Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
 Posted:
May 23, 2008 - 00:48 |
 
|
I mistitled this thread initially as Pac correctly stated. I changed the title a few posts down to make it more searchable.
I generally set up in this manner. Maybe something like this: (Line at Rt is LoS)
OOOO|
XOOO|
OXOO|
OOOO|
--------|
OXOX|
OOOO|
OXOO|
OOOX|
OXOO|
OOOO|
OXOX|
--------|
OOOO|
OXOO|
XOOO|
My rationale is to make them roll dice to get by me. Maybe I can burn an early reroll by making them try to clear a path.
I notice that some of the cool kids don't set up like this. They don't contest the sideline at all. They drop their guys into a wedge in the back, safe from blitzing and leave the sidelines wide open. This means that catchers and such can essentially cage way down field (if they can get the ball down there.) It at least means the opponent will be able to get all the catchers they could possibly want wherever they could possibly want them It also means that they can't flood the opponent's backfield and put pressure on the thrower (Since their guys are starting out back in a wedge).
I assume this is a brilliant logic that I'm missing. And clearly I'm missing it.
Would any of you jedi kids care to explain the logic? When, how, and why it's used preferably...
Thanks! |
_________________
Previously intelligent.
Last edited by Pro511 on %b %26, %2008 - %16:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2008 - 01:13 |
|
I use the wedge you mention because it means that i can GENERALLY pick five guys to have totally safe from a first turn blitz-foul combo.
Using the set up you use... i can pick whichever guy i want to foul and get some good assists.
Go spec one of Texan's games to see a good example of an "inside corner blitz" which knocks a guy TOWARDS the offensive team and results in more assist ability.
__Synn |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2008 - 01:16 |
|
I'm certainly no jedi, but I do use both. Depends what my objective is. Sometimes I am not that interested in stopping him at all, unless he mucks up. Of course it also depends on what team you are using.
Generally if you cover the wings in the staggered formation, you are trying to prevent players getting through. Like you say it may burn a re roll. This sort of formation I find works well against elves you want to stop. Who are trying to get as many catchers in a scoring position. Against a team that can hit the second guy with more strength, but won't get into a likely scoring position in the second turn, there isn't much point.
Against a running team, or with a team that isn't so fast, i generally start with the wedge at the back. This way you can get as players into position as possible. Works well with running teams I guess. If you start 2 on each side, it is likely those 2 players are out of the play. And as this sort of formation suits blitzers, that is 2 valuable players. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2008 - 01:42 |
|
| Code: | OOOO|
XOOO|
OXOO|
OOOO|
----|
OXOX|
OOOO|
OXOO|
OOOX|
OXOO|
OOOO|
OXOX|
----|
OOOO|
OXOO|
XOOO|
|
Type (code) then (/code) replacing ( with [
Handy for depicting setups. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2008 - 10:32 |
|
Well, firstly the title is confusing. You're not talking about contesting the LoS - the LoS is the 7 middle squares on each side of the halfway line. Contesting the LoS would be sticking 7 guys on it on defence and saying, 'Ha! I bet you can't block them all!  ' What you're talking about is covering the width of the pitch.
There are a few reasons why some coaches don't always do this:
Open flanks make a quick score easier, but they may also encourage a coach to go for that quick score when he otherwise might not. Thus, the tactic can effectively be to encourage the opponent to score in two turns giving your team the chance to play the classic slow basher drive. On the other hand, when the opponent only has two turns to score anyway, few experienced coaches will use a narrow set-up.
As Synn mentioned, a narrower set-up makes it easier to protect more key players from a blitz-foul shot.
For slow-moving teams - particularly ones with players like Zombies and Longbeards - if you stick two players out in each wide zone, and then the opposing team attacks down one flank, those players on the opposite flank can end up effectively out of the game for one or more turns as they slowly hobble towards where the action is. Setting up narrow cedes ground, but allows the whole team to respond to wherever the attack is made.
If you do decide to cover the width of the pitch, I wouldn't use the set-up you show. It's better to set up your LoS players narrow (ooxxxoo) so that it's harder to chain-block them. Then on each flank you can set up (something like):
ooxo|oxo
oxoo|xoo
or
oxoo|xoo
oxoo|xoo
(there are other variations)
Which makes it harder to break through (depending on skills, ST values). The best place for the opponent to make a hole with these kind of set-ups is either right down the touchline (requiring a Guard or high ST - and this is where you put SF/SS - and restricting the number of players who can get down there because it's very wide) or through the middle (which means your players from both flanks can close in on them, so nobody is left out of the game).
Another important thing to consider when deciding whether or not to cover the width of the pitch is whether your team wants to be able to break into the opponent's half. It's very important for high MA teams including WEs, rats and Humans to be able to strike deep into the opponent's half (in support of a deep kick) and put the ball-carrier or the rear of the cage under pressure. Setting up wide makes it very difficult for your opponent to cover all your routes into his half for all your players while also concentrating his force somewhere. Setting up narrow and deep makes it easier for him (and also takes off some of the pressure of the possibility of a Blitz!). |
|
|
Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 05:48 |
|
| Synn wrote: | I use the wedge you mention because it means that i can GENERALLY pick five guys to have totally safe from a first turn blitz-foul combo.
Using the set up you use... i can pick whichever guy i want to foul and get some good assists.
Go spec one of Texan's games to see a good example of an "inside corner blitz" which knocks a guy TOWARDS the offensive team and results in more assist ability.
__Synn |
Wow. Totally new way of thinking. So blitz/foul is a standard BB opening move? I guess that's a fair defense against it.
