Defensive Formations

[martynq]

I'm sure defensive formations have been discussed at great length plenty of times before, but before I recover old ground to attempt to sort out my bad play, I've put a number of possible formations on a website, namely:

http://uk.geocities.com/martyn_quick/defense.html

Are there any obvious omissions or obvious mistakes I've made?

Martyn

[grep-v]

Are there any obvious omissions or obvious mistakes I've made?

"Variant 3-4-4": won't work against fast teams. They'll blitz one of the two front guys at the sidefield lines, run through and secure their position with fast blitzers etc.

"Deep 3-7-1": only if your opponent has two turns left to score.

"Defense against Agility teams": won't work. They'll block the left or right guy at the LOS, blitz the one behind, for the rest look at "Variant 3-4-4". The second one seems to be better albeit only against the slower agility teams.

Just my two cents ...

[/list]

[Marcus]

The 2nd 3-4-4 is illegal - 4 in each widezone.

Traditional 3-4-4 puts the front three shoulder to shoulder (they should have guard)

Defense against agility teams isn't appropriate for that purpose because the secondary isn't strong enough to prevent an easy 2 die blitz. Widezone players need to be set closer to the outside linebackers to make the blitz more expensive or force the run around the outside. Defense against the pass needs to prevent an easy 2 die blitz on the secondary to be worthy of the name.

[martynq]

The 2nd 3-4-4 is illegal - 4 in each widezone.

Oops - I'll correct it tomorrow... I've put four of the players too wide.

Traditional 3-4-4 puts the front three shoulder to shoulder (they should have guard)

OK, I'll change that and refer to the one I put as another variant.

Defense against agility teams isn't appropriate for that purpose because the secondary isn't strong enough to prevent an easy 2 die blitz. Widezone players need to be set closer to the outside linebackers to make the blitz more expensive or force the run around the outside. Defense against the pass needs to prevent an easy 2 die blitz on the secondary to be worthy of the name.

Erm... I don't understand what you mean. What do the second or third sentences mean? (I'm not familiar with the terms.)

The defense itself came from an article on Galak's sight... and presumably from another source before that (WD or CJ possibly?).

At the moment, I'm interested in whether there are any other standard defenses I've missed off. I thought I'd find out what is right or wrong with each one afterwards.

Martyn

[Marcus]

OK, the last one is my subjective assessment of the formation; some explanation is in order.

In my experience, the best way to get recievers downfield for a passing play is to set up around the widezone line (I'll refer to it as "the hashmarks"). Knock down at least the outermost player on the line, then get an assist to the player directly behind him (outside linebacker), get a 2 die blitz, continue downfield, then flood your recievers through.

This is generally the best way because if you go down the sideline then your offence is highly assymetrical and you waste a lot of movement points getting recievers from inside the hashmarks (since you can only have 2 players in the widezone to start), around to the hole you made in the widezone, then back into scoring position.

Example:

Code: Select all

....|.......|....
-----------------
....|1..2..3|....
.4..|.......|..8.
....|5..6..7|....
.9..|.......|..b.
....|...a...|....

Against that setup with, say, a Woodelf team with no skills either side to speak of: I'd set up in front of player 1; knock him down or push him out of the way; run an assist through in front of player 5; blitz through with a Wardancer and hit player 5, then run recievers through. If I knock the opponent towards the left hand side I only need pushbacks to make a hole big enough to run through without making dodges.

Against Agility teams looking to score in that manner, you will need to ensure the assist against player 5 (outside linebacker) is hard to get without tangling up your offensive run or forcing dodges if the player does not get knocked down.

For this reason, it is often preferable to set up player 9 directly to the right of player 4, rather than behind him. This way you block one of the valid squares from which the opponent can make an assist and thereby make it more difficult to make a hole for the recievers.

It does make it a little easier to run down the sideline but it requires more players to make the assist and can cause headaches if there is only a pushback result.

Incidentally, This is why I always play my strongest players in the outside linebacker position, where possible.

It's not perfect, of course, no defence is, but it does ask more questions of a passing offence than the example shown.

[Marcus]

One other comment I'd make on the 3-7-1. Traditionally you set up the guys in the widezones standing right next to each other. The setup you've shown makes it easy to get an assist for a 2 die block on the outermost player in the widezone.

I believe that's the way wesleytj's site on Woodelf tactics shows the 3-7-1.

[DoubleSkulls]

Aggressive - to keep your opponent stuck on the LoS in a big maul. For use against slower and weaker teams

Code: Select all

____|__XXX__|____
_XX_|XX___XX|_XX_

Aggressive 2

Code: Select all

____|_X_X_X_|____
_XX_|X_X_X_X|_XX_

Variant aggressive (vs Frenzy)

Code: Select all

____|__XXX__|____
__X_|XX___XX|_X__
_X__|_______|__X_

[holybinch]

on what have been posted, but, just a question...
You nearly always put some the guys on the flank on the second line...
I tend to put them on the 3rd, just in case of a QuickSnap...
giving out that many more blocks just doesn't seem right to me...

[Grumbledook]

Like he said its aggressive set ups with getting into a big ruck in the middle of the pitch, you only use this if thats what your aiming to achieve.

[DoubleSkulls]

Well its a trade off between the risk of the quick snap and the advantage being a bit closer to the LoS.

[martynq]

OK, I've added Ian's aggressive defenses, adjusted the defense v Agility teams (and relegated the previous one to "ineffective"), corrected the various 3-4-4 variations and adjusted 3-7-1.

Is it all ok now?

... and then I can get on to asking my inevitable "which one" question.

Martyn

[Evil Git]

martin

i'm finding these really useful. i just have one problem though.

the first 3-4-4 (variant) still has 4 players in the wide zones.

[martynq]

i'm finding these really useful. i just have one problem though.
the first 3-4-4 (variant) still has 4 players in the wide zones.

Erm, no it doesn't (I hope!) - I think this is a caching problem. Clear your browser's caches and try again... or alternatively, open the image in the browser and then reload.

Martyn

[Thor]

I play HE and like what Marcus wrote above. If you were using elves on offense and your opponent was using Ocs on defence in the following formation, how would you attack it.

____|_______|____
--------------------------
____|__123__|____
_4__|5_____6|__7_
____|_______|____
_8__|9_____a|__b_
____|_______|____

[Evil Git]

ah that's better, nice one martin