Strong, free and safe: terms for "blitzability"

[mubo]

To be fair this isn't a ludicrous concept, players do fall into three/four categories when setting up: on the line, those you don't want getting hit, those you don't mind, and I guess you can add another which is players who are difficult to knock over but important (i.e. blocking a WZ for the 2 turn score).

However, the attempt to shoehorn AF (or any other) terminology I really don't like, the only time it has any relevance is on set up, from T2, it has no relevance at all... Players cease being a winger/flanker/nose they become a 'mobile assist' or a 'big guy marker' or a 'cage corner'. Terminology evolves naturally as Joe has pointed out, I don't think there's value to forcing it.

Instead of trying to generate terminology, maybe try leading tactical discussions, and let it evolve. Tactics are something I'd like to see more discussed rather than skill choices or naming conventions. It's useful to know how to protect 4 GRs when kicking, why not suggest set ups that do that, rather than wanting the GRs to be 'safe'. I'm loathe to use the expression 'cart before horse', but can't really think of anything better...

[mattgslater]

However, the attempt to shoehorn AF (or any other) terminology I really don't like...

I'm mostly staying away from American terminology. That's where I started, 'cause that's what I know, but if you look at the terms we've got so far, only safety, end and center are taken directly from American football, with the same sense and meaning. There are a couple terms common to several football games, like fullback. I want to end up with a clean, simple, precise set of terminology that is mostly BB specific, with a little global football Esperanto, because some of those terms are useful here, and also because a few sports tie-ins add a little flair.

...the only time it has any relevance is on set up, from T2, it has no relevance at all... Players cease being a winger/flanker/nose they become a 'mobile assist' or a 'big guy marker' or a 'cage corner'.

If you're talking about setup terminology, sort of, though I must say that's a digression: strong/free/safe is always in play. It doesn't matter what turn it is, either your guy can't be blitzed, or he's not in position to soak up a blitz, or he is in position to soak up a blitz, or he's marked. That's always the case for all players on the pitch at the start of any turn, no exceptions.

But I'll bite. If you want your guy to be a mobile marker, you don't put him at nose. Your forward cage corner probably isn't a fullback (but you never know). I have this offense I run with Orcs, where I put my Throwers at fullback so they can deliver the ball to the Blitzer at center, who becomes my carrier on a midfield cage. It's important that the Blitzer is my center, because he's the only guy who ends up safe without an action after T1 (he throws the opening block and doesn't follow), so he'll be sitting uncovered at centerfield on T2, ready to receive the handoff or QP in a loose midfield cage. So, yeah, he evolved from "center" to "carrier," because my formation evolved from "setup" to "cage." I don't see how this makes the term center less valuable. Oh, and that play is totally illegal in AmFB, FWIW.

Yes, those positioning terms are really mostly for setup and development*, which are both important, but far from the whole game. You don't need your terms to be usable all the time; they just have to be clear and carry some sort of value. Certainly, though, the strong/safe/free concept applies at all times, regardless of what's happening on the pitch, as with structural terms (wall, fence, screen, trap, picket, hedge, etc.).

* Player development is the elephant in the room of setup terminology. It matters who goes where, and different teams have to build different positions. For example, a lot of teams like Guard players in free positions, where they're not real targets but there's some reason to enter their TZs.

Instead of trying to generate terminology, maybe try leading tactical discussions, and let it evolve.

That's like saying, "instead of buying a ladder, why don't you just go up on the roof?" Well, if you want to get to the top of the roof, you need a ladder. The reason you don't see so much precision in tactical discussions, why conversations tend to revolve around broad strategy or team development, is that we don't have the lingo we need to go any further. My efforts to lead tactical discussions always get hung up before I post anything, because I lack the lexicon to say what I'm thinking. For an editor with a degree in philosophy, this is a very frustrating feeling. That said, I agree. I'm not trying to introduce a conceptual term unless I'm then going to build on it with a piece of strategy.

Oh, and I'm totally changing my avatar to a pic of Sid Gillman.

[Joemanji]

The reason you don't see so much precision in tactical discussions, why conversations tend to revolve around broad strategy or team development, is that we don't have the lingo we need to go any further. My efforts to lead tactical discussions always get hung up before I post anything, because I lack the lexicon to say what I'm thinking. For an editor with a degree in philosophy, this is a very frustrating feeling.

