More blocks in tie games: why is this?

[swilhelm73]

As someone who cares little about his players when facing a block happy coach I’ve always been willing to throw my players into danger. If you give your opponent 4.5 blocks a turn they’ll fail one on average every 2nd turn. Even if they don’t fail then as long as you can keep enough players on the pitch then this will often makes holes in the cage or stop it dead.

But against a good coach who throws blocks in order of importance, this is a risky strategy. When that wrestle zombie throws a skull as my last action of a turn I'm usually fine with that.

I can often win games, without inflicting significant injuries, just by moving my opponent to where I want them. Allowing me to throw blocks intentionally only makes that easier...and if you get good injury dice, they can decide the game for you...

Yes, it can bog down a cage...but in early turns, that's ok with me. I'm only aiming to score on T8 - so if it takes 4 turns to move across the LOS...that's fine.

[mattgslater]

Yeah, one thing I've noticed about my block-happy teams: most of the time they take little to no damage. They get their butts kicked when the dice go against them (though last night I tied a pretty good coach playing 8-on-11 all game), but when they don't they corral the opponent and after a few turns of hapless struggling he starts playing for shenanigans... a lot of my losses have come on craziness, much of it by teams designed to respond to it (like Skaven). As a result, my actual Cas vs. total is pretty low (47 in 39 games in the Human sample, 16 in 6 games), given how aggressively I play my AV8 team. In fact, the lack of damage suffered is more pronounced than the extra damage dealt (99 in the same time, a respectable number but hardly the stuff of horrors).

[swilhelm73]

Another point on block numbers - I imagine it depends a lot on what kind of opponent and situation you are in.

My last game as Chaos v Dwarf I went into the half 1-0.

He built a line in the middle of the field and stayed on his side not generating contact.

I was happy to let him do so as every turn he didn't move forward was one less turn to score.

By not seeking contact myself, I forced him to make contact because he had to score and I did not.

So we have perhaps 4 turns with maybe 15 blocks thrown between the two of us until he had to make contact to try and break through.

[mattgslater]

Yeah. I can see that one... also, like the game where I threw the fewest blocks (37), my opponent threw only 11. After a team's been hammered, when it spends turn after turn just rolling over, or falling down trying a desperate play, there's not much blocking going on.

[mattgslater]

I know this is sort of "water-is-wet" news, but I did the math on my record and Cas differential in Ranked.

227 Ranked matches, record 113-53-61 (0.615), 488-367 Cas (2.15:1.61 per match)

Cas Diff: W-T-L, Tot, Wpct
-4 or worse: 2-0-5, 7, 0.286
-2 to -3: 5-13-16, 34, 0.338
-1 to +1: 49-25-30, 104, 0.591
+2 to +3: 42-12-9, 63, 0.762
+4 or better: 15-3-1, 19, 0.868

Negative: 17-20-27, 64, 0.422
Even: 22-13-17, 52, 0.548
Positive: 74-20-17, 111, 0.757

Now THERE is a correlation.

Instead of looking at the differential, let's look at the correlation between number inflicted or sustained and number of blocks overall.

Cas Suffered
Cas: W-T-L
0: 43-7-5
1: 35-17-11
2: 20-15-23
3: 9-7-12
4: 2-6-3
5: 0-1-3
6: 2-0-2
8: 0-0-2

0 (55): 43-7-5 (.845)
1 (63): 35-17-11 (.690)
2-4 (97): 31-28-38 (.464)
5+ (10): 2-1-7 (.250)
0-1 (118): 78-24-16 (.763)
2+ (107): 33-29-45 (.444)

I suspect that number is flatter for some coaches (Hitonagashi?), but it's probably a similar curve for everyone, in that the less damage you take the more likely you are to win.

Cas Inflicted
Cas: W-T-L
0: 11-9-12 (.484)
1: 19-13-15 (.543)
2: 33-15-13 (.664)
3: 24-10-12 (.630)
4: 9-6-7 (.545)
5: 12-0-0 (1.000)
6: 1-1-1 (.500)
7: 2-0-0 (1.00)

0-1 (79): 30-22-27 (.526)
2-3 (107): 57-25-25 (.664)
4-7 (39): 24-7-8 (.706)
There's also a nice, clear correlation here. But it's a lot weaker, know what I mean?

