licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
 Posted:
Aug 14, 2017 - 04:08 |
 
|
| flub wrote: | | With Elf Union I'd kick. This might change at higher TV, but I play Elf Union almost exclusively and when I receive I struggle and usually lose. I'll try to explain why, but I'm not the most experienced coach so feel free to disregard this. I have played more EU than Licker, though :0 |
Not true, but also there's more than one place to play blood bowl.
Still, not like it matters who has played more pros, elfs are pretty much elfs in terms of how they approach drives.
| flub wrote: | | Basic stuff: A new EU team will not have a bench, and armor breaks are extremely frequent. You will rarely finish a game, much less a half, with a full team ready to go. Playing D with 11 players plays into EU's strength, which is scoring ability on Defense anytime. Pop the ball out once, score, and you have a great chance to get the win. Hard to create the pressure needed for this when you're undermanned (and out of rerolls). |
Scoring ability on defense when you can't score on offense? Sorry that makes very little sense to me. Rookie pro teams don't have much ability to steal the ball anyway, you are leveraging your blitzers I guess, because the rest of the team is worse than any other rookie elf team.
| flub wrote: | | On Offense, I don't think you can really control the drive the way a basher team can. You focus more on protecting players I find. And then there are snake eyes and failed blocks eating up rerolls and forcing turnovers and things can get really messy, you may lose before you ever really get started. You don't benefit from receiving the way an Orc does, stomping out dudes for 8 turns. And your reward for the hassle is less opportunity to recover your KO'd guys. |
Oh well if you just always have bad luck when you're on offense...
Seriously, how about if you have bad luck on defense? How about if you have average luck? How about if you have good luck?
No argument based on how lucky you are has any possible merit.
| flub wrote: | | It's better to defend a 1-0 lead, but it's 2x better when you're defending a 1-0 lead and you're set to receive in the next half. |
How about when you're up 2-0 at the half then? I mean seriously, do you guys even pay attention to what you're saying? If you are such a defensive genius that you constantly steal the ball and score on your opponents drive why not score in 2 turns, steal the ball and score again. Hell why not steal it a 3rd time if it's so damn easy and make it 3-0 at the half?
People keep on saying that they can steal the ball and score on defense. Ok. How about if you're already up 1-0 and you do this? Seriously, what's the main difference in strategy that screws you up so badly on offense? And if you're so crap at offense then how does getting the ball in the 2nd half with a beat up team help your case?
It doesn't.
| flub wrote: | | If you like playing a "safer" positional defense, and you're confident you can shut out the score, I can see receiving and setting the tone being better. But I think that comes when you have more tools, more TV, a bench. |
Pretty much the opposite. The more tools you have the better you can steal the ball. Of course the more tools you have the more tools your opponent probably has. Against bash I just can't see why you would give them the 8 turns to grind you in a 0-0 game. Because the counter argument is still the same.
If you can steal the ball easily (and or have a wizard, if they ever come back), then steal the ball up 1-0!!!
| flub wrote: | | I'd like to know what more successful Elf Union coaches think. |
I actually don't care what they think, I want to see their statistics kicking vs. receiving.
Same for me, you are free to not care what I think, I don't have enough statistics to back up my claim either. I just think the always receive strategy is more logical. |
|
|
flub
Joined: Feb 27, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2017 - 04:41 |
|
I learned a long time ago, when someone breaks a post down into little chunks they really have nothing to say. You're talking to yourself.
Game I just played gave near the worst 1st half possible for a kicking team. If I had a bench I think I still would have had a shot at the end. Still, I guess the real answer to the OP really is... it depends. Had I received here maybe I would have scored twice and won. I don't think kicking is a horrible choice, though.
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=3924699
The point about luck was that you start the game making rolls on offense, and EU is turnover heavy because they lack skills like block and dodge. I think they play the most different from all the other elf teams. |
|
|
MrLadybug
Joined: Nov 27, 2016
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2017 - 14:32 |
|
I think the Pro Elves have high touchdown potential in limited numbers as well, thanks to nerves of steel on catchers.
Kick, defend with full team, try to get the ball. If in next half you have like 8 players receiving, there is still plenty of room to score. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2017 - 15:41 |
|
| flub wrote: | | I learned a long time ago, when someone breaks a post down into little chunks they really have nothing to say. You're talking to yourself. |
I'm talking to anyone who's willing to listen. If that's not you, your loss.
| flub wrote: |
The point about luck was that you start the game making rolls on offense, and EU is turnover heavy because they lack skills like block and dodge. I think they play the most different from all the other elf teams. |
The point about luck goes both ways. If you have bad luck on defense you will get blown off the pitch before you even touch the ball, as you alluded to in your last game.
