Meditations on the Cult of Position: Med IV up Groundhog Day

[Carnis]

I'm with Joe on this one ;P. Lots of text little info.

[mattgslater]

So far. I'm not trying to blow anybody's mind with new ideas about how to play, at least not yet (and when that happens, the mind I'm trying to blow is my own as much as anybody's). My objective is to get down the stuff we do all the time into a lingo we can use, so when the time comes we can build on it. No, it's not amazingly concise, but given that it's a one-man spare-time unpaid effort, I'm not sure how much you can ask for. I don't think I'm a BB genius; I suspect I'm not even close to being the only one who feels like he has little to learn (at least about his fave teams) from the discussion as it is, despite the fact that a lot of the regular posters here are frightfully smart people.

I did bring y'all a set of defensive terminology that's become quite useful, a few new ideas on control play that several coaches have adopted with success, and a nifty O-line gimmick that more than half of the teams can use in one or both of two different ways (easier 1TTDs or extra backfield blocks), so please gimme a little credit when the going gets a bit bland. Note also that the concept of TZ interrelations as discrete objects is new, and will change the way you see the game once you get used to it, so our little sapling has already begun to bear fruit.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but once more with feeling, here's why I'm doing this.

1) Having a shorthand for common techniques means anybody who's reading this and is playing in a league that's missing one or more of those common techniques will instantly improve the level of play in his league. It will also help veteran coaches establish discrete styles (or substyles) for correct play that aren't inherently built on team race selection or skill development. What those styles are is still beyond me, but it's quite clear that they're there.

2) This shorthand makes a great jumping-off point for (probably mostly others) to establish new techniques that might blow your mind. I don't know what those are, because they haven't been invented yet. It also makes a good starting ground for more basic discussions: e.g., don't run 303 defensive lines, because the opponent will turn three blocks into a screen of his own in the -0 row, while simultaneously putting the d-line in a lock. Then, if the offense cages up in the midfield, he'll have a nice little built-in hedge at the LOS to keep you from fronting effectively. (No, I didn't coin the term "cage", but it fits into the terminology nicely).

3) New coaches, assuming they're smart gamers, will pick up the risk-management skills quickly (or rather, will import them from other games and/or life experiences) and have a lot to work with when learning the ins and outs of team development, but understanding position and space is mostly about trial and error, and is a good part of why it takes a couple years to get good at the game. A lingo for this "final frontier" can help speed the process considerably. Having introduced these concepts to my league, I've noticed immediate improvement at the low end, by the way. That is, the "bad" coaches have new game, and are suddenly competitive with the "good" ones.

No, it's not very concise, but that's not the order of operations. You put your ducks in a row, you make some connections, and you put it all together in a concise theory. Frankly, with the limited amount of time I put into this, it's not like I'm going to zoom to step three of the process. The ducks are now mostly in a row.

An analogy: spaceships are sexy and high-tech, o-rings are boring and commonplace. But for want of an o-ring, the Challenger was lost. Understanding the proper specs and tolerances of those little rubber rings is the only way we managed to get into space in the first place.

[JaM]

Matt, it IS a load of text, but I agree withthe points made so far. I'm still deciding if I should divide a BB-board like that, it starts to look like a chess board .

I think you are doing a fine job and that there is much to gain in a set of universal terms. I just hope it catches on, the posts before your meds (meditations) red like some kind of Superbowl-lingo and usually put me off, because you lost me after the first 1.5 sentence.
Not this time though ! Looks good so far.

Cheers,

JaM

[mattgslater]

Matt, it IS a load of text, but I agree withthe points made so far. I'm still deciding if I should divide a BB-board like that, it starts to look like a chess board .

I think you are doing a fine job and that there is much to gain in a set of universal terms. I just hope it catches on, the posts before your meds (meditations) red like some kind of Superbowl-lingo and usually put me off, because you lost me after the first 1.5 sentence.
Not this time though ! Looks good so far.

Cheers,

JaM

Fortunately, BB is a lot more complex than Chess. That alone will keep this game from ever feeling like Chess, where very specific defined maneuvers separate the gifted amateurs from the real competitors. I'm definitely aware that if my system takes off we'll head in that direction, but I suspect that it will seem more like sports terminology, where there is a lot of lingo, but knowing the lingo isn't nearly enough to differentiate you from people who are better than you at other key skills. Gary Kasparov could whip your butt with pieces made out of toilet paper, but Bill Belichick and a Pop Warner team would have no chance against the Detroit Lions. BB is at most somewhere in the middle.

[B SIDE]

I can't use of "fronting" as a Blood Bowl term. As a noun, "front" has many subtle meanings appropriate to tactics and strategy discussion, but as a verb, it has no generally accepted meaning outside of slang use.

