Principles of Defence

[dines]

Matt> I really enjoy reading your stuff and think that you give some useful and interesting comments and ideas. Must agree with Nazgob though, the American football slang is difficult to grasp. You have explained some of terms somewhere in a random topic but it could be cool to have a good "bb dictionary" collected somewhere easy to find.

[mattgslater]

Still working on it. That's a taller order than it sounds, because this spatial terminology is all from whole cloth, and I need a sounding board in order to firm it up. So far, my attempts to find that here have yielded mixed results, but we have some of the introductory stuff worked out. Again, I would like to (mostly) leave American football out of it, only taking advantage of clear parallels where I think the term is apt.

[The Painted Goblin]

You know what, Matt, I've given you a hard time recently about your wanting to put terminology on everything.

I must admit, your posts have been starting to make more sense recently - most likely because your phrases are sinking in as you sledgehammer them in there
Anyway, I'm not so set against your phrasebook as I first thought.

So, I apologise.

Keep it up.

[mattgslater]

I think this is the best way yet that I've phrased the underlying principle I'm trying to get at:

Players within two squares of one another create a relationship which is itself an object on the pitch.

Corollary: different spatial relationships between different players create objects with different properties.

[Piousman]

I will pitch in in support of Matt as well. The more I read the more it makes sense, and common terminology helps a lot.

- Piousman

[Uldreg]

I think i am finally understanding what you are getting at Matt. For an avid footbal fan and avid Madden gamer over the years i understand the American football reference. I struggled tried to understand the winger/flanker relationship (i always get them mixed up). But i think that a universal system to describe things is a noble goal/project. Arguing about terminolgy will only get in the way of intelligent analysis. No one will be happy with the terminology all the time. I am also intrigued by your 'Objects'. I understand what you mean in a small sense, is there a topic that gets into these objects?

[mattgslater]

Yeah, if you read that article I posted a couple years ago on what I called "screens," that's the first attempt to define some of these objects.

I don't think it matters too much if the terms start to get in the way; if that happens, break it down. We don't even have to use the same terminology. But if you don't give something a term, you can't treat it as a discrete object.

Again, I tried to stay away from American football. There are some false cognates we've established, so watch out.
1: Flanker. In AmF, a flanker is a WR set out wide, off the line. In the BB terms we've been hammering out, a flanker is a defender (put in pretty much the same place).
2: Winger. In AmF, a winger is a flanker with nobody outside of him. Again, we have a winger as a defender.
3: Screen. In AmF, a "screen" is a lateral or very short forward pass to a player who's protected by a loose formation. I have "screen" as the loose formation itself.

I have used some American terms directly, like "center" and "free safety." But unless the term is very clear and descriptive, and is also central to American football, I've tended to operate independently of American football. "Flanker" and "winger" are slang terms in AmF, like what I'm trying to do. Coaches mean specific things with the different terms, while columnists are just grasping for synonyms for "receiver." But in other football games, those terms get real work, not always meaning the same thing.

[Uldreg]

It too me a while but i figured it out eventually. I still confuse myself once in awhile. Its a pretty easy system to get to grips with if you accept standardized terminology. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the screens article.

[Smurf]

In league play, after 10 games my WE have now harder opponents, much harder!

Flexible defence is a must, what you use against speed vs what to use against strength teams.

Stealing the ball is the hardest.

The funny thing is, I haven't found much use for Strip ball, I know that I may need it but shadowing, tackle and pass block has been my strengths. Also a thrower that can 2+ long bomb is awesome (offence drives only), need to develop the 2nd thrower with Nerves of Steel.

Speed = go deep, if you have speed and you opponet doesn't go deep - smile
strength, I find dauntless amusing and can get rid of some threats.

Most of your decisions are going to be based on your opponent's ability. For example, most who play me know it will be a tough game... If I play WE I mainly win, Chaos I'm starting to win more often, Humans - ugly stinking team yuck but they are winning more!

[GuppyShark]

ombwiri

I like where you're going with this.

The main advantage we have in BB is that we can rely on our players to always know what we want them to do. A lot of the 'zone'/'man' coverages are half to make sure the field is covered and half to make sure the defenders actually do something without interfering with what the rest of the field is trying to achieve.

