Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
 Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 14:35 |
 
|
Aha! Sorry I misread your code on my phone (stupid small screen). My default currently is the wider gap as you have it. I thought you had posted the variant with no gap between the LOS and the first line of defenders. This is a variant championed by a very good Dane (Tripleskull - the spacing between the defenders in horizontal lines might be a tad different, maybe he'll read this and chip in!). I seem to remember disagreeing with it for QS reasons, but then never getting around to sitting down and crunching the numbers.
I say default, I guess we should reiterate we're effectively defending Woodies with all Linemen and one Catcher with 11 Human Linos here. The moment something more complex comes into play, the sands shift. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 14:55 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | Good man! 
I don't remember if we were LRB4 or CRP when the thread started. I guess that could be something to do with why the OP problem is framed as stopping a WE Catcher. Playing Frenzy makes the equation different, what if you're not defending with 11... It's an almost endlessly 'interesting' subject, if you're the type of nerd that is interested by the problem! |
Hehe I don't think you need to be a nerd to be interested by it - at this particular venture in time, almost every time you play an elf player with catchers, or skaven, or a variety of teams with +MA and some extra skills your opponent, unless you have dramatically reduced his numbers or removed key positionals, is at liberty to attempt the OTTD.
You don't need to be a nerd, you just have to desire not to lose or tie games!  |
_________________
 |
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 16:11 |
|
Having been burned many many times I have been trying to up my OTS defense.
I usually opt for the 3 on the line and the last 8 (or 7 if I am down a player) all 1 space from the endzone. I have read through this and I am still not convinced this is not the better option. |
_________________
Last edited by NerdBird on %b %17, %2016 - %16:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Malmir
Joined: May 20, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 16:19 |
|
This isn't my strength so I'm interested in this thread. What's to stop someone just chaining a catcher etc across in this set-up so they can just run down our right hand side more or less unopposed?
| straume wrote: | So...I saw the link at Reddit and suppose it is time to Necro the thread. This is interesting, and something I am not good at. Joe posted this as the best way to do it.
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X C _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
C= WE catcher assuming the pushes work out. To score from there he now needs: 4+ catch, 4+ dodge, 3+dodge, 2+ dodge, gfi, gfi, gfi = 39,8% with a reroll, 24,1% without
However, if you do like this:
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X C _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
The same WE catcher would need 3+ catch, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 2+ dodge, gfi, gfi, gfi = 39,2% with a team reroll, 21,169 without.
So...the second setup is better. Or am I missing something or miscalculating something here? |
|
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:21 |
|
what malmir said, especially if they have extra MA so any extra pushes allow them to take an alternate route if necessary. It's different to defend against range 9, 10, 11, ...
I also don't see why they wouldn't just go to the middle and then avoid your back line entirely, or are you using 2 SS/SF players on the los?
Admittedly, I only looked at the last couple pages of this thread, so I have no idea what assumptions are being made other than some reference to 11 human linemen. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:41 |
|
I haven't read the whole thread, but it seems to me the only sure-fire way to prevent a chainpush OTT is to put 3 SS/SF players on the LOS. I think grab/leap/frenzy can mess up any attempts to prevent it using formation alone. Just my 2 cents. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:48 |
|
How many of us have 3 SS/SF on a team by the time this comes into play? |
_________________
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:59 |
|
Well sure, if you can do that then you're good, but most of the time you can't do that, so there is value in looking at alternate formations depending on the opponents one turn threat.
Usually if the opponent doesn't have side step on the one turner you're in good shape if they also don't have 8+ players. But in the case where they can field 11 (or whatever the magic number is) and you can field 11 then perhaps there is a better formation than the typical 3 man los 8 man back screen.
I think that setting your 3 los guys adjacent is a mistake though, you want them double wide as that way the opponent cannot use them for additional pushes. So much of this seems to be focused on the opponent being able to get all the pushes they want, but that's the place where lack of rrs hurts the most, and giving them additional chances to push after they are forced to knock down your guy seems worse than forcing an additional dodge/gfi which probably has a free reroll built in. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 18:17 |
|
| Malmir wrote: | This isn't my strength so I'm interested in this thread. What's to stop someone just chaining a catcher etc across in this set-up so they can just run down our right hand side more or less unopposed?
| straume wrote: | So...I saw the link at Reddit and suppose it is time to Necro the thread. This is interesting, and something I am not good at. Joe posted this as the best way to do it.
