Principles of Defence

[dines]

James & Voyagers> Oh no! Not more confusing terms and sports-slang, it should be simple... I'm finally understanding Matts use of flankers and wingers, now you can't mix it all up again!

[mattgslater]

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.

Ah. I kind of have the opposite going, don't I? It doesn't really matter, btw. If two people are using conflicting terminology, then all each party has to do is figure out what the other guy means, and the problem solves itself. The terms are valuable, because they let you package your concept and use it as a building block for the next one, and because they give you a frame to view the pitch in the light of the concept.

The way I figure it, one guy anchors the "wing" of the formation, while the other protect's the winger's "flank." In practice, wingers tend to be a balance of tough and fast, and flankers tend to be either backfield rushers (blitzers or ballhawks) or schmoes not valuable enough to play safety. In American football, the flanker pretty much a direct analog of a sideline (#1-2) cornerback; a winger has no such analogy, but could be more like a 3-4 outside linebacker, or a "Will" 4-3 linebacker, or possibly a "nickel" corner. Some folks build flankers to protect the wings, but I'm down on this. The most important things the flanker-as-flanker offers are the square he fills and the zones he covers.

That said, I think that "location as position" terminology is valuable only for a particular microgame, which is mostly about downside. Setting up defenders properly is mostly a function of screening off the part of the pitch your opponent can capitalize on, and not opening yourself to stupid bash games like chains, partitions or crowdpushes. This accounts for about 20% of the game, by my estimation: set-up is about like a turn, and with about four set-ups a game, that's four of 16+4, or 20%. It matters more with and against speedster teams and gimmick teams. Certainly, I think there's a value in it. I think there's so much more out there. I'm working on a more coherent, consistent block of articles about two-player formations (got a good framework, just need to turn it into prose), but right now I'm on assignment, and after that I have the last touches on the Dark Elf Playbook I'm working on with hawca, so it'll be a bit.

[ombwiri]

Cheers guys, there has been some rather interesting discussion here.

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

Thanks for that Juck, this is exactly the sort of explanation I was looking for. I can sort of feel that zonal marking doesn't work in BB but I couldn't explain why to myself. I think that the lack of granularity in the game also makes zonal defense harder to play. Zone defences need players to be able to react to opposition movement into or around the zone, BB just doesn't have that level of in turn interaction. You can just about man mark with shadowing but that requires an advance. Maybe there should be a Passblock style skill that reacts to ball carriers moving?

Ha, this explains to myself why I posted up a draft of a Tilean team that started with a smattering of Passblock, tackle and shadowing. It would allow for a team to develop and play in a very different way if it had these underutilised (not inc. Tackle) skills to begin with.

Sorry, I'm dragging this thread off a bit. I'm keener to keep with the tactical discussion than a developmental one or even one about how I'd like the game to be different :-0

[mattgslater]

Personally, I think "zone coverage" is fine as a term. But in my head I contrast it to the existing BB term "mark." I'm not sure that it applies well to overall defensive philosophy. Terms like "cover-one," "man free," "Tampa Two" and "quarters" have no real place in BB, or rather, need a whole new set of terminology (for one thing, "quarters" would have to be "fifths"). The same was true with the LOS, but it's easy to incorporate the numbered technique concept; you just don't need as many techniques, because you can't play on the lines between the squares, and you can key them off the turf, as the defense sets up first.

Mark: To put a TZ on an opponent. Opens you up to blocking (if the oppo is standing), and now you're marked too.

Cover: To obstruct an opponent with your TZ. Only opens you up to blocking on a blitz, or maybe a chain or something.

Both of those techniques see a lot of use on both sides of the ball. Some teams do more of one than the other, but all do both.

A lot of this is colored by a string of tactical differences between AmFB, and BB. In BB:
* A block is a lot nastier than an AmFB block (or even a tackle). The only personal foul is a late hit. Or cutting out the guy's intestines with a chainsaw.
* You may have more or fewer men than your opponent.
* Every play is 3rd and 24.
* You can tackle a receiver who doesn't have the ball, so long as you do it before the ball goes into the air.
* There is no ineligibility, nor are there any "downfield" rules (downfield blocks okay). You can throw/handoff to a lineman, and there is no "ineligible downfield" rule, so interior linemen can run routes or hammer a d-back on the "lead block" (we call it the blitz).
* You have to retrieve, which may delay the play's development. "All teams are special."
* You're playing the clock from Turn One, because if BB were real-time a whole game would take about a minute and a half. So tempo games that you usually see only in the fourth quarter of an NFL game are commonplace from the get-go.
* Passing sucks, mostly. Feels like pre-1940 football.
* There may only be one pass per turn, but downfield handoffs are common, and there's no "one forward pass per play" rule; translated directly to BB, the AmFB terms "play" and "drive" become synonymous.

I do think the "two guys together" thing is just as common in AmFB... at the line. For instance, you know how you're not allowed to cut your guy if he's already blocked? If you could, you'd do it all the time. Also, "chipping" is the AmFB term for "moving up to provide an assist." Maybe that's not how they see it, but that's how it translates. Also, generally when an OG pulls on a run-block, what he's doing is assisting. In NFL football, it's considered very important for a 3-4 DT to be able to take on a "double team." Outside of the line, you see more one-on-one action, but that would be true in BB too if the pitch were that big and there was no penalty for a both-down. BB is more like arena football with eleven men.