I have to admit I have a soft spot for the idea of a roaming pass blocker but as I primarily play Norse and Undead I'd still be praying for a six, and we don't get enough games in my leagues to build up players with the number of skills it would take.

I tend to set up a generic 3-4-4 screen defence and rely on my speed advantage (Norse) to react to the offence's decisions, but I'm consistently terrible against the passing game.

[dines]

ombwiri

I like where you're going with this.

The main advantage we have in BB is that we can rely on our players to always know what we want them to do. A lot of the 'zone'/'man' coverages are half to make sure the field is covered and half to make sure the defenders actually do something without interfering with what the rest of the field is trying to achieve.

I have to admit I have a soft spot for the idea of a roaming pass blocker but as I primarily play Norse and Undead I'd still be praying for a six, and we don't get enough games in my leagues to build up players with the number of skills it would take.

I tend to set up a generic 3-4-4 screen defence and rely on my speed advantage (Norse) to react to the offence's decisions, but I'm consistently terrible against the passing game.

I thought norse had a nice advantage towards softer enemies. You have plenty of bash to get rid of them... at least the av 7 types. This advantage is ofcourse decreasing over time as most others get block/wrestle.

[juck101]

Going back to the start of this thread.

Ok I used to play far more pass based offences when we first started 3rd edition. Way back in the day we then all started to meta-game against passing by picking passblock. Now for the record when their is about 6 on the pitch you start to face a problem; but sadly its easy to play around.

Instead of the deep pass, you make a initial pass and then handoff. My more modern elf passing teams still use the same method of offense nowadays and it really does make passblock a poor skill to get the best out of. It does limit options however. Limiting options is very cool but just additional to the choice of positional play or zonal play I guess.

Zonal marking is ok but struggles in BB as you often need key players in certain places to cope with movement and skills. I think this is how positional play become the normal method of defense for BB. The zonal system does not hold up that well as you dont get to reassign players much after the setup.

Unlike footy you also need 2 players together to get a 2d block in BB. That really trashes the concept of zonal play as of course sports games dont always need 2 people holding hands to achieve basic tasks

[Smurf]

My last WE game was against vampires. It was luck but they lamped the WE to the dug out in one form or another. Watching a 16 elf roster dwindle is scary. And then it was over time...

Distinctively lacking numbers I went for the hold off pass. But trying to get an elf into position was a nightmare... 5 turns of watching the scrimmage being pummelled, scattering various recievers through the defence to receive the ball, more getting sent to the dugout. 7 elves on the pitch now... only hope lies with a Wardancer, I didn't want him to score but events were dictated by necessity.

Wardancer breaks free, thrower moves up to throw a long bomb, no interceptions and Wardancer catches it... just a blitz to survive and that fails... hoppity skip to the end.

IMO there is always room for a WE solid pass.

[James_Probert]

Again, I tried to stay away from American football. There are some false cognates we've established, so watch out.
1: Flanker. In AmF, a flanker is a WR set out wide, off the line. In the BB terms we've been hammering out, a flanker is a defender (put in pretty much the same place).
2: Winger. In AmF, a winger is a flanker with nobody outside of him. Again, we have a winger as a defender.
3: Screen. In AmF, a "screen" is a lateral or very short forward pass to a player who's protected by a loose formation. I have "screen" as the loose formation itself.

I have no problem with your concept of screens, but my concept of a flankers and wingers is very much affected by the rugby terminology I've been brought up with.

Rugby uses the term flanker as, well, the nearest bb equivalent is probably a blitzer, more than capable of carrying the ball, but more likely to create a hole for another player.
A winger though is a light and fast player used to cover the backfield on defence, and then burst through small gaps to score on offence.

Just to introduce some rugby concepts to matt's mind

[voyagers_uk]

Rugby uses the term flanker as, well, the nearest bb equivalent is probably a blitzer, more than capable of carrying the ball, but more likely to create a hole for another player.
Just to introduce some rugby concepts to matt's mind

sure that is more of a fullback?