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X C _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
C= WE catcher assuming the pushes work out. To score from there he now needs: 4+ catch, 4+ dodge, 3+dodge, 2+ dodge, gfi, gfi, gfi = 39,8% with a reroll, 24,1% without
However, if you do like this:
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X C _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
The same WE catcher would need 3+ catch, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 2+ dodge, gfi, gfi, gfi = 39,2% with a team reroll, 21,169 without.
So...the second setup is better. Or am I missing something or miscalculating something here? |
|
It depends on who one is facing. Mostly it works really well especially with a SF or SS guy in the right position. Yeah there are a few occasions where it can be just run around but that's where being a coach comes in. There is no one formation that is the best to stop one turners, some are best when facing one threat whilst others are the best that can be managed against different threats. It's up to you the coach to look at what the opposition has and decide which formation provides the most viable defence.
The only time this formation and it's variants have failed me is when I forgot an ogre could throw a team mate. But that's just me being an idiot not the formation. I would have deployed something else had I remembered. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 18:19 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: | Having been burned many many times I have been trying to up my OTS defense.
I usually opt for the 3 on the line and the last 8 (or 7 if I am down a player) all 1 space from the endzone. I have read through this and I am still not convinced this is not the better option. |
Surely the maths shows you that there are several better options? It's a public forum and what comes along comes along. However, there has been a lot of good work in the thread that you can take advantage of! Yes, I appreciate different problems precipitate different defences, but that shouldn't mean a strong standard 'base' isn't worth having in your armoury?
I appreciate a number of people are coming to the problem late on, and that there are a lot of pages, maths and code to look at to be fully up to speed. Comes with the territory of a long thread within which there needs to be a number of assumptions, necro'd years later. If there is an easy way around the defence shown that makes it mathematically worse than a different one, brilliant! That's good input. Show and tell would be appreciated.
I seem to remember thinking that a gap, as shown in the OP, made it easier to get around the corner? But the backs of the envelopes I scribbled this on have long since gone in the bin. The important thing is forcing the scorer inside of the defence so he has to make all of the dodges. For some reason, I'm having real trouble visualising the code on my phone (the dashes don't line up and I can't plot the push path. Need to get a board out or look on a monitor), it might be there is one too many spaces between the lines, if indeed the scorer can get to the outside but one line... |
|
|
straume
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 18:35 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | [
I seem to remember thinking that a gap, as shown in the OP, made it easier to get around the corner? But the backs of the envelopes I scribbled this on have long since gone in the bin. |
That would make the "open right" a much bigger issue, so that gap seems a bad choice imo.
And indeed Malmir and Licker it is possible to chainpush over to the other side, but it does take 3 or 4 pushes which is like 100 times more tricky than 2 pushes. Also note that considering the second line of players it is a bit tricky pushing the most rightern player on LOS from the side or from behind so my experience is that the sneaky Woodies try and go through the lines. If you start with the most leftern player it is a long way of chainpushes to get around on the "open right".
Hmm... I can see this is badly explaiend, but you follow? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 18:41 |
|
Yes, agreed the gap is probably not optimal, as mentioned above. I think (I mean, it's been 6 years!) the OP was a starter to set it going.
6 years ago. Wow. Time flies. |
|
|
Antithesisoftime
Joined: Aug 20, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 18:52 |
|
Easiest way I've found to stop push, is to use a Rule of 5 style defense, and no open space separating the LOS from your next line of defense. I also stagger my LOS from one side to another,
_ _ _ _ | X X X _ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ X _ | _ X _ _ X _ _| _ _ _ _
_ _ _ X | X X X X _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
Against a standard 2-3 push one-turner, this tactic is usually enough to negate any one-turn attempt. Against a side-stepper, I am more inclined to set up an LOS, then try to force as many dodges into a TZ as I can. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:00 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: | | How many of us have 3 SS/SF on a team by the time this comes into play? |
Not many (thankfully for my elves ). Although, even 3xSF can in theory be defeated by frenzy/juggs (assuming an MA9 scorer) and SS can be defeated by grab. However, those at least require specific tools.
@licker: I agree that 3 player on the line, each spaced 2 squares apart is a bit trickier than 3-in-a-row, although it doesn't usually bother me too much |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
Antithesisoftime
Joined: Aug 20, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:10 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: | | How many of us have 3 SS/SF on a team by the time this comes into play? |
Almost any Dwarf team, probably Orcs too.
Actually, seems a standard on a lot of Bash teams. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