"Fronting" - meaning deliberate personal misrepresentation for social benefit- is described clumsily but appropriately here in the Urban Dictionary:

Fronting
Acting like you are more, or you have more than what really exists.
Casey drove around the rented car acting like it was hers. She was straight fronting.

What you describe in BB as "fronting" may just as easily be called "screening" or "covering". In tactical dialogue, one may say "establish a front", but setting up such a front ought not be called "fronting".

As to chess, "defined maneuvers", toilet paper, and the Detroit Lions:

Aw hell, I have way too much to say on this topic. I'm going to have to let a quote suffice.

"It is not enough just to be a good player. One must also play well." -S. Tarrasch

[mattgslater]

What you describe in BB as "fronting" may just as easily be called "screening" or "covering". In tactical dialogue, one may say "establish a front", but setting up such a front ought not be called "fronting".

Already using those terms. Got another one?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/cover

I also looked up "defend"

Main Entry: defend
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: protect
Synonyms: avert, battle, beat off, bulwark, care for, cherish, conserve, contend, cover, entrench, espouse, fend off, fight, fight for, fortify, foster, garrison, guard, guard against, hedge, hold, hold at bay, house, insure, keep safe, look after, maintain, mine, nourish, oppose, panoply, preserve, prevent, provide sanctuary, repel danger, resist, retain, safeguard, save, screen, secure, shelter, shield, stave off, sustain, take in, uphold, war, ward off, watch, watch over, withstand

"Ward"?
Main Entry: ward/ward off
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: defend, guard
Synonyms: avert, avoid, beat off, block, check, deflect, deter, divert, fend, foil, forestall, frustrate, halt, hold off, interrupt, keep at arm's length, keep at bay, keep off, obviate, parry, preclude, prevent, rebuff, rebut, repel, repulse, rule out, stave off, stop, stymie*, thwart, turn, turn aside, turn away

"Stop?"
Main Entry: stop
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: bring or come to a halt or end
Synonyms: be over, blow off, break, break off, call it a day, cease, close, cold turkey, come to a standstill, conclude, cool it, cut out, cut short, desist, discontinue, draw up, drop, end, finish, halt, hang it up, hold, kill, pause, pull up, put an end to, quit, quit cold, refrain, run its course, scrub, shut down, sign off, stall, stand, stay, tarry, terminate, wind up, wrap up

Main Entry: stop
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: prevent, hold back
Synonyms: arrest, avoid, bar, block, bottle, break, check, choke, choke off, clog, close, congest, cut off, disrupt, fill, fix, forestall, frustrate, gag, hinder, hush, impede, intercept, interrupt, muzzle, obstruct, occlude, plug, put a stop to, rein in, repress, restrain, seal, shut down, shut off, shut out, silence, stall, staunch, stay, stem, still, stopper, suspend, throw over, turn off, ward off

Of these, my favorites are: check, stop, ward, hold. I think "seal" has a place in BB, but this isn't it. "Check" may not be good, because you don't want to call your men "checkers". I kind of feel the same way about "stoppers". Ward? I could also repurpose "hedge" if that works better.

[B SIDE]

I really don't see the need for a separate term here. What you've described as fronting and partitioning are merely examples of coverage patterns. (Hedging is similar, but may also include marking techniques.)

"Use midfield screen coverage to partition the field, and isolate your opponent's catchers from where their blockers can assist them" is a perfectly acceptable sentence that does not rely on the proposed technical definitions for any of the above italicized terms.

(Notice that two terms with possible technical meanings can be used here without causing confusion i.e. "partition" and "assist". These words are being used in their proper strategic context without deviating from their traditional common meanings. I know this is the goal of your teleological groundwork, and so the example may serve to significantly illustrate an important point: there is a linguistic rubicon which, having crossed, you will have over-specified the terms and their proper uses, making them ineffective tools for communication.)

Further technical terms may be useful- and many will certainly evolve on their own. A technical manual of BB terminology may influence the lingua franca of BB, but should not be expected to replace it. That does not mean that continued exploration of possible language tools for the game isn't beneficial. Rather, it only suggests that to force technical terms onto the game where they are not needed may be counterproductive to any teleological, rather than analytical, context of the effort.

Certainly Aristotle would have agreed. The goal of the game is to score touchdowns and drink the blood of your enemies. Any terminology we institute to describe it must be a useful means toward that end.

[mattgslater]

I have a different meaning of "partition" from the one you're talking about, though I do think that "hedging" is so broad a term the way I have it as to be nigh-valueless, or at most generic.

Genus:
* Hedging: keeping an opponent from entering an area by using what I called formations, but I'm leaning to changing it to "structures" instead.