It's also easy math, and if lots of us do this for our own teams (especially online teams), maybe we'll all learn something together. Just look at the Cas received and inflicted, and the score, for your match history going back a couple hundred games, and compile the numbers in Excel, then sort as needed. If you need help, let me know. Go ahead and filter out stunty teams or whatever if you think it'll get you a more accurate sample, but be true to yourself. If you don't want to post your numbers, PM me and I'll amalgamate them and keep them quiet.

What do your numbers look like?

[spubbbba]

As someone who cares little about his players when facing a block happy coach I’ve always been willing to throw my players into danger. If you give your opponent 4.5 blocks a turn they’ll fail one on average every 2nd turn. Even if they don’t fail then as long as you can keep enough players on the pitch then this will often makes holes in the cage or stop it dead.

But against a good coach who throws blocks in order of importance, this is a risky strategy. When that wrestle zombie throws a skull as my last action of a turn I'm usually fine with that.

I can often win games, without inflicting significant injuries, just by moving my opponent to where I want them. Allowing me to throw blocks intentionally only makes that easier...and if you get good injury dice, they can decide the game for you...

Yes, it can bog down a cage...but in early turns, that's ok with me. I'm only aiming to score on T8 - so if it takes 4 turns to move across the LOS...that's fine.

That is true to some degree but the trick is how you target the free blocks. A good example would be against rookie lizardmen, you engage the saurus with fodder, or AV9 players and position them so that they either they have to follow up away from the action or support of other players or can’t move. I wouldn’t do this against players with block or MB unless it was vital.

Since the Saurus are AG1 they won’t dodge away so are stuck with doing nothing babysitting fodder (often AG3 so they can dodge away if needed) or doing a 2D with a 1 in 9 chance of failure. And since I engaged them they only have a choice of 3 squares to push me to. Whilst this is happening my blitzers are hunting down the skinks or other vulnerable players.

Plus a lot of players think a 2D block is a safe move, which is why they are described as block happy. It’s all too easy to get complacent and start throwing 2D blocks even before doing very safe moves if you wish to play quickly.

In the early stages of the game this is mainly to try and draw out re-rolls as many players will automatically re-roll failed blocks. And if you stall the cage early you can force your opponent to take risks late game which opens up opportunities to steal the ball and score a defensive touchdown.

[mattgslater]

This is where team design is critical. It's totally possible to succeed as an overblocker, but you need a lot of Block, Guard or ST, and either AV or numbers or tons of Dodge to pull it off.

Let's just look at it in terms of money math. Let's say you're up against a rookie AV8 player who's worth as much as one of your TRRs, on the line in the first turn of the game, with a similar player. Furthermore, let's entertain the bare assumption that with the possibility of reserves included, a 60k player carries the same value as a 60k RR (that is, most likely you'd happily trade your first RR to keep a man on the pitch, but not to keep a schmoe out of reserves.) With a 2d unskilled block, here's what you're running:
1/81: Attacker down, turnover, 0-10 actions lost, plus chance of injury (about 1/300 assuming AV8)
1/9: RR counter burned
10/27: Push
50/81: Pow

Pow yields something just less than 1 lost player/turn automatically; let's call that 1/10 of a RR, though it's worth more on later turns.
plus 10/36 to break AV, times 7/12 stun, 1/4 KO, 1/6 Cas.
10/36 x 7/12 = 35/216, or a shade under 1/6 lost action from a stun. Let's call it 1/50 of a RR. The value of a stun in TRR terms increases as the drive goes on.
10/36 x 1/4 = 10/144 KOs, each equal to 1.5 RR if you don't score, 1.25 RR if you score in T8, and .75 RR if you score fast. Let's call it equal to an RR counter.
10/36 x 1/6 = 10/216 Cas, each worth two RR counters (one in the second half).

10/144 + (2)10/216 = 35/216, or 1/6. Add that to 12%, and you get about 30%. 30% of 50/81 is 15/81, comfortably more than the 1/9, even when you throw in the ~1/300 odds of hurting yourself and all that.