If you have good luck, it doesn't matter either way either.
But, most experienced players are not interested in how to play when you are lucky or not, because those cases don't really matter, you're doomed or you're blessed no matter your choice.
What's interesting is what improves your chances at winning when the luck is more or less balanced between the teams. That's why I'm not interested in playing the pointless 'what if' game of how lucky you might be.
This whole discussion still boils down to which do you prefer. Defending with a full(ish) team up 1-0 or tied 0-0.
There is little doubt that bash teams should prefer to receive because it gives them the best chance to leverage their skill set. The question then is why would non-bash cater to them? Or have the non-bash just played a huge mind game on the bash and convinced them they are better off kicking? |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2017 - 16:39 |
|
I kick a lot.
bghandras has told me that he nearly always receives and believes that he has done better when doing this.
Opinion certainly seems to be divided among coaches of similar levels of performance and this suggests to me that whatever the answer it isn't a large factor in the result. I also suspect that the answer can vary depending on the tv etc.
I believe that with some match-ups at some tvs it can be very difficult to achieve the 8 turn stall.
This changes the dynamic that Licker describes above:
It may be a choice between defending the first half with a full team (and the prospect of receiving to come) or defending the second half tied 1-1 with an already depleted team.
I think it can also depend on whether there is overtime and/or whether a draw is a desirable result.
I don't even think it is as straight forwards as bash should always receive. Playing vampires I know how much I would want to kick and so if my dwarves faced vampires we would be likely to kick to force the opponent to do what I would not want.
I even think that in an overtime tournament environment it might be better to kick in bash vs bash. You are heading for 1-1 and overtime as the default position so it may be best to have two goes at the los in the middle of the game where you are most likely to be able to establish dominance and start targeting players that matter (compared to early game when you are more likely to be fed cannon fodder).
I certainly respect bghandras though and he said he had the data to back it up. So I would suggest that if you are playing low tv with the most competitive teams at that tv and you are a very strong coach then you are likely to be best receiving. In other situations I think there is still a debate to be had and in many cases lean on kicking myself. If this is the wrong call it isn't sufficiently important to hamper my results overly. |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2017 - 17:49 |
|
Harad, why do you like to kick with Vampires? |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2017 - 18:17 |
|
| Harad wrote: |
I believe that with some match-ups at some tvs it can be very difficult to achieve the 8 turn stall.
This changes the dynamic that Licker describes above: |
Does it? I'm not advocating performing an 8 turn stall. I'm advocating stalling until you reach a point where scoring is the better choice, either because you are losing players, or because your position is untenable to continue stalling.
| Harad wrote: | | It may be a choice between defending the first half with a full team (and the prospect of receiving to come) or defending the second half tied 1-1 with an already depleted team. |
You're going to have to be more clear in why you think the game will be 1-1 at the half. If it's because your defense wasn't good enough to prevent them from scoring, then it wouldn't have mattered if you kicked or received would it? You'd be down 1-0 if you kicked, and tied 1-1 if you received.
But the main point is that if you receive you have the best chance to be ahead 1-0 and to not be down players before you touch the ball.
| Harad wrote: | | I think it can also depend on whether there is overtime and/or whether a draw is a desirable result. |
Why?
| Harad wrote: | | I don't even think it is as straight forwards as bash should always receive. Playing vampires I know how much I would want to kick and so if my dwarves faced vampires we would be likely to kick to force the opponent to do what I would not want. |
Vampires are bash? In the Vamp Dwarf matchup especially? Huh?
Vampires are an interesting team to be sure, but they are very reliant on the will of nuffle. I would rather take my chances at scoring first while I know I can control the thrall to vamp ratio. Because if I kick, and my thralls start dropping, I'm in a much place for the rest of the game, but it will be 1-0 against me if my opponent has decent dice.