Oh right, I'm starting to understand. You're getting way too caught up in analytic form and missing the substance. Because Blood Bowl is a game of risk management and pattern recognition, not discrete positioning. The turns moves along too briskly to consider every possible position each of your players could end up in and the ramifications therein. In fact I often find in a turn that it takes longer to move the last player than it did the previous ten. There are too many options to cover and so indecision creeps in.

[mattgslater]

Mostly, I think we're now seeing the same things. I wouldn't say that this is "not a game of discrete positioning," but rather that this is a game of discrete positioning (it's the #2 element), but that discrete positioning is much harder to discuss than risk management (#1), resource development (#3) and pattern recognition (a stand-in for a more rigorous study of position). And the more familiar you get with positioning theory, the clearer all that stuff gets, and the less effort it takes to make those final moves. The four-minute rule makes this stuff exceedingly difficult to learn on the fly, in anything resembling a scientific matter. It's not that there's no value in this, it's that it's hard to discuss, and is now mostly thought of as an art or intuitive skill.

Frequently, any player's action boils down to a question of two or three options. An understanding of positioning theory will help one decide precisely which of those squares to end up. Positioning does make a huge difference in this game. One square is often the gap between winning and losing. But it's hard to talk about, because the concepts involved are interdependent and as-yet only defined in the minds of those who apply them, which means building on them is a matter for the muses, and not for one's peers. That's what I'm trying to unlock.

Unrelated: have found pix of Gillman, but I'm having trouble making my avatar out of them. Even if I crop down to his face, I still can't get it under 8K; I don't know how to shrink it without putting it through Photoshop, which causes the file size to explode. So the BÖC album cover stays for now. Still, Sid Gillman is my Blood Bowl idol.

[mattgslater]

Ian's "The Art of Blocking" is a good example of how you can dip your toe into tactical discussion with diagrams. But if you want to build on that sort of stuff, if you want to add to it, you need a shorthand for the different structures and techniques he presents, and the myriad other elements that compose the game. You don't have to include your lingo when writing for the public; you can diagram out anything you can't explain, in one article. But if you're looking for a comprehensive theory, you need to have a degree of conceptual clarity that you just can't get with pictures. Here, where I figure I'm mostly talking with fellow experts, I think it has some value to have a set of shorthand for concepts that aren't laid out in the rules, but are always playing into your thinking.

[Grumbledook]

where have you been

sure text and pictures aren't the best means of always putting something across

web2.0 was all about social media and video

[mattgslater]

Video speeds things up, but video is just a moving illustration. You still need the concepts; it's much harder to build on what you can't define, even if you can cover more ground in less time.

Personally, I really dislike having to listen to something, unless it's music: I'd much rather read it. I seldom work alone, and I always have people bugging me about stuff, so I have to break away all the time. I guess there are headphones....

[RedDevilCG]

I have to say that I would rather you show me, than tell me. And even if you show me once and give it a name, you'll need to do it 5 or more times before I remember the name.

[mattgslater]

Sure. Most people are like that. Me too, really. But there are a lot of levels of discussion, you know. If you want to learn how to do something, then a video or illustration is great. If you want to learn the principles behind it, the video or pic is just an aid to help you tie the concept to the action on the ground. When you get familiar enough with the concepts, the terms just lay themselves invisibly over the different unstated components of the game.

[Joemanji]

Describe this stand off:



Not just in terms of terminology, but what those terms means and how that transfers to subsequent terms.

[mubo]

Someone is going to get surfed!

[SillySod]

Belgian kick, rock KOs red. Red chip a play, secure the ball, and noobdodge some recievers. Yellow to play

Btw, what the hell is a "d-line"? As far as I can tell its identical to the LOS, a term that has been written into the rulebook for at least a decade. Dont even get me started on the infinate variety of "hedges", "points", and "hedges"... all of which seem to refer to mildly different looking versions of what I'd call "a screen".

[mattgslater]

Whose turn is it? Red or yellow? It looks like yellow's turn.

