Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
 Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 18:27 |
 
|
FUMBBL has been going a long old time. In that time, we as a collective community have decided via thousands of games the 'best' way of doing things. Things like skill progressions have become second nature to us all; but what always surprises me is the defending of OTS chainpush scores. I've lost count of the number of good coaches just resort to putting three blokes front row centre all touching and then spacing the remainder of the team out along the goal line. Is it laziness, or do we just assume there is no better way than hoping to avoid two pushes and a couple of Dodge - GFIs?
Obviously, there are better ways. Making your opponent work harder on the chainpush and then filling the area where the intended scorer will end up, making dice targets higher.
So, let’s assume you’re playing Woodies with no stat ups or doubles, you score in T8. They have a Catcher. You have no Stand Firm or Side Step. What is the optimum OTS defence? We as a community have pushed Blood Bowl down the route of least resistance so far, this seems the final LRB4 frontier!
I have my own setups that I use, but I’m never convinced they’re totally perfect. There is a fashionable setup amongst some TT types I play with that looks something like this;
_ _ _ _ | X X_ X _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
The space up front makes the initial push harder, and the double bank makes the dodges 4+. QS buggers you a little bit though.
Any advance?
Obviously, if a bloke just steps up and rolls well enough, nothing is unbeatable. But what's optimum?
Edited for an extra row... |
Last edited by Purplegoo on May 31, 2010; edited 1 time in total |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 18:35 |
|
I wonder about your reasoning of placing that LoS guy in and XX_X pattern instead of together. Also: Do you risk the quicksnap by placing guys into the second row? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 18:41 |
|
Yes! You do, however if you're set up to chainpush off either end guy, it's not very easy to rejig after a QS. I suppose the trade off is that it's a good D, bar a QS, so unless a 9 comes along, it's tricky to get through.
The chap is a space away from all three being in contact to make the push trickier, that space develops an issue. Going down the sideline is available, but the dodges are hard. With the guy a space out, you can't push the defender on the LOS closest to the sideline in such a way to spill around the other end, if that makes sense? You have a harder time going in the direction of the open field. The diagram is less than awesome, but try it on a board in front of you (there is always the chance I've n00bed up the diagram, but it looks OK).
Again, I don't think that defence is ace (I've not used it on FUMBBL myself), it's just a start for discussion. You're one of the good coaches I've seen just line guys up on your goal line Circ, possibly giving away a good half's effort too cheaply. Because you don't feel there is a better way? You’ve certainly had me shouting at my monitor. 
Edit, yes, I think I messed up and there should be an empty row? |
|
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 18:59 |
|
_ _ _ _ | _ _ X X X _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ X _ X | _ X _ _ _ X _| X _ X _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ X _ X _ _| _ _ _ _
That is what i often do , especially vs MA8.
Guys on the outside tend to have tackle/or diving tackle, guys in the middle guard.
The idea is to make it hard to push enough squares, a quick snap is bad of course.
Similar to purpelgoos set up the initial push will not give oppo the first square, usually. It is not theoretically worked out, so there might be a way to push through easily, but it worked fairly well up until now. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:07 |
|
I do like that, but at the same time you're not always going to have DT. There, all I need is to push a guy on the outside into the centre and then my Catcher can seep between the second line with some work. Assuming he already has the ball, it's a 3 and a couple of 2s. Would spacing the front three out not help?
I have to admit, this is never easy to visualise with diagrams, at least it isn't for me. Am I over simplifying my offence?
Edit: Yes, trying it in stand alone. The catch seems to be a 4+, that's not so bad. Assuming no Bad Kick! |
|
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:11 |
|
oh yeah it actually would. placement of the other guys still to be discussed -> will need to work put push possibilities)
_ _ _ _ | _ X _ X _ X _ | _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ _ _ _ X| _ _ X _
_ _ _ X | _ _ X _ X _ _| X _ _ _ |
|
|
pizzamogul
Joined: Jun 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:15 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | ...spacing the remainder of the team out along the goal line... |
Actually, they should leave one column between themselves and the goal line. Heels on the goal line means one less dodge needed. That defense is all about maximizing the number of rolls the offense has to make in order to score.
I'm going to practice against these defenses when I get home. Maybe Synn could simply look at that and see how the chainpushes would form - but the rest of us mortals have to see it in action. |
_________________
"Don't expect mercy."
-Woodstock |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:15 |
|
Yeah (Reis), I have your original set up worked out as a 4+, 3+, 2+ and GFIs, so no different than just lining your team up across the back.
I like this, we don't have proper tactical chit chat too often. I'd like to find the best way; it would be good to improve on my current tactic of spending 5 minutes faffing and never being convinced!
And yes, Pizza, that's what I meant. Sorry for not being clearer, I just assumed everyone would get what I was babbling about.  As you described (so, push, push, 4+, 3+, 2+, 2+, 2+, three dodges, 2 GFI) is the baseline I'm trying to better. |
|
|
James_Probert
Joined: Nov 25, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:25 |
|
My favoured defence against the one turn score, is to actually score that turn earlier.
While this seems to be giving my opponent an easier chance of scoreing, I prefer it, because people tend not to actually even attempt a one turner, which inevitable gives me the opportunity to counter their attack and actively seek to stop the score, instead of relying on them failing dice rolls somewhere along the line. |
_________________
 |
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:25 |
|
I believe any defence can be broken (besides 3x SF), it just depends on the dice. |
|
|
Celyn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:27 |
|
I typically use something very close to Reisender's revised plan, I think that is pretty close to optimal at least. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:29 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | I believe any defence can be broken (besides 3x SF), it just depends on the dice. |
Well, of course. But you spend 16 turns in that situation. I can come into your cage and -3DB the ball carrier triple POW death, if I like and dice agree. Minimising the chance is the key to the game in general, I'd just like to lock this down to a minimum too!
| Celyn wrote: | | I typically use something very close to Reisender's revised plan, I think that is pretty close to optimal at least. |
So you take the gamble your oppo won't QS, or at least, will set up in such a way a QS doesn't kill you off? What are the chances of a 9 on 2D again? Worth factoring that against the 'standard' run. |
|
|
Celyn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:33 |
|
4/36 for a 9, not something I really take into account. If it happens, it's not good but it doesn't invalidate the defense completely. |
|
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:34 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
_ _ _ _ | L L T_ C _ _
_ _ _ _ | X X_ X L _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _B _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
|
Purplegoo, as your woodelf opponent I'd try to attack like this.
B would push the sigular LoS guy between tree and catcher, and from there I'd chain the Catcher towards the tile above the rightmost X. From there it would be 4+2+ dodging and gfi.
So basically I'd need one push more but I get easier dodging compared to the standard EZ defense.
Or do I have this wrong somehow? |
|
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2010 - 19:38 |
|
purple, i agree for sure that my line up no 1 is not optimised (lets see how people break no2). actually i also like your lineup. however all 3 of them have the advantadge vs "usual" lineups thats it is harder to get the necessary pushes
this one
_ _ _ _ | _ _ X X X _ _ | _ _ _ _
(and rest on goal line)
makes the pushs very easy (you can save the blitz OR walk away when you only need pows and not need to aim for push only) or push 4-5 squares (and maybe a combination of those) (i am pretty sure you know that purplegoo i just wanna start from the beginning so more people may join in)
this one
_ _ _ _ | _ X _ X _ X _ _ | _ _ _ _
(and rest on goal line) is better according to most coaches but still makes the pushes rather easy)
edit: i remember someone posted sth about a tool for discussions like this - does anyone remember where as it would be really helpful |
|
|
|
|
| |
12-game Season
Search