I couldn't quite find what you mean about the inside blitz but will take your word and have a look tomorrow. |
_________________
Previously intelligent. |
|
Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 05:53 |
|
I'm responding to each point with separate posts... hope that's OK.
| pac wrote: |
If you do decide to cover the width of the pitch, I wouldn't use the set-up you show. It's better to set up your LoS players narrow (ooxxxoo) so that it's harder to chain-block them.
|
I initially started setting up as ooxxxoo in the middle but got frustrated that 4 guys of equal str could just block down the line. I felt that spacing my front 3 made the opponent commit 6 players to certain spots on the line. Plus, if there are several superblockers, they have no choice of who to block in a spread scheme. I'd love to be talked back into a narrow 3 again. It just annoyed me getting smacked by 4 linos and having 7 other guys free to setup wherever they wanted. |
_________________
Previously intelligent. |
|
Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 05:56 |
|
| pac wrote: | Then on each flank you can set up (something like):
ooxo|oxo
oxoo|xoo
or
oxoo|xoo
oxoo|xoo
(there are other variations)
|
I'm confused by your notation. Is this assuming that we're not setting up ooxxxoo on the LOS? |
_________________
Previously intelligent. |
|
Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 06:00 |
|
| pac wrote: |
Another important thing to consider when deciding whether or not to cover the width of the pitch is whether your team wants to be able to break into the opponent's half. It's very important for high MA teams including WEs, rats and Humans to be able to strike deep into the opponent's half (in support of a deep kick) and put the ball-carrier or the rear of the cage under pressure. Setting up wide makes it very difficult for your opponent to cover all your routes into his half for all your players while also concentrating his force somewhere. Setting up narrow and deep makes it easier for him (and also takes off some of the pressure of the possibility of a Blitz!). |
That was my main logic behind setting up wide as well. I find that setting up wide automatically makes whichever side they don't move the ball down my backfield penetration/contain/rear pursue as the cage moves by.
Lots of stuff to think about. Thanks guys.
And thanks SS, I'll try that code at some point.  |
_________________
Previously intelligent. |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 11:40 |
|
| Newbie511 wrote: | | I initially started setting up as ooxxxoo in the middle but got frustrated that 4 guys of equal str could just block down the line. I felt that spacing my front 3 made the opponent commit 6 players to certain spots on the line. Plus, if there are several superblockers, they have no choice of who to block in a spread scheme. I'd love to be talked back into a narrow 3 again. It just annoyed me getting smacked by 4 linos and having 7 other guys free to setup wherever they wanted. |
Yes, it does depend what you want to prioritise. If you set up narrow, it only takes 4 of them to block you - but they only get 4 blocks. If you set up spread out, you force more of them to set up on the LoS if they want to block all of them (or rather, if they want to get as many blocks as possible) - but they get more blocks (ie, they are more likely to knock you all down).
Also, bear in mind that even if you set up spread out, it doesn't necessarily force them to set up 6 players on the LoS to get at least one block on everyone - they can move assists in from elsewhere. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 11:43 |
|
| Newbie511 wrote: | | pac wrote: | Then on each flank you can set up (something like):
ooxo|oxo
oxoo|xoo
or
oxoo|xoo
oxoo|xoo
(there are other variations)
|
I'm confused by your notation. Is this assuming that we're not setting up ooxxxoo on the LOS? |
No, I'm assuming the narrow LoS. That has a chance of blocking the centre of the pitch if their LoS blocks aren't great.
ooxo|oxo
oxoo|xoo
I'm confused by what you find confusing.
To the left is the edge of the pitch. The | in the middle is the border of the wide zone. (x is a player, o is an empty space.) Reflect for the positioning on the other flank. Naturally, this is all two steps back from the halfway line (safe from Quick Snap). |
|
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 12:36 |
|
What pac means is:
| Code: | ____ _______ ____
|....|..xxx..|....|
|....|.......|....|
|..x.|.x...x.|.x..|
|.x..|x.....x|..x.|
|....|.......|....| |
|
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 16:15 |
|
Thanks Laviak and Pac for clarifying.
The "two steps back" was what I was missing.
That setup does leave a lane down the middle once the front three are smacked but seems pretty solid elsewhere.
It'd also be interesting to reflect on how to setup depending on the turn and score. Down 1-0 late in the game I think I'd set up wider and gamble on not getting quicksnap to get my weak side (away from the side that the ball goes to) players to head down field should I get the ball back.
This entire new philosophy of strategy being governed by turn 1 blitz/foul is really interesting and new to me. I'm surprised it's never been used against me, frankly. I'm a bit weary about taking into account a strategy that I'm not really facing. Maybe I'll just set up in a wedge if I start playing against the cool kids.
I see other advantages to the wedge as well, but not sure that they overwhelm what I'm doing now. I think I might stick with pac's wide setup until I start getting smacked myself. 
So where can I read more about specific wedge setups and the logic behind them? |
_________________
Previously intelligent. |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 16:18 |
|
| Newbie511 wrote: | | This entire new philosophy of strategy being governed by turn 1 blitz/foul is really interesting and new to me. I'm surprised it's never been used against me, frankly. I'm a bit weary about taking into account a strategy that I'm not really facing. |
Where do you find all these opponents who don't blitz and foul you on Turn 1?  |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2008 - 16:33 |
|
Well, I suppose he meant "foul in order to blitz with more assists".
I myself find the blitz! action too important to just use it to get an opponent into my backfield so that I can gangfoul him.
I use blitzes to create gaps in my opponent's defence, or to MB a particularly annoying target if he's been left in the open. |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
RNG speculations
Search