Species:
* Caging: keeping an opponent from getting to the ball carrier, or the intended carrier, or that player's intended positions, by using structures.
* Partitioning: keeping an opponent corralled in a "kill zone" by using structures.
* Fronting (or whatever): preventing the cage from moving in the desired direction (usually downfield) by using structures.

I think if you have a discrete, concrete meaning for a term, you should use it and keep it consistent when you intend to be precise. If others use it differently, this isn't too scary, unless the term is relatively fundamental. In context, it usually makes sense, so no worry. I like being super-precise, but I don't hold it against those who aren't.

The way I would define these terms, and the way they for me fit into the rest of the lingo:

Hedging
Efficient cause: actions and coaches
Material cause: structures, players, TZs, the pitch and opponents
Formal cause: structures that relate to opposing players
Final cause: caging, (fronting/whatever) or partitioning.

Structures
Efficient cause: actions and coaches
Material cause: players, TZs and the pitch
Formal cause: zigs, zags, walls, stacks, and the various fences and screens
Final cause: blocking, marking, and/or coverage

[B SIDE]

Dropping Aristotle bombs all over the place! Sweet.

If a term must be placed above all expressions relating to the control of space on the pitch for offense or defense, then that term ought to be "structure". The word itself means "to build, organize or arrange", and has carried that meaning for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. At the moment, we run the risk of being called the "Cult of Hedges". We might expect to be assaulted by coconut-wielding Bretonnians at any moment.

But the verb to hedge does not commonly mean to constrain (movement); rather it means something more akin to to invest in opposition to one's own position (to reduce the costs associated with failure). Hedging is either a term for gardeners or gamblers. The nature of the game of BB suggests the latter. Indeed the common use of the word hedging might be useful in discussing risk management strategy on the pitch.

In contrast, the word structure not only has a broadly defined and commonly understood meaning more similar to what we intend to convey, but also a long history of use in the analysis of other games of strategy. Structure in chess, for example, relates to positions which are more or less permanent in nature (having to do with pawns, which cannot be moved backward, more than pieces, which have greater mobility and flexibility). Despite your disparaging remarks about the complexity of the game of chess, you will certainly agree that chess theory is far more advanced than any existing theory of BB. The popular terminology of chess theory ought at least be considered whenever it may be adaptable to our purposes. (I posit that there is much yet to be gained from a detailed comparison of the two games.)

As to "fronting", perhaps looking at verbs to describe structures is the wrong way to go. Try some nouns. Blockade, battlement, rampart, mantlet, etc...

[mattgslater]

Structure refers to the use of two or more players. Hedge refers to the objective of that use. I agree that "hedge" can be dropped, or rather redefined as "front" (replacing "fronting" with "hedging").

What good would the philosophy degree be if I never got to show it off?

[B SIDE]

The term front could still be improved upon. Traditionally, the front of something is whatever sticks forward the farthest. (The word comes from the latin for forehead.) But in military strategy, a front is the main line of battle. In this way, a front may be an appropriate term for a defense in depth against a cage formation. But should the ball escape the cage, being transferred to advanced receivers/runners, the front may no longer be the front, and becomes more like... a hedge. Damnit.

I prefer blockade. It elegantly meets the criteria established, avoids confusion, and is commonly used in tactics to describe similar structures. Also, blockading is better than fronting.

What good would the philosophy degree be if I never got to show it off?

Nothing at all, I think.

[mattgslater]

I think "hedge" works well for what I called "fronts" and what I called "hedges" isn't necessary. I want to stay away from explicitly military terminology, because a) this isn't a wargame, and b) most new coaches either come from the ranks of wargamers or actively shun them, and we want to differentiate ourselves.

[Wanchor]

'Hedging' as a verb is fine, especially when used with 'in'; indeed, the second entry for the verbal form at dictionary.com refers to this type of usage of the term, below a literal, gardening-oriented term and above the use of it regarding hedging one's bet. However, I prefer 'warding' or 'ward' to 'front(ing).' 'Blockade' seems almost archaic and formal; I certainly never use it in day-to-day discourse, and I don't imagine that any Blood Bowl jargon would do well to stray much from that.

[B SIDE]

a) this isn't a wargame, and b) most new coaches either come from the ranks of wargamers or actively shun them, and we want to differentiate ourselves.

Hm. I'll give that some thought.

[mattgslater]

So, a breakdown of the first four meditations, to date. We've got a long way to go. Most likely, some of this will change, and perhaps a little will fall by the wayside, as we complete our journey.

Geography of the pitch
Up: Toward the receiving team's end zone
Down: Toward the kicking team's end zone
Left, Right: From the kicking team's perspective

Point: A single square with unique properties vis-a-vis some action, formation or portion of the pitch.
Line: A group of squares in a distinct line with similar properties, as above.
Field: A cluster of squares more than one square in each direction with similar properties, as above.