Oh, you'll say, if you kicked you could have stopped their drive right? Umm... that's the entire point I'm making though. If you can stop their drives so easily, just score quickly and then stop their drive anyway. Though, to be sure, if the logic is that 'well my defense can stop any drive' then it purely does not matter what you choose to do.
| Harad wrote: | | I even think that in an overtime tournament environment it might be better to kick in bash vs bash. You are heading for 1-1 and overtime as the default position so it may be best to have two goes at the los in the middle of the game where you are most likely to be able to establish dominance and start targeting players that matter (compared to early game when you are more likely to be fed cannon fodder). |
I think that's overthinking. Playing for OT before the game starts is playing to lose. If it's bash v bash you receive and try to establish the attrition advantage. Doesn't matter if it's fodder or not, once you're down players it's much harder to protect your important players anyway, it's harder to avoid fouls, and it's harder to foul. Why you would cede all of those advantages because you're playing for a 1-1 and praying for a coin flip doesn't make sense to me.
| Harad wrote: | | I certainly respect bghandras though and he said he had the data to back it up. So I would suggest that if you are playing low tv with the most competitive teams at that tv and you are a very strong coach then you are likely to be best receiving. In other situations I think there is still a debate to be had and in many cases lean on kicking myself. If this is the wrong call it isn't sufficiently important to hamper my results overly. |
It may not be a huge factor, but if it's a factor (and again, I don't know that it is, my personal data is too limited for me to draw a strong conclusion) then don't you want to be on the right side of it?
The only place I see it potentially differently is for natural one turner teams with a small bench, because you can afford to give them their 8 turn scoring drive and still make it 1-1 at the half without having had to risk your one turner for those 8 turns.
And even then I'm not 100% sure that's correct, because having the T16 kickoff to one turn on seems pretty powerful too. Though then it's more about how you think you can keep your one turner off the pitch for 16 turns instead of 8. |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 12:53 |
|
I'll get to the questions below but I tried to think how to rephrase this. It's not a question of whether it is ever right to kick. I think we agree that there is at least one instance where it will make sense to kick, (however unlikely that is) and at least one instance where it will make sense to receive. So we agree that there are positive and negative factors for each decision and it is just the weighing of these that we are debating. Once we've agreed this, we can see that the weighting of those factors will be affected by many things from coaching skill, to match up to environment. So I probably don't need to answer many of the questions as we can all probably see the arguments for and against (as we accept that sometimes they hold, otherwise we would have an absolute rule) we just differ in their weightings. But anyway, to the questions.
| licker wrote: | | Does it? I'm not advocating performing an 8 turn stall. I'm advocating stalling until you reach a point where scoring is the better choice, either because you are losing players, or because your position is untenable to continue stalling. |
Fair point, noted. I agree with you.
| licker wrote: | | You're going to have to be more clear in why you think the game will be 1-1 at the half. If it's because your defense wasn't good enough to prevent them from scoring, then it wouldn't have mattered if you kicked or received would it? You'd be down 1-0 if you kicked, and tied 1-1 if you received. |
The points I am trying to make are that: with some teams, scoring is easy providing it doesn't matter how long you have to do it in; on defence they are potentially great at the counter score (think strip ball wardancers and vampires) but really struggle as their numbers dwindle because their defence is best in counter attack mode rather than grinding the opponent down. Over the course of the game, with these teams, they tend to become progressively weaker as you lose players compared to the opposing team which normally loses fewer players. So I like to defend with my strongest team first knowing that if I am successful on defence I will likely be 1-0 up, can then score quickly without needing to worry about stalling and then have the game won.
You are obviously right that the same could be true from 1-0 up after the first few turns but a) my team is already likely comparatively weaker than my opponent's and b) I have less time for the counter score, I often find in these circumstances that I get the ball free but run out of time to score. So I have done the hardwork but failed to get the reward, I am then faced with the second half where it is harder again, with fewer players.
Another way of putting this could be to frame it as follows. If I defend first, when it comes time for attacking, I know what I need to do. If it is 0-0 in the second half I know the importance of stalling and can weigh the risk appropriately. At 1-0 up, I know that risk isn't worth it. If I had received first I am less aware of the value of the stall because there is more uncertainty to come and so it is harder to decide if it is the optimal solution. Of course you could argue that having attacked first I am more aware of the right defence strategy but my view is that defence tends to be more reactive whereas offence is more under one's own control and the choices one faces are bigger.
| Harad wrote: | | I think it can also depend on whether there is overtime and/or whether a draw is a desirable result. |
I believe this is the case because we agree that scoring and defending is easiest with a full team. As numbers dwindle the chance that the opposing team is so comparatively strong that they can overcome any skill advantage I may have as a coach increases. If I choose to score first it should be relatively easy to score but the chance that my team is sufficiently weakened come defence time that I cannot avoid a draw by the end of the game is higher (although with the score on the board it's hard for my opponent to overhaul me). If I defend first I have a greater chance of stopping the score/scoring myself (see above) and winning the game (but also more chance that it could go completely wrong and I get crushed completely to the extent that I cannot put my score on the board). I believe it is the distribution of outcomes that changes. Introducing overtime to this and/or changing the value ascribed to an outcome clearly changes the optimal strategy.