Also, there is no end of cool structures that can key off a two-man blocking line. I call this pretty basic four-player structure a trap screen
x - - x
x - - x
in that it has two "traps" spaced two squares apart ("screen"). It's not at all uncommon that moving one player and blocking with another, or blocking one man with two players, will generate half of this equation.

[greymurphy42]

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?

IIRC flankers are the back row forwards

[James_Probert]

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?

IIRC flankers are the back row forwards

Aye, think Joe Worsley, big, strong and fast, but more than capable of a deft touch when needed.

[Carnis]

I generally always setup a "zonal defence" with elves vs basherteams. This will marginalize a lot of basher-type skills. The biggest of them being GUARD, followed by the other problem basher teams have with spreading games, ie low MA & AG. They will also have trouble finding 2die blocks and moves without dodges, if your players are spread out within 2 zones of each other and in layers. Compare the following assuming similar kickoff setup for elves & bashers:

Code: Select all

-- -- -- --|-- -- El El El -- --|-- -- -- --
-- -- El --|-- El -- -- -- El --|-- El -- --
-- El -- --|El -- -- -- -- -- El|-- -- El --
-- -- -- --|-- -- -- -- -- -- --|-- -- -- --

Turn1 for bashers would be simply to manmark every opponent they can + keep 1-3 players as reserves if the elves break through.

Turn1 for elves would be sending one guy as a receiver and spreading out the other 10 within a minimum of 2 squares from each other and 1 square from the opposition (especially MB/PO/Claw type players). And then marking cage corners. Something like this:

Re = Elven receiver
Ba = Basher Ball

Code: Select all

-- -- -- Re|-- -- -- El -- -- --|Bb El -- --
-- -- -- --|El -- -- -- Bb -- Ba|-- -- -- --
-- -- -- --|-- -- -- -- -- -- --|-- Bb -- --
-- -- -- --|Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb|-- El -- --
-- El -- --|-- -- -- -- -- -- --|El -- -- --
-- -- -- --|El -- -- El -- -- El|-- -- El --

I do consider this highly zonal.. you also need zonal defence to defend against handoff+pass moves which may end up moving the ball up to 26 squares in one turn if uninterrupted. For passblock I have never found any use, although I do love disturbing presence.

OFC its not as clearcut as in real sports where you have defence only players, but you still get the picture.. It's usual that the same guys end up on the offensive end of the pitch (high ma catcher/blitzertypes) and the others on the defensive end (the linoes with dodge), so in a sense even that part of zonal defense is somewhat present in BB, although to a lesser degree as in the real world.

[mattgslater]

In the above diagram (I call it a "Ziggurat, one [square] back"), your flankers are vulnerable to a 2-man crowdpush or chain-block, and your midfielders are also subject to chaining. I guess a lot of it depends on how many men your opponent is willing to commit to forward positions. If he's Khemri, he may have to go with six or seven. If he's Orcs, he'll probably go for seven or eight. If he's Orcs with an Ag increase on a Blitzer or (better yet) Thrower, he can run nine.

Assuming your opponent has eight men to commit, and just one guy with Frenzy and one with Grab, then he can sort of take a "wait-and-see position in setup, placing the Frenzy guy so as to chain your backfield (no, Guard doesn't help, sorry), or to surf your flanker (again, no benefit from Guard), depending on what he's got. If you put them one square farther back, then the line-chain is harder and the crowd-surf is impossible (at least for Orcs).

Can you put a team to it, in Play-Creator? I mean, with skills and stuff? Like your last killer elf team, let me see this d-setup in practice. I'll show you what I mean. I'll probably have time to do it on Friday morning.

[Pipey]

In open play I use different types of defence, depending on the races involved / tactics my opponent is using / the stage of the match. I'll have a crack at categorising them:

1. Stand off. Everyone between the ball and the endzone. A 'high' line one square away is often best. Restrict blocking opportunities to one blitz per turn, or as few as possible.

2. Mark up. Restrict movement by forcing dodges. Create blocking opportunities if the dodges don't succeed. This is best done en masse or not at all (reverting to 1).

3. Direct Route i.e. go for the ball carrier blitz. Often best for ag teams or if the situation demands / presents itself.

4. Defence vs the 'long' game i.e. vs the passing game or teams who try to hold the ball deep and bide their time. You need at least one guy to chase the deep ball carrier plus players to mark up / blitz potential receivers. Everyone else is usually best served marking up.

Just a few thoughts...

[mattgslater]

In open play I use different types of defence, depending on the races involved / tactics my opponent is using / the stage of the match. I'll have a crack at categorising them:

1. Stand off. Everyone between the ball and the endzone. A 'high' line one square away is often best. Restrict blocking opportunities to one blitz per turn, or as few as possible.

2. Mark up. Restrict movement by forcing dodges. Create blocking opportunities if the dodges don't succeed. This is best done en masse or not at all (reverting to 1).

