SpecialOne
Joined: Oct 17, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jan 17, 2017 - 13:53 |
 
|
to me 3-4 assists is a gang. And 3-4 players can be used for a foul, and not give up a TD just like that. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2017 - 15:21 |
|
You won't necessarily give up a TD just by doing a gangfoul, that seems like an extreme case. But, often it will involve a positional concession, such as making it easier for your opponent to get through your defensive line, or allowing your bunched-up guys to get surrounded on the following turn. Plus, it can be hard to do it if your opponent positions to make a gangfoul difficult. |
_________________
"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!!"  |
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2017 - 15:50 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | You won't necessarily give up a TD just by doing a gangfoul, that seems like an extreme case. But, often it will involve a positional concession, such as making it easier for your opponent to get through your defensive line, or allowing your bunched-up guys to get surrounded on the following turn. Plus, it can be hard to do it if your opponent positions to make a gangfoul difficult. |
Of course there are many exceptions, but with low MA teams, commiting 3 players to a foul when you probably won't have 11 on the pitch is usually positional suicide imo, and sometimes that is fine. But it's pretty clear that a CPOMBER (who commits only himself) is a much better option than a gang foul.
I don't know the old ruleset where fouling was prominent (was it LRB5? or LRB4?), but at least it made sense to get inJured, on the floor, with even a couple creatures stamping on you. Getting 'piled on' and getting injured is so rare to happen in a fantasy world with the same physics as the real world that it makes it kind of retarded.
I mean, i'll adjust to whatever rules and not complain, but fouling isn't the solution to Pile on. LRB7 is a solution to Pile on.  |
_________________
 |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2017 - 16:19 |
|
@OP, when I started playing 3rd ed BB in the mid-'90s, the concept of the cage, called the "cage", was already there. The better coaches used screens, but we didn't have a term for it. AFAIK, I coined the term "screen" on TFF (then TBB) in the early 2000s, back when I was trying to create a full positional terminology. I might have heard it somewhere and just repeated it myself, but screening was just something people did and didn't talk about until then. (The other term that came out of that abortive effort was the "ziggurat" defense: like the screen, I can't take credit for the concept, just the name.) |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
I always assumed the term 'screen' was just taken from the American Football play. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2017 - 17:30 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | | I always assumed the term 'screen' was just taken from the American Football play. |
It was. I had a lot of those terms, like "trap" and "free" vs "strong" sides of the pitch, and stuff like that. I got thoroughly ridiculed for it. Only "screen" really caught on. Wreckage uses it more liberally than I did, and if you take Wreckage's definition it's central to pretty much all elements of BB play. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 00:05 |
|
| Desultory wrote: | | Still, at some point in time some clever guy(s) realised that CPOMB was worth stacking, and every one copied him. |
Someone was the first to actually play enough games and get enough spp on the proper player to get that skill combo.
But I hardly think it took much thought from anyone to see the potential of it. Indeed I'm pretty sure that it was already theoried to death long before it became what it eventually became.
Just as has been done with the new BB2016 rules.
Basically anyone who is interested enough to crunch the numbers for various combinations can tell you what you need to know about them. As mentioned, the designers did this for CPOMB, and intentionally brought it into being, so I guess you should give them the credit (or discredit depending on your opinion).
There was probably more of split at some point in the past from primarily TT players who cared more about fluff and fun to online players who cared more about min/maxing and eking out every possible edge they could.
I guess you could credit smallman with his own contribution, though there were certainly others who were doing similar.
I'm not sure why primacy matters, but if it's just a point of interest then so be it. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 00:18 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | mister__joshua wrote: | | I always assumed the term 'screen' was just taken from the American Football play. |
It was. I had a lot of those terms, like "trap" and "free" vs "strong" sides of the pitch, and stuff like that. I got thoroughly ridiculed for it. Only "screen" really caught on. Wreckage uses it more liberally than I did, and if you take Wreckage's definition it's central to pretty much all elements of BB play. |
But you were being ridiculed by people who have no grasp of the real sport that Blood Bowl is based upon. In fact, I'm sure if you asked a handful of non american players they'd spitefully state that the game is mostly like rugby...
