Jervis Johnson Blood Bowl Player Cost Formula

Roster Player Comparison

With more and more player positions being added with the new releases, I thought it would be interesting to have a look at how they hold up compared to the old positions. I had a dig around for the old Jervis Johnson formula that was originally used to cost up players. I know this was several editions ago but still seem to hold value. 

I then sat down and got up to speed with handling and searching arrays in javascript and doing a bit of spread sheeting in html and to have it interactive, giving it features such as sorting. 

I don't see why I wouldn't be able to present my findings here, since games workshop has released the 'Blood Bowl Head Coach's Handbook Team Rosters' available for free download at the Warhammer Community site. 

I would appreciate any feedback and suggestions that I could implement once I've cleaned up the css.

We need a starting point so lets start with:

Human lineman as the standard
Cost 50 000 = 5
Removing some zeros to make things easier to work with.

AV 8

Jervis Johnson Blood Bowl Player Cost Formula
+5 base 


MA2 = -4 
MA3 = -3 
MA4 = -2 
MA5 = -1 
MA6 = 0 
MA7 = +2 
MA8 = +3 
MA9 = +4 

ST1 = -6 
ST2 = -3 
ST3 = 0 
ST4 = +6 
ST5 = +9 
ST6 = +12 
ST7 = +18 
ST8 = +21 

AG1 = -4 
AG2 = -2 
AG3 = 0 
AG4 = +2 
AG5 = +4 
AG6 = +6 
if AG>3 & ST>3 = +1

AV5 = -4 
AV6 = -3 
AV7 = -2 
AV8 = 0 
AV9 = +1 
AV10 = +3



Positive skills (and mutations) are all +2 
exception to that rule are the following: 

+1 point skills: 
Leap (AG 3 or less)
Pass (AG 3 or less)
Right Stuff
Thick Skull
Throw TeamMate
Very Long Legs

I added; Kick Team-Mate (new), Timmm-ber!(new), Nurgle’s Rot (probably new since original formula),

+3 point skills: 
Big Hand
Foul Appearance
Multiple Block
Stand Firm
Strong Arm

+1 point bonus: Players starting with both Block and Dodge. 

I added Chainsaw,
(I’m a bit surprised to find titchy on this list since it has a positive and a negative side to it)

Negative traits are all -2 points except the following: 

-1 point trait: 
Always Hungry 

I might have moved Always Hungry to the -2 category since I’m partial to the throwing of goblins and I would argue that it severely hampers the one turn touchdown if your really stupid, loner troll tries to have a snack on your goblins rather than throw them.

-3 point traits:
Blood Lust
Really Stupid
Take Root 

Now to add up and calculate cost.
If the points value is 10 or less, then the player's value is:
GPS = pts * 10,000
If the points value of the player is 11 or more, then the player's value is:
GPS = 100,000 + ((points - 10) * 5,000)

I’m not a fan of the 'if the cost exceed 100 000 they get a discount' addition, however, I think it is a way to handle the negatraits not being properly deducted in price and the problems of having too much value tied up in one player. But it also allows for one really good player to get a discount (I’m looking at you Wardancers) so it feels like it would be better to properly price the negatraits.

Non of this takes the team and the skill access in to account obviously so it isn't a full picture more of a guideline but it is interesting nonetheless. 

I gathered my info from:
The midgardbb 
since the site has been down for awhile I had to go through the web archive

Games Workshop Warhammer Community: 

I think it would be interesting to apply this to the new star players as well. Probably need to do a bit of adjustments but would be interesting to see how it pans out. Both comparing how they line up compared to the position they came from and as well as a player in their own right.

Roster Player Comparison Web Css
My template is quite determined to not go past a certain width, so I need to wrangle a bit with that before it's ready for release.

Roster Player Comparison Mobile Css

The mobile css is a bit better - not as messed up with loads of restriction but haven't managed to fix the background yet.


  1. Very fun. Thank you for compiling this. I think the 3DB Podcast talked a bit about some of the formula, but never went into detail. This is great :)

  2. This is excellent, thanks for putting in the time to construct this!