3. Direct Route i.e. go for the ball carrier blitz. Often best for ag teams or if the situation demands / presents itself.

4. Defence vs the 'long' game i.e. vs the passing game or teams who try to hold the ball deep and bide their time. You need at least one guy to chase the deep ball carrier plus players to mark up / blitz potential receivers. Everyone else is usually best served marking up.

Just a few thoughts...

I agree that these four tactics are central to any comprehensive discussion of BB defense. The terms I use for those four basic activities:
1) Hedging or Zone Coverage (my friends call it "soccer, only not as boring.")
2) Marking or Man Coverage (putting a hat on 'em, so you can lay the wood!)
3) Cage-breaking (even if the cage doesn't form)
4) Pass-defense, consisting of pass rush, and man coverage or a mix of man and zone coverage. Hey, I guess "cover two" does work! Obviously, there's no "Tampa Two" because four-man fronts are pretty rare, but otherwise I guess you can import a notation for the number of men playing zone. I'm not convinced it's valuable, though; maybe later we'll build to it and have a nice set of terms waiting when it happens.

American football distinguishes between all of these, by the way, though "cage-breaking" is either "run-stopping" (downfield) or "collapsing the pocket" (upfield, leading to a QB sack or another player's tackle-for-loss (TFL)), and "hedging" is either "jamming" (if done to shut down WRs) or "run-stopping" (if done to keep the RB behind scrimmage).

[mattgslater]

I really like this.

I think that we're better off talking about smaller structures first, frankly, but I think also that working on the grand scheme on one side while hammering out the minutiae on the other is a good way to get there.

From where I sit, D-setup was a piece of low-hanging fruit intended to form a facile basis for future analogies. The relationship between two players seems to me an unspoken frontier. So I'm going to hammer away at it as soon as I can, and start building from the ground up.

It makes a lot of sense to approach this from both directions at once, like a Trans-Continental Railroad sort of job.

[GuppyShark]

This does seem to be a good foundation. To start with the obvious example: Everybody knows that the

Code: Select all

.X.
XBX
.X.

. = tackle zone
X = defender
B = ball carrier

is not as good at protecting the ball carrier as

Code: Select all

X.X
.B.
X.X

. = tackle zone
X = defender
B = ball carrier

because of the relationships between the tackle zones - the + does not protect the gaps on the outside but the X does protect the gaps on the inside. This is because what is really happening is:

Code: Select all

.....
.X#X.
.#B#.
.X#X.
.....


. = tackle zone
# = tackle zone that cannot be entered without a roll
X = defender
B = ball carrier

As a newcomer to the game it is easy to think of a square with a tacklezone as 'covered', but what you actually need are several adjacent tackle zones that force dodge rolls.

[sunnyside]

regarding the OP. I also don't think much of pass block, (save for slan, maybe). The reason being that it's so easily avoided, only applied at all in certain match ups, and even teams that are good at passing often only use it as "plan B", if you waste resources on pass block than you may not have what you need to force them off of a ground based plan A. And if you can't do that than the clock is on their side.

---

Regarding the other discussion on defense I tend to think of defensive players in terms of their vulnerability. The guys on the LOS are almost certainly going to take some hits, the "midfielders" could be blitzed, and the "safeties" have some measure of, well, safety from a blitz. But maybe that's because I seem to have a bad habit of playing AV7 teams.

I could see a use for "linebackers" as players that back up the line. By which I mean players off the LOS but adjacent to linemen. They serve to make frenzy hard to use and to make it so that if any offensive players follow up on LOS hits they'll be set up for a block on the next term.

I do think there should be some accepted term for the players on either side that are the closest to the sidelines and are in the position to be blitzed, as there are special considerations for them regarding skill choices and usage. I kinda like "corner" but wouldn't mind "winger".

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

Another game concept might be how many players are "committed" (or come up with some better term). This especially holds true on bash v bash games. The idea is how many of your players are involved in blocks, marking, and assists vs how many are not.

Players that are not commited are often the ballcarrier, defensive players trying to screen or deny movement, offensive players setting up to recieve, and offensive players serving on the cage.

The importance of this is I'm finding maximinizing committed players is sort of like controlling the midboard in chess. It makes other things work better as a general rule and can provide direction toward making good moves while under a time limit.

Meaning that if you can use a couple guys that threw blocks this turn as convenient cage corners you can use two other guys to provide assists, a blitz, or mark some opponents elsewhere. Doing this well or poorly seems to make about as much difference as being a guy up or down, and for the same reasons.

[mattgslater]

Hey, finally we're starting to roll. Awesome.

Okay. I finish my project on Tuesday. I'll have my Dark Elf article for Martin's playbook shortly after that, and then I'll get back to my notes on BB structures, turn it into a more coherent article.

[sunnyside]

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.

The advantage further takes a nosedive as the elves get near teamwide blodge/sidestep type builds going, making frenzy almost into a negaskill. Norse could build against that by using tackle on lineman and pushing MB+PO action. However you'll get raped if you play dwarves like that. I keep playing different varients anyway, but I think Norse drop down to at least a tier 2 team once you get to spiralling expense range.