But as someone who loves blood bowl slightly more than football the resemblances are obvious, the nomenclature easily interchangeable and correct. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 00:22 |
|
I honestly don't think BB is anything at all like Football and I find the comparisons labored and unconvincing.
But that doesn't really matter.
The usage of the term 'screen' bears more resemblance to what a 'screen' is in Basketball than what it is in Football to me, though even that's not a direct comparison.
Why can't blood bowl just be blood bowl and terms used in it refer to concepts related to it? |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 00:27 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Why can't blood bowl just be blood bowl and terms used in it refer to concepts related to it? |
That was my main effort. Eventually I renamed, say, the "strong" and "free" sides of the pitch to the "play-side" and "back-side" of the pitch. But I started out with a mix of American Football and unique nomenclature. I always said I'd pick it up again, maybe after a thousand games. Well, it's been that and more, so maybe it's time. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 00:37 |
|
| licker wrote: | I honestly don't think BB is anything at all like Football and I find the comparisons labored and unconvincing.
But that doesn't really matter.
The usage of the term 'screen' bears more resemblance to what a 'screen' is in Basketball than what it is in Football to me, though even that's not a direct comparison.
Why can't blood bowl just be blood bowl and terms used in it refer to concepts related to it? |
And I don't. Shrug. I bet that if JR was describing situation in BB using football nomenclature I would figure it out pretty quickly.
If JR says he usually plays press on the outside with a single high safety, I know what that means in football terms and can apply it back to BB situations. If he says he drew coverage to strong side and ran a counter screening off the weak side with ST4 blodgers, I know what he's talking about.
But the breakdown is that maybe only 2 dozen coaches on Fumbbl know those football terms so well that it doesn't matter if there are some obvious corollaries, the majority doesn't understand nor do they want to.
But you're right, a screen in BB is more like a screen in basketball as far as offense is concerned.
As to why can't BB have its own nomenclature and be its own thing? Cause the heuristic of relating many of the concepts back to football saves me time. Lots of it. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 01:12 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | licker wrote: | | Why can't blood bowl just be blood bowl and terms used in it refer to concepts related to it? |
That was my main effort. Eventually I renamed, say, the "strong" and "free" sides of the pitch to the "play-side" and "back-side" of the pitch. But I started out with a mix of American Football and unique nomenclature. I always said I'd pick it up again, maybe after a thousand games. Well, it's been that and more, so maybe it's time. |
I don't really think it's that important to come up with specific terms to relate to various positions though. The pitch is not that big relative to the movement of the players, and describing how to play defense (depends on the race) doesn't even really need to worry about special terminology.
You have the middle and you have a side (yes, there are two sides, but the ball can only be in the middle or on a side). So you only have to discuss offense/defense in terms of middle or side positions. And then the side which the ball is not on, is simply 'the other side'.
You also have a notion of being on your side of the pitch, or being in the middle (again) or being in scoring range (meaning the ball carrier is in scoring range, including gfis). Again, nothing specialized needed to explain these positions.
I can appreciate that it may be fun or interesting to make up different terms, or apply the terms from Football or something else, but it's 100% unnecessary in my mind. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 02:18 |
|
Well, there is a play-side and a back-side to most BB offenses. They may start out symmetrical, but even if they go up the middle, they're still left-handed or right-handed plays. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 02:48 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | Well, there is a play-side and a back-side to most BB offenses. They may start out symmetrical, but even if they go up the middle, they're still left-handed or right-handed plays. |
Being left or right is irrelevant though isn't it? 'Play side' is fine, but still unnecessary no?
You go to which ever side is 'easier' to go to depending on your blocks and or opponents formation. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2017 - 03:10 |
|
| licker wrote: | | JackassRampant wrote: | | Well, there is a play-side and a back-side to most BB offenses. They may start out symmetrical, but even if they go up the middle, they're still left-handed or right-handed plays. |
Being left or right is irrelevant though isn't it? 'Play side' is fine, but still unnecessary no?
You go to which ever side is 'easier' to go to depending on your blocks and or opponents formation. |
Right. And that becomes the play-side. Which, on offense, you can often dictate. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
|
|
| |
Designer's Comm...
Search
