Quixotic quest for better terminology

[mattgslater]

I've noticed that there isn't really a tremendously useful system for identifying squares by name. An alphanumeric (1-15/A-Z) system has some obvious advantages (the board is 26 squares deep, for instance), but given that diagramming mostly involves defense, and defenses are usually symmetrical, a left-to-right numbering system that puts emphasis more on proximity to the nearest wide zone marker, center square and nearest sideline than on distance from both sidelines. So there's a need for a fix to the basic alphanumeric two-axis system, which is probably why nobody uses it (you never hear "then I moved my Blitzer up to D11 and he was totally cut off," for instance).

As far as up vs. down, left vs. right, I think it's most useful in BB to phrase everything in terms of the defensive coach. First, it's not very useful to diagram offense without a defensive diagram to respond to, but you can get value out of diagramming the defense and gaming numerous offenses around it. Second, I typically diagram my defenses with LOS at the top, and that's mostly what I see others doing as well. So the defense goes at the bottom, and left and right are considered from a reader's perspective, which matches that of the team on the bottom (the defense). This means left and right are reversed for the offense.

Since the board is 26 squares long, let's use the alphabet for the vertical axis, putting A at the top (the receiving team's end zone) and Z at the bottom (the kicking team's end zone. This letter goes first in the description.

Moving laterally, the middle square is 0. 3 is next to, but not inside, the wide zone. 4 is just inside the wide zone. 7 is along the sidelines. "8" is getting beat up by the crowd. If left vs. right matters, then an L or R is applied at the end, again from the defense's perspective.

A is the offense's end zone. Early letters are deep in the offense's backfield. G is the middle row on the offensive side, halfway to the end zone. The middle square on the offense's half (you know, the one with "kick here if you don't want to risk a touchback" marked on it) is G0.

M0 to M3 is the offensive LOS. N0 to N3 is the defensive LOS. Just remember that the N0se stands on N0 in a symmetrical defense.

T is the middle row on the defensive side, halfway to the end zone. Late letters are deep in the defensive backfield. Z is the defense's end zone.

The defense might put their cornerbacks at P6 on each side (P6L, P6R) and their outside linebackers at O5 (that is, O5L and O5R), just inside and in front of the cornerbacks.

Code: Select all

-- -- -- --|--
-- -- O5 --|--
-- P6 -- --|--

Your Wardancer might start the offensive drive at M3L (which is on the right side from the Wardancer's perspective, just inside from the wide zone), step forward (down) to N2L, Leap to P0, and run diagonally down to U5R (well into the wide zone on the other side) without a GFI. Each of those moves is a diagonal step forward and to his left, so you gain one letter and move one number to the right (remember, he's on the receiving team, so left/right are reversed).

WDYT? It makes you think upside down from an offensive perspective, which is backwards if you're an American Football fan, but from a Blood Bowl perspective, where the defense must set up first, it's more useful to think that way. A nice alternative might be instead to have an "up/down" or a "strong/weak" or some other dichotomy in lieu of "left/right." Not sure.

[thechosengobbo]

I'm going with like it. In that I'm not against it, yet have no specific need for it right now.

Though in my league we'd change the directions to 'hubward/rimward' and 'turnwise/widdershins' respectively (because everyone there except me got into warhammer fantasy from the works of a certain auther, and then afterwards I could bribe them over to bloodbowl)

[Jural]

The only thing I'd strongly suggest- make sure there is an available diagram next to any text where you descirbe things this way (I assume this if for your Hold the Line column?) Even in chess magazines where the notation is already set in stone, there is often a chessboard image which is appropriately numbered next to the problem!

Otherwise, all of these sorts of systems are inherently subjective of course, which leave them open to nitpicking. As such, I'd like to nitpick your choices! But be certain, this is just nitpicking, not a denouncing.

Vertical direction (EZ to EZ)- I think it makes the most sense to have this axis measured in numbers. The LOS should be 0 (hence no player is ever placed at 0) and the numbers are negative going away from the LOS into the offense's half of the field, and positive going into the defense's half of the field.

To my mind, this is very intuitive. The higher the number that a player is in, the closer he is to scoring, or the further back the player is. Also, simple subtraction between two players yields how far apart they are on the pitch vertically, which is often important.

Horizontal Direction- Obviously it can't be just numbers, that's not very easy. One system might be a simple A to P progression, But I'd prefer having symmetry here as well, with L0 being the middle square and fanning out to L7 on the right and -L7 on the left. But perhaps it would be better to have an -M3 to M3 continuum in the midfield, and a W1, W2, W3, W4 for the wides?

Anyway, just nitpicking and suggestions.

[mattgslater]

Hmmm...

Depth, Side(L/C/R), distance from center? So the center of the LOS is 1C (C needs no distance number), and those cornerbacks and safeties in the above example are 3L6 and 2L5? It's a tad more intuitive, as people generally don't think of letters in terms of their respective places in the alphabet (or if they do, they do so only in a high/low sense, and not in terms of the specific difference, as when filing alphabetically).

[Darkson]

Not that I use on pitch references that often (PBeM games are probably the only time), but to be brutally honest, the system you're suggesting sounds a lot worse than just use the A-Z 1-15 system.

[whitetiger]

Too complicated. I think lettering across the field would be best from A to O and then the +/- system the length of the field with 0 being the LOS. Short sweet and to the point.

[mattgslater]

The problem with across-the-field lettering is that the salient aspect of horizontal orientation is the distance between the column in question, the center square and the nearest sideline. The distance between the column and each sideline is not particularly informative for defensive formation, and a diagram that focuses on that distinction (lettering from one side to the other) is going to be of limited descriptive value. A good numbering system provides the most meaningful frame of reference, in this case from the center of the skull in the middle of the pitch.

[sann0638]

The chess number system numbers from the bottom left corner, doesn't it? Thus ignoring any salient distances at all!

[mattgslater]

But Chessboards are 8x8, which is much easier to manage than 15x26. And you don't have to game your setup at all: the board does it for you. In Chess, pieces are named based on their setup location (Queen's Rook, for instance), and that doesn't work in BB as your initial positioning is not dictated by the game so much as by your strategy and their relative positions. The rules tell you how many guys you must/can put where, but it's not broken down square by square, and any given player can be put in any given spot. So rather than the queenside/kingside conventions in Chess being applied to individual models, you need to apply them to the board. Except that you don't have a queen or a king.

Another distinction: in Chess, distance to the edge of the board doesn't matter as much. In BB, distance to the edge and to the LOS dictates player positioning and kicking, particularly at setup, which is where most diagramming occurs.

Distance to edge also the basis for the victory condition in BB, but nothing of the sort in Chess. A Queen, a Rook and a Bishop all have as much MA as they want, and their movement constraints are directional: the Rook can go up or down the numbers or letters, and the Bishop can move up or down the numbers and letters as long as there is a 1:1 relationship in the movement between letters and numbers. For a BB piece, however, the relationship between your starting point and ending point isn't so important, as you're limited only by the total number of squares moved rather than which axis you're moving along.

So, sorry, the Chess analogy doesn't apply.

[Darkson]

I dunno - measuring from the centre doesn't seem right to me.
I mean, going along the sidelines A-Z, I know where M and N are, and I can work out the rest, same with across the pitch 1-15.
Saying I'm left-3-down-3 or something doesn't seem any simpler than saying K4 to me.