Am I the only person who doesn't like PRO?

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sat Feb 01, 2003 7:38 pm

Had a Gutter runner in our league who was Ag 5, Very long legs, catch and pro.

We all hated him. Was it because of pro? Well Pro did make sure that he never failed anything...at all...ever! He died shortly after gaining pro...was it pro that killed him?

Yes it was.

Poxous · Post by **Poxous** » Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:47 am

I think Pro is a little over rated. It's great if you don't have team rerolls late in a half or for Ints. I certain can see how it helps blocking too. BUT for most players staring out I think other skills are just better.

Ork Dreadnought · Post by **Ork Dreadnought** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:33 pm

I think pro is most valuable in teams that lack position players, Chaos, Lizardmen, the original deathzone teams as a rule. Most of the time these teams need doubles to get a good passing catching player. Since it's general, pro is a really easy way to fill this hole. Flexibility is always desirable in more rounded teams aswell. It's not a game winner but it would be my first choice if I wanted a catcher for an Orc team for example.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:56 pm

I think it has a limited use on the Lizardman roster, as only the Saurii and the Kroxigor can take general skills. If a Skink gets doubles, Sure Hands and Block are going to be much more tempting than Pro.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:53 pm

Gonna be a skill I get for all my MBBL vamps.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:28 am

Ork Dreadnought wrote:I think pro is most valuable in teams that lack position players, Chaos, Lizardmen, the original deathzone teams as a rule. Most of the time these teams need doubles to get a good passing catching player. Since it's general, pro is a really easy way to fill this hole. Flexibility is always desirable in more rounded teams aswell. It's not a game winner but it would be my first choice if I wanted a catcher for an Orc team for example.

Try a gobbo with catch. It only takes one game to give him the 6 SPPs and he has access to agility.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:31 am

Pro is great for blocking and for big guys (since they can't use a team reroll). For other purposes, pro isn't very good, but just these two are enough to warrant giving it as a second or third skill for most blocker types.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 7:44 am

I've noticed the same thing as a previous poster: it's always considered but usually rejected when choosing a skill.

But it's best use definitely lies in situations where you don't have to use a team reroll to avoid a TO - stand firm player dodging, rerolling a push-back (and now with the new SW rules, to start the chainsaw!!!) etc. and as a safeguard when the reroll for the turn or the rerolls have been used already.

Vargtass · Post by **Vargtass** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:46 am

Please correct me if I miscalculate this:

Assume a failed roll (any roll). You use pro to reroll: 50% of the times you succeed and get your reroll for free, 50% of the times you fail the Pro, and use a Team reroll instead to reroll the Pro. Again, 50% of the instances you will receive a skill reroll, and 50% will fail. The full probability tree so far summarizes to 25% failure rate (75% success rate) on receiving the skill reroll, for an expected average cost of 0.5 Team Rerolls.

In comparison, use your team reroll directly on the failed skill roll and get a 100% success rate on receiving your TR for a cost of 1TR.

75% success/0.5 TR = 150% success/1 TR or 100% success/ 0.67 TR

Statistically you would save one third of your TRs by using this scheme.

Still, the application must be judged against the consequences of failure in each separate case, but I would say it could be a strategically sound use of Pro.

Vargtass

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:05 pm

Sounds like a reasonable analysis but as you say the consequences of failing the roll could be too much to risk using Pro (often the case for me) in which case the Pro skill was wasted.

Also bear in mind that by chosing Pro you passed up on another skill, which may have prevented you from needing the re-roll in the first place

Finally for you to be able to achieve this level of efficiency with team re-rolls you would need a large proportion of your team to have pro.

Vargtass · Post by **Vargtass** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 6:48 am

You're right, I would recommend an extensive use of Pro for the following:

- Access to cheap team rerolls, e.g. Dwarves. As noted above, Pro is a good choice on the third skill for Longbeards. The cheap access to rerolls make them plenty. So why use Pro to save them for later? The point is that by the extensive use of Pro, you increase your chances of stopping two possible turnovers instead of one per turn.

- Limited access to rerolls, either by skill limitations or team reroll cost (preferably both). A good example is Undead (classic roster) where the TRs are 70k each and the blitzers (whights) have only general skill access, and already start with Block. Pro would be their natural first skill, if the league composition does not dictate otherwise (e.g. suggesting tackle against an dodge-dense opposition).

In conclusion, I fully agree that Pro should never be considered before a skill allowing you the extra reroll for free, if that skill cover your main use of that player. A ghoul should not choose Pro over e.g. Sure Hands if it is used as a runner. If you plan on using it more variably, as runner, passer, catcher, etc., Pro may be a better choice.

Last, I again emphasize that the extensive use of Pro enables and increase your general chance of stopping two (or more) turnovers each turn.

Vargtass

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:55 pm

Vargtass wrote:You're right, I would recommend an extensive use of Pro for the following:

- Access to cheap team rerolls, e.g. Dwarves. As noted above, Pro is a good choice on the third skill for Longbeards. The cheap access to rerolls make them plenty. [...]

- Limited access to rerolls, either by skill limitations or team reroll cost (preferably both). A good example is Undead (classic roster) where the TRs are 70k each [...]

I don't kow how you play, but when i play dwarves i start with 2 rerolls and when i play undead i start with 4! The cost of your lineman is actually a much bigger factor than the cost of rerolls for determining how many you get.

Vargtass · Post by **Vargtass** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:16 am

I usually begin with 3 TR with undead, and normally advance quite slowly to the fourth. For dwarves my experience is from opponents, who normally advance rapidly Team-Reroll-wise, regardless of their starting number, due to cheap rerolls (80 k post-start) and slow degradation of players (AV 9).

I guess my previous comment should not be applied to rookie teams, rather teams in the 150-200 team rating range (the third skill for longbeards, etc). I agree that the cost of your players (expensive dwarf longbeards and cheap zombies) is quite important, for the rookie team and after during team development as replacements become necessary.

Finally, my recommendations are based on the assumptions that you wish to use the potential of Pro for (statistically) increasing your total number of rerolls over the entire match, and in each team turn. Obviously, your preferred strategy of play may make the above examples invalid.

Still, I would argue that Pro is a good general skill choice for the Wight, but this tangential discussion may be better suited for the team development/strategy section.

Vargtass

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:24 am

Vargtass wrote:I guess my previous comment should not be applied to rookie teams, rather teams in the 150-200 team rating range (the third skill for longbeards, etc).

I usually don't buy an extra reroll until i get above 200 TR. And i've never seen a long beard with 3 skills before that mark either.

Vargtass · Post by **Vargtass** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 9:21 am

I bow to your experience. This is exactly why my analyses needs experienced commentators; I simply have not played enough teams for sufficient time.

Thanks for all comments, as some already noticed there is a new thread in the Team development/tactics section.

Vargtass