Take the general argument in an example. If I receive and start the second half with five players I think my chances of stopping the opponent are very slim. If I kick and start the second half with three players I think I have a greater chance of scoring. Of course, we can argue about the comparative difference in numbers that one has etc. I believe the tradeoff between these two outcomes is biased in favour of kicking first in some match-ups. Note that there are clearly match-ups where I agree with receiving first but I believe the distributions change sufficiently that this is not always optimal.
| licker wrote: | | It may not be a huge factor, but if it's a factor (and again, I don't know that it is, my personal data is too limited for me to draw a strong conclusion) then don't you want to be on the right side of it? |
Yes and I think I am. I could of course be wrong not having conducted an empirical study. The difficulty is that to do so I would have to play a very large number of games in a way that feels suboptimal. I think reasonable players automatically adjust their play style and choices over time to find the optimal solution to their problem. It's why I still believe bghandras to be right even though he has come to a different conclusion. He has optimized in an environment where teams are unlikely to have the skills to really hurt his teams and so the arguments you put forwards are nearly always true. If one plays in a different environment I think the optimization changes slightly.
This has already become incredibly unwieldy because I've tried to frame the arguments from several different points of view to help. If we make any progress I'm happy to keep explaining but if I've failed in the above then it's probably best to call it a day. I understand the arguments others are putting forwards. I haven't checked extensively but most of the people advocating 'only receive' seem to have a different experience of environment (team choices, tv, etc.) and so I don't see their views as that different from mine but just what I would think if I hadn't exposed myself to some of the teams etc that I have. |
|
|
Domfluff
Joined: Dec 23, 2016
|
| Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 13:31 |
|
I tend to Kick with Skaven.
Even rookie Skaven have a fairly good ability to sack the ball carrier (even just a deep kick, with Gutter Runners pressuring the backfield), and can one turn reliably enough for it to be worth the effort trying. Kicking meaning you'll have a guaranteed one turn attempt on turn 8.
That means that you're giving up four blocks for the chance of going into the second half 1-1 or 2-1, when you'll have control of the ball and losing is under your control.
This doesn't mean that should always be the case - teams that can prevent or hinder the one-turner (e.g., Stand Firm players on the LOS) will make that less attractive, as will faster and more agile teams.
If I'm playing a slow bash team, and my game plan relies reducing the opposing team, then receiving makes the most sense to me.
This means that Skaven vs Skaven I would usually receive - getting a numbers advantage is fairly likely in that situation, and that's ultimately how that matchup will be won.
With Slann I've mostly been receiving. They certainly have the ability to take the ball away from the Receiving player fairly easily, but injuries are worse for them than for rats, so winning the LOS early can be important.
With Slann that also means that a 2-1 grind can be a 1-0 grind fairly easily, since stumping the opponent's attack is easier than converting that into a TD, whereas Skaven have those somewhat reversed. |
|
|
NickNutria
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
|
| Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 15:08 |
|
I tend to kick with almost any team I play. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The advantage as a kicker: a) you might roll a blitz amd pressure your opponent before he even moves b) you don't have to worry about defending the ball, you can use all your players for the blocking war c) nobody exspects much from the kicking team, if you mangage a 0-0 or even a lead at half time, for many opponents the game is already lost.
The main disadvantage: a) the receiving team gets 3 blocks and 1 blitz for free. Might be the little advantage that is needed for winning the blocking war. b) it's hard to get the ball free, once rhe receiver build the cage. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 15:42 |
|
@Harad
Thank you for the additional details, but it still seems you are not answering the real questions, rather creating various additional hypotheticals.
If you are playing a team which can score easily (as that is what this entire debate is centered around) then the argument is that defending first allows you to defend with a full team.
However, if you receive first, and score easily in X turns (where X may well be 2) you are still defending with a full team, less the chances of permanent removal from X-1 blitzes against you (and likely your fodder players anyway).
So the question is simply would you rather defend up 1-0 on your first kickoff to the opponent or tied 0-0.
The answer to that question really is pretty obvious isn't it? Even whether you are bash or elf, though especially if you are bash I would imagine (due to the first crack at the LOS). |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 17:13 |
|
Ok, I believed that I had answered this question in three different ways (edit because I thought that the below was clear in the first attempted answer). But to be explicit in the language you are using:
In many situations I would rather defend with a full team than a full team less X-1 blitzes (plus additional blocks as it is very rare that you actually limit them to x-1 blitzes). In the environments that I play, those player losses can often be very meaningful and so I do not think it reduces to as simple a question as you propose. We can see that your argument's logic does not hold as otherwise we could say that during a match a team suffers x + 3 blocks and these are immaterial and so the team at the end will be as strong as the team at the beginning. We know that teams weaken through games and that the blocks/blitzes are meaningful. I agree that in some situations they will be less meaningful and warrant receiving (and/or the damage you inflict in return is greater).