Yellow is protecting its half with something resembling trap spine. But not quite, because Blitzer #2 is a strong inside picket. This is not the end of the world, as he has Side Step; if he didn't, it would be a clear no-no. Of course, if it's the beginning of yellow's turn, "strong" is a theoretical consideration, which only matters in the case of a turnover. Again, in the event of a turnover, yellow would have no safe players, but only 2, 11 and maybe 14 are in strong points; the rest are free.

Trap: two players, one behind the other; following on the first leads to a block from the second.
Spine: the five squares that allow one to screen off the whole width of the pitch (6,3,0,3,6).
Picket: a player making up a screen formation.
Screen: Two players with two squares between them, so their TZs abut one another.
Strong Picket: a picket in a strong/point position, so pushing him opens a hole.
Inside Picket: a picket who forms a screen on one side, and another formation on the other side.

The red Blitzer with the ball is safe in a fence-cage, forming a V-trap with the Blitzer and Witch in front of him. He's safe because the opponent can mark him but can't blitz him. The cage is a fence-cage because the players around him are one square apart, unable to prevent assists on each other but able to offer a little support by either forcing pull-offs or forcing blitzes from particular angles. 2, 9 and 12 are in a square fence; the edge fence between 2 and 3 is weaker, because it allows the opponent to put a 2d blitz on #2 with just two men, without actually marking anybody. 2, 4, 9 and 10 are strong/point; 2 and 9 because knocking them down puts a zone on the ball, while 4 and 10 because they're open in the clear, in easy blitzing range. The downfield players (outlets) are both in scoring range; Blitzer #4 must GFI once, and Witch #10 must GFI twice.

I'm sure I could identify a lot more, but that's what hits me off the top of the head.

[mattgslater]

Btw, what the hell is a "d-line"? As far as I can tell its identical to the LOS, a term that has been written into the rulebook for at least a decade. Dont even get me started on the infinate variety of "hedges", "points", and "hedges"... all of which seem to refer to mildly different looking versions of what I'd call "a screen".

D-line is a defensive/kicking LOS, as opposed to an O-line, which is an offensive/receiving LOS. Because the O-line sets up last and goes first, the difference between D-line and O-line tactics is night and day.

Hedging is a strategic element, the act of denying significant amounts of territory, used primarily on defense and on mobility-based offense, or as a stopgap before caging. In Joe's diagram, yellow is pretty much 100% committed to a hedge, which seems to have failed despite maintaining its integrity. By contrast, red is not hedging at all, instead taking up a midfield cage and telling yellow, "the pitch is your oyster, but you can't have my pearl."

Screening is a tactical element, the act of deploying players with two intervening squares, creating adjacent-but-not-overlapping TZs. Screening is one tactic employed in the strategy of hedging (and other strategies), and is contrasted with fencing, lining/walling and trapping, while hedging is contrasted with marking, or with leaving an opening. Yellow uses "trap screens" to get the maximum breadth (the "spine" or five-man horizontal screen) at toughness (the "trap" player provides redundancy).

[mattski]

You know, I understand what you are trying to do here, I really do. You want to introduce terminology to explain positions and concepts using the minimum amount of words and thus minimising opportunity for confusion and lack of understanding. You want BBowl to be like Chess so that when people use terms like 'Sicilian' or 'Caro-Kann Defence' then everybody who reads it will know what is being talked about because they can instantly visualise it. And I know that there aren't many people in this thread who are being receptive to what you are trying to say. But that might be because when I read something like:

Yellow is protecting its half with something resembling trap spine. But not quite, because Blitzer #2 is a strong inside picket.

it reminds me of why I stopped playing Chess and started playing BBowl. The former was like work only with the added 'fun' that I could download a program from the internet that could hammer me into the ground (along with 99% of other players on the planet) whilst the latter was a rolling, shambolic mess of fun and lunacy. If we all used the terms that you are proposing then arguably we would all become 'better' players and be able to share experiences and thoughts on how a game was played and won/lost/whatever. But I don't want BBowl to be theoretical any more than it is. It is about position and chance evaluation. I will never be a great player (mainly because I no longer even play against other people, lack of time, opportunity etc) but that is ok, I just want to enjoy it. And as I said, whilst I see what you are trying to achieve, it just isn't 'fun'.

I do enjoy reading your stuff though.