path this would be.

With (2-7,8,9,10,11,12)-table we increase the amount of traits as Christer, I myself and others want, to 5/36. The change might not seem big, but it is sufficient! They no longer compete with any-skills and the probability is increased too.
Also, we increase the amount of any-skills, but only a bit, as they don't compete with traits anymore with their 4/36.
This increase is already a significant change. It satisfies the need for this change without causing an another problem to fix.

You can imagine the effect of this rule:
1) Replace every trait gained in your league by an any-skill
2) Count the number of any-skills gained and multiply the number by 1,25. Then replace that many ordinary skills gained by a trait!
Think about it - it is a sufficient chance, without being an unbalancing one.

[Acerak]

(2-7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) would also work well.

-Chet

[Thadrin]

Honestly, go away for a few days and they start a huge discussion that takes twenty minutes to plough through.

For my part, I see the benefits of doing away with the "Doubles" rule. I don't however think the odds of gaining anything need twitching. The whole "traits on a seven" thing is merely a new rule that say the same as the old rule. (Doubles for sevens).

I think Toby may have it best myself (Calm down Toby, you're not reading things - I DID just agree with one of your ideas! ). Lets eliminate one die.

1 Trait/any Skill
2-5 Skill
6 Characteristic increase (D6 - MA 1-3, Ag 4 or 5, ST 6).

That said - why does this need changing?

[Mestari]

That said - why does this need changing?

To get more traits while preserving the amount of any-skills taken.

[christer]

To get more traits while preserving the amount of any-skills taken.

This could be accomplished by changing more skills to traits..

-- Christer

[Toby]

Thandrin,

Note that Trait and Any Skill are no longer the same:

Star Player Roll
1-3 Choose a normal skill
4 Pick a trait or choose a normal skill instead
5 Chose any skill
6 Roll for an player statistic increase

This can be discussed i like the choice and the AV increase option:

Statistic Increase Roll (Statistics may only be increased up to two points over their original value, maximum value is 10)
1-4 Choose to increase MA or AV
5-6 Choose to increase AG or ST

[Norse]

I like that one too Toby..

I still feel that +1 to AV should appear somewhere without the need for magic helmets, knee pads or gumshields!

This is already available to Chaotic players via mutations, but I think should also be available to nomal players to represent general toughening up, immunity to pain etc etc..

As AV can go no higher than 10 anyway, it's only really important for Elf or Skaven teams, who would probably rather have the +1MA anyway!

Just my thoughts, but I like the simplicity of Toby's idea above...