0 Column: The line in the middle of the pitch, running from endone to endzone.
L(1, 2, 3... 7) Column: The column that many squares left of the 0 column.
R(1, 2, 3... 7) Column: The column that many squares right of the 0 column.
Wide Zone Marker: The line separating the 3 column from the 4 column on each side of the pitch.
Sideline Marker: The line separating the 7 column from the crowd on each side of the pitch.

+0 Row: The line on the receiving team's side of the half-way line.
+(1, 2, 3, ... 12) Row: The line of squares that many squares upfield the line of scrimmage.
+12 Row: The receiving team's end zone, where the kicking team scores.
-0 Row: The line on the kicking team's side of the half-way line.
-(1, 2, 3... 12) Row: The line of squares that many squares downfield of the line of scrimmage.
-12 Row: The kicking team's end zone, where the receiving team scores.

Examples
L3-0: The square on the defensive line, just inside the wide zone marker on the defense's left.
L3+0: The square on the offensive line directly opposite that one. Standing behind the offense, this square is on the coach's right.

Diagramming Rules:
* Use an unkerned font, or characters of similar size. TFF code works nicely, or you can use lowercase letters and en-dashes in the normal text, with spaces to represent the lines between squares and vertical lines to represent the WZ markers. Or use play-creator.
* Defense sets up at the bottom. if you're using play-creator, defense sets up on the left.
* If you're taking a screenshot that's set up some other way, just note this in text if it's not obvious. It may be that you're talking "backwards" or differentiating the reader's right or left from right and left field in the text. Or avoid talking about left and right. Or make a caveat at the beginning. Or don't, and leave it for the reader to figure out.
* Unless noted otherwise, the leftmost (or topmost in play-creator) square in the diagram is on the left sideline, so in partial diagrams centerfield is on the right. If this is not the case, simply note the leftmost square.

Basic points, lines, and fields:
Centerfield: L1-R1, from +12 to -12.
Midfield: L3-R3, from +3 to -2, give or take a couple squares in any direction, more-or-less.
Left field: L7-L2, from +12 to -12.
Right field: R2-R7, from +12 to -12.
Center back: the point 0+6, or the line (L1-R1)+6
Wide Zone: L/R(4-7), from +12 to -12, outside the wide zone markers.
Line of Scrimmage: L3-R3, ±0.
Spine: Points at L6, L3, 0, R3 and R6, in the same or nearby rows.

Structure: Two or more players placed within two squares.

Two-player structures:
Wall: Two adjacent friendly players in the same row.
– a b –
Stack: Two adjacent friendly players in the same column.
– a –
– b –
Zig: Two adjacent friendly players, where the player closest to his own team's end zone is to the outside of the other.
– – a –
– b – –
Zag: Two adjacent friendly players, where the player closest to his own team's end zone is to the inside of the other.
– a – –
– – b –
Fence: Two friendly players one square apart.
– a – b –
Screen: Two friendly players two squares apart.
– a – – b –
Lock: A structure that prevents an opponent from dodging into the clear.
– a 1 – b –
or
– a 1 b –
or
– – – a – –
– – – – – –
– b 1 – – –
– – – – c –
Trap: a structure that prevents an opponent from following into the clear after a block.
– a b 1 –

Purposes of structures (not exclusive):
Blocking: Generating effective pushes or knockdowns through blocks, assists and occupied squares.
Coverage: Inhibiting a player's movement without placing a Tackle Zone directly on him.
Marking: Inhibiting a player's movement by placing a Tackle Zone directly on him.
Caging: Preventing defenders from getting to the ball.
Hedging: Preventing the cage from moving in the desired direction (formerly "fronting").
Partitioning: Preventing the opposing team from moving either vertically or laterally, usually in an attempt to generate a breakaway with a slow team and increase the availability of blocks.

Clearly, on the agenda, we have:
* Multiplayer structures, including reinforced structures, and a bit more on screens and fences. This will be Med V. The rest are open territory: please, have at it! I'll contribute some, too.
* Kinds of blocking structures, including a lot more potential for concepts like locks and traps, or variants on the same.
* A systematic discussion of line-blocking principles that allows for a very clear breakdown of best practices, contingencies and odds.
* Structures involving prone players and opposing players who have acted, may not act (or may only stand), or would otherwise be taking contingent or late-priority actions.
* The relationship between blocking, assisting, and marking.
* My teleological expression of structures is very wide-open; my treatment so far seems quite cursory. B-SIDE, if you're inclined to run with it, I'd be thrilled.
* With this terminology, kicking the ball and receiving the kickoff should be much easier to discuss.

See? Maybe none of it so far has been mind-blowing, but the possibilities are starting to reveal themselves.