Heck, add the 1/9 lost action that comes from making your line-block as your third action (or second if you want to leave a Bonehead guy unmoved or something), and it still doesn't compare:
1/9 lost action + ~1/300 injury + 1/9 RR counter
vs
50/81 lost action + 1/50 RR in stuns + 1/6 player/half.

That 1/300 injury is not going to make up for 41/81 lost actions and a difference of 1/18 RR/player, or anything like it.

All else being equal, I think a 2d hit is usually (not always, for sure) worth its weight in RR counters. But I think this math means that on 1d hit with Block, being willing to RR is more-or-less a wash, and therefore probably a bad idea unless a push is critical. (I don't think anyone here is likely to disagree with that.)

[mattgslater]

I compiled my relative TV numbers and got some surprises.

Important conclusions:
* My LFG style has me as a small-medium favorite a good bit more often than a small-medium underdog, and I'm pretty much never a large favorite, while I'm relatively often a large underdog (usually from accepting other coaches' matches). Funny enough, first glance indicates a possible positive correlation between underdog value and opposing CR. This could be subconscious cherrypicking in the order different coaches look for matches, with a corresponding impact on CR, or it could be a difference in how different coaches evaluate the same game.

* My worst record is straight-up or as a small underdog, pretty much even (23-9-24). The others (88-43-37) all hover pretty close to the same odds in my favor (nothing statistically all that different from the average .652).

Somehow, I miscalculated when I worked out TV Difference, and only got 224 games instead of 225. That's life. I don't know what I'm missing; it's probably in one of the big blocks, like a win at +10k-+40k TV or something.

Here's the sample of 224:
Down 45 (1): 0-0-1
Down 30-39 (2): 1-1-0
Down 25-29 (3): 1-1-1
Down 20-24 (3): 1-2-0
Down 15-19 (7): 4-2-1
Down 10-14 (7): 3-2-2
Down 5-9 (21): 10-5-6
Down 1-4 (44): 20-5-19
Even (12): 3-4-5
Up 1-4 (50): 28-12-10
Up 5-9 (46): 27-11-8
Up 10-14 (24): 11-5-8
Up 15-19 (2): 1-1-0
Up 20-24 (2): 1-1-0

Down 100k or more (23): 10-8-5 (.609).
Down 50k-90k (21): 10-5-6 (.595)
Down 0-40k (56): 23-9-24 (.491)
Up 10k-40k (50): 28-12-10 (.680)
Up 50k-90k (46): 27-11-8 (.707)
Up 100k or more (28): 13-7-8 (.589)

Down 150k or more (16): 7-6-3 (.625)
Down 0-140k (84): 36-16-32 (.524)
Up 10k-140k (120): 66-28-26 (.583)
Up 150k or more (4): 2-2-0 (.750)

Not Favorite (100): 43-22-35 (.540)
Favorite (124): 68-30-26 (.653)

I) The win and loss at -25 to -29 would have both been ties but in a tourney, a coin-toss loss and a T24 win (fun games, those... especially that awesome style-fight against Spubbbba). No effect on W%, but you could say I'm 0-3-0 when down 250k-290k, rather than 1-1-1.

II) CR is next, but I'll have to look at the games individually, so it will take awhile. I'm thinking I'll group them 175+, 165-174, 155-164, 145-154, 135-144, 134-, and "no sample" (150 even). I've done this for my Humans: they have nuked the "no-samples" and, strangely, batted better against the 165+ crowd than against the 145-154 crowd. This is probably because of sample error and style; that is, I often find myself playing to the level of my opponent. Watching my own replays, I toy with people, often tying games I should win. This may be part of why I make too many blocks.

III) I wanted to see if my rookie record explains any of the stats re: small underdog. I scrambled my game numbers somehow:( (stupid formula: copy it, paste it to plain-text file, copy, paste back to Excel, and somehow Excel remembers the formula, so when I sort it scrambles, and I don't notice and save...), so I have to go by TV. At 1M and below, I'm 10-4-4, pretty close to statistic normality, off a tad to the good side but not enough to mean anything with such a small sample:
-60k to -70k: 4-1-0
-30k to -10k: 1-2-1
Even: 1-0-2
+10k to +30k: 3-1-1
50k: 1-0-0

So, no, no difference, really.