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

[B SIDE]

I think it's progressing nicely.

I'm inclined to avoid becoming a principal in the conversation on structures. It seems to be that the difference between blocking and marking has something to do with tempo. There is also the issue of material.

When a rookie linerat gets base-to-base with a Block/Stand Firm bull centaur to prevent an easy blitz on the ball carrier we know right away that it's a marking formation. When the bull does the same to the rat, being far from the ball, it's a blocking formation. But take the ball out of the equation, and we can still be fairly sure what we're looking at; the rat isn't going to throw an early block at the bull and risk a turnover, but the bull is almost certainly going to put the knuckledusters to that rodent. The weaker player is marking, by default. The stronger player is blocking. And the difference is not positional, but material.

Consider the same scenario with two well matched players (say, a Longbeard and a Black Orc), but put one of them on the ground, about to stand. Positionally this is marking, but in practice it will be a blocking tactic for the fellow who is standing, because of tempo.

The poor fellow on the ground can regain the initiative (and tempo) by blitzing, but that action is restricted. So we're led down a path that leads to conversations about marginal initiative, where a coach finds he can gain tempo for his side by keeping several of his opponents players pinned to the pitch.

What's more, because of assists, strength of material is flexible (where mobility, agility, and durability are generally not). The usefulness of an assist has more to do with position than material or tempo, but all of these factors must be accounted for.

These additional factors would distract from the discussion of positional theory. In fact, I cannot see how positional theory can be converted into tactics without considering them.

(Here I am writing about something to explain why I'm not going to commit to writing about it. Avoid typing FAIL. Time for bed.)

I await your further Meditations. Until then-

[mattgslater]

See, I don't think we should shy away from these things. So far, B-SIDE, your exploration seems like it has likely value. The discussion of "tempo" as you have it is something I've pondered, and something that would probably respond well to further examination. We should see how much of this pertains to Coach's materials, too, because there's a huge degree of synergy between what we're doing and what he's doing.

[B SIDE]

I read everything on Coach's site. I took a decade long hiatus from BB, and when I got back into the game just a few months ago, I was happy to find such practical and concise advice available on the nettywebs.

[Piousman]

Good read so far. Keep at it.

Do not be discouraged by the lack of responses so far, as we are still either at a too advanced level (for newer coaches) or fairly basic (for veterans) and it will take a while until the playing field is evened out.

I liked the recap, it was good to have it all in one place, especially since some of the terms were covered 4 Meditations ago.

Looking forward to more.

- Piousman

[voyagers_uk]

yeah, keep 'em coming, they are definitely interesting

[mattgslater]

I haven't started Med V (and probably won't do it this week, though I may). I'm looking at a discussion of multiplayer structures, and I'm thinking I'm going to approach the subject by identifying two different genera of structures: compound structures (two or more simple structures appended together to do the same job more convincingly or to cover more ground) and another category that I have yet to name, for structures that just don't work with two players.

Example compound structures: Spine screen and trap (zig) screen

Spine screen
– a – –|b – – c – – d|– – e –

Zig screen (a species of the larger category, the trap screen)
– – a –|– b
– c – –|d –

Bonus: stack screen (another trap screen)
– a – – b
– c – – d

Example "large" structures: x-cage and trap lock

X-cage (ball carrier labeled "B")
– a – b –
– – B – –
– c – d –

Trap lock
– – a – – –
– – – – – –
– b 1 – c –
d – – – – –

I haven't thought this through any farther than that, but does it make sense? Sometimes, you're using more than two players to make a structure because the structure needs to be wider or deeper than a two-man structure, and sometimes you're using more than two players because the structure wouldn't work with only two men.

[mattgslater]

I started on "Med V" and quickly realized that it's Med VI. There's something more fundamental that had been boiling about in my head for a long time, and needs to be expressed. Med V will be about intact and broken structures and the properties of structure size and strength, and will include an icebreaker on prone players and on multiplayer structures. Meditation VI will then focus on multiplayer coverage structures, laying the groundwork for a meditation on blocking structures. That should be enough to convert this document into a more concise theory, hopefully something sticky-worthy, itself in turn the foundation of a Cult of Position playbook. Bwahahahaha.

[Biff]

Looking forward to the next part!

[GuppyShark]

Just skipping to the end of the thread to chuck a comment in:




With regards to "up" being offense, and "down" being defense, there is no need to use AmFo to justify this.

When you sit down to play a game of Blood Bowl on the tabletop, 99% of the time you are going to set up your players in the half of the board you're closest to, so you will be looking "up" towards the opponent's end zone.

[mattgslater]

Sure. And the defense is the first one on the field.

I wasn't really using AmF to justify it, so much as I was noting that's how they do it there, too.

[dines]

Whats the status? I really like your initiative and looking forward to the next one.

[mattgslater]

Juggling a lot of things. It's been slow-going, but I'll get back to it soon, I promise.

[Der_Doodle]

Still waiting for the next part.
I hope you find the time to finish this project Matt cause I really enjoyed reading it so far.

Doodle

[Arngrim]

I find a mix of letters and numbers easier, like a chessboard.
First: I applaud your effort to try to create a language for BB, generally I agree with your terms, but I would like to make a few suggestions if I may:

I prefer if the team that receives with the ball has the negative rows, moving the ball from row -3 to -9 means moving the ball back from the LOS, moving it from row 3 to 9 means moving it downfield towards a touchdown just seems more natural to me.

I'm also a fan of colourcoding port and starboard, so I'd suggest that "left" be renamed "red" and "right" to be renamed "blue".

I dislike having two "0"-lines, and would prefer if the first line was#1 instead.

I have a huge problem with the "spine"-term, to me it would constitute the "H"-line, the "0" line without a + or - running from endzone to endzone in your system. If you want a term for a line that runs from longside to longside
Perhaps "line" works well?

So basically the schematic grid for the field would look like this:

Receiving Team's half
Red Wing******** Blue Wing
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -13 Off End Zone
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -12
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -11
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -10 U
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -9 P
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -8 F
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -7 I
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -6 E
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -5 L
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -4 D
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -3
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -2
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • -1 Offensive Line
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +1 Defensive Line
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +2
- – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +3 D
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +4 O
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +5 W
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +6 N
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +7 F
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +8 I
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +9 E
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +10 L
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +11 D
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +12
– – – –|– – – – – – –|– – – – • +13 Def End Zone
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
Left Field ******** Right Field
Kicking team's half

Opinons?

[mattgslater]

Interesting. My initial idea with pitch measuring was to go 0-7 left and right and A-Z up and down (A = offensive EZ; offense is trying to get to Z). My use of + and - is because "up" and "down" are established terms common to most football sports, and up:plus :: down:minus.

Red/blue is fine, but I thought those originated as a way to make it easier to differentiate the words in the huddle; if you think color-coding is actually easier, that's fine. Certainly it's easier for the offense. One concern is that red/blue on FUMBBL and Cyanide feels like upfield and downfield, rather than side-to-side, because one team is always in red and the other always in blue.

I haven't abandoned this project, even though I've gotten pretty slowed up. I wanted to make sure I wasn't totally out in left field, so I went on FUMBBL and played 40 games to more-or-less verify my local experience. I've been doing a lot lately, with moving and a new project that I just finished (editing a construction-themed board game that's kind of like dominoes-meets-Jenga, with a complexity level and lifestyle potential on par with Scrabble). I'm also supposed to be writing a Pro Elf guide for Plasmoid, but I'm still in the research phase on it. So It may be awhile, but there will be more!