Edit - As noted before this is not a golden rule but a trade-off which varies from situation to situation and I would expect people to reach different judgements based on their skills and experience.
Edit of the edit - sorry if some of the above is unfair. From your explanation I think it is clear that you understand the argument, you just disagree with it. That's ok. |
|
|
flub
Joined: Feb 27, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 18:36 |
|
Another good reason is you can better prevent a 1-1 draw by kicking off. A bashy team with 8 full turns to grind down a weakened EU team may decide they're better off drawing. You can score with a handful of guys after all, why risk it?
edit: sorry, this was just said, didn't read that. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 19:48 |
|
| Harad wrote: |
In many situations I would rather defend with a full team than a full team less X-1 blitzes (plus additional blocks as it is very rare that you actually limit them to x-1 blitzes). |
Why is it rare? Isn't that the entire goal of these elfy teams? To not allow any blocks against them, just one blitz per turn? Or at least not to allow multiple blocks against from killers? I don't care that much if a player without block/mightyblow gets an odd block, but that's moving into another 'what if' area.
| Harad wrote: | | In the environments that I play, those player losses can often be very meaningful and so I do not think it reduces to as simple a question as you propose. |
How is it differently meaningful if you lose those players kicking? Since you will take more blocks kicking than receiving? I'm still asking you the same question and I don't see that you are answering it. Would you rather defend with 11 up 1-0 or tied 0-0? Strip out all your 'what ifs' and just answer that question first.
| Harad wrote: | | We can see that your argument's logic does not hold as otherwise we could say that during a match a team suffers x + 3 blocks and these are immaterial and so the team at the end will be as strong as the team at the beginning. |
I don't understand how you think that's part of my argument. The logic is that if you receive and score quickly, you will not have lost many players simply due to the fact that your opponent only has one blitz per turn, and indeed, if you actually score on turn 2, you can always arrange it so that they ONLY have one blitz against you. (less you quad skulling or something, but that's a 'what if' that works both ways).
So, you are now defending with your full team (less whatever happened on one blitz) AND you are actually ahead 1-0.
| Harad wrote: | | We know that teams weaken through games and that the blocks/blitzes are meaningful. I agree that in some situations they will be less meaningful and warrant receiving (and/or the damage you inflict in return is greater). |
I don't think this has anything to do with the argument. I don't know why you are talking about 'meaningful', or what you are trying to say by using it.
Of course the effects of attrition in the game are meaningful, but you cannot suggest that they will be more or less meaningful given the question being raised. What is the difference in 'meaningful' blocks if you take less and are ahead? Since your argument seems to be predicated on your team taking 'meaningful' blocks when you receive but somehow the blocks are no longer 'meaningful' if you kick.
| Harad wrote: | | Edit - As noted before this is not a golden rule but a trade-off which varies from situation to situation and I would expect people to reach different judgements based on their skills and experience. |
This is the kind of wiggly analysis I no longer engage in (or try not to). 'Judgements based on skills and experience' is just short hand for saying that if you're not very good (or the contrary) you can excuse decisions based on your personal expectations.
That's really not interesting to debate, and it's faulty logic anyway in my opinion. We have over a million games where we could look at win rates kicking vs. receiving. If the data shows that one is better than the other, then guess what. It's better. And again, I'm not even saying that I know I'm right (like I usually do :p).
| Harad wrote: | | Edit of the edit - sorry if some of the above is unfair. From your explanation I think it is clear that you understand the argument, you just disagree with it. That's ok. |
No worries. This is an interesting topic to me as I try to unlearn previous beliefs I was conned into about kicking being a superior strategy.  |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 19:51 |
|
| flub wrote: | Another good reason is you can better prevent a 1-1 draw by kicking off. A bashy team with 8 full turns to grind down a weakened EU team may decide they're better off drawing. You can score with a handful of guys after all, why risk it?
edit: sorry, this was just said, didn't read that. |
This makes almost no sense.
Kicking to prevent a 1:1 draw? Well I guess you're right, you're more likely to lose 2:1 if the bashy team grinds you for 8 turns at the START of the game.
If you want to maximize your chances of not losing (so including draws) then you are always better off scoring first. Now your opponent has to score twice to beat you! And you only have to score one more time to make a loss very unlikely. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
