A revolutionary new concept

[Mestari]

I have your attention? Good... (the title's a cheap trick to get some )

Let's first agree on this:
Blood Bowl is a game where the game mechanics heavily favour the receiving team. Why else would all tactics revolve around the idea that the team with the ball is likely to score. Managing to prevent the opponent from scoring is considered usually an event that requires considerably more luck than scoring yourself. And this is not to say that some teams and coaches couldn't do that, so don't get stuck to that - I know some do it even on a regular basis. However, I think we all can agree that on offense you have better chances at scoring than on defense. Even simply preventing the opponent from scoring is harder than scoring yourself.


Now is this a good thing? If you think so, then don't read on. It's not like this is ever going to become official so there's nothing to be afraid of.


I've been thinking of a way to make the match-up between the receiving and the kicking team more even.

Several options have passed my mind (giving out free one-man blitzes, blitz-turns etc.), but then I came up with this (and I do realise that this violates the fluff, sacred number of Nuffle and makes many existing tactics obsolete):

Let the kicking team set up 12 players

This would certainly help the odds of a succesfull defense, and make it a less good prediction if you say that the receiving team usually scores.
It allows better coverage against 1-turn scorers, gives more strength to pop that cage, etc. etc. This is also very easy to implement.

So I'm asking:
If we assume that we WANT to make the match-up more even for the receiving and kicking team, would this be a good solution? Other solutions?

[Relborn]

Hi Mestari,

I really do not see your problem. In our leagues there never occured a problem with defending (well it depends on the team you play and your own coaching skills ... beside of the usual luck thing of course).

That have to be in other leagues as well, otherwise how could you explain scores where you beat your opponent to zero ...

Maybe the coaches in your league are too concerned in developing their players too offence orrientated ... that could explain your lack of defence potential ...

[McDeth]

Agreed with Relborn, the only game where possession isn't the most important thing is Grenade throwing. Plus when i sack the ball carrier its not luck its an act of skillfull planning. or when my pass block agility 4 player with catch makes an interception, is that luck????

[Mekanik Kommandoh]

As a Dark Elf team coach I have concentrated on defense aiming at getting a turnover an scoring myself. Even yesterday when I beat a Norse team two to nil I won the flip and let them start on offense. On the sixth turn I was up 1-0, with some luck, naturally. You do not need extra men to play succesful defense.

[DoubleSkulls]

I dunno about your initial hypothesis. Team development in the ECBBL tends to favour lots of defensive skills (e.g. tackle). Marcus's skavs are a good example of this - they are all pretty solid skills and are designed to make turnovers (horns, dauntless = )

Also I think defence is harder to learn than offence. Offence can be pretty straight forward - protect the ball carrier, make a hole in the line. Defence I find requires more concentration as you are having to worry about pressurising the ball carrier, stopping the receivers and keeping your line intact.

In addition don't you think 12 player set up helps the sturdy and cheap teams more? Elves are often hard pressed to field 11 players, let alone 12. Maybe make it 10 players on offence instead.

[Mestari]

Doh, this is exactly what I tried to avoid with how I said the question - I tried to address this already. Well, here we go:

I am perfectly aware (as one of them) that succesfull defense is routinely done by some people, and certainly is possible.

It's a simple fact of probabilities that offense is more likely to be succesfull than defense. There is a lot less that you have to succeed in when you attack compared to what you have to succeed in when you defend. This is naturally assuming equal coaching skill. I'm pretty certain that if the PBEM tool was programmed to keep track of success on offense and success on defense, most teams and the average team would be more succesfull on offense than on defense.

What dictates the outcome of games is usually managing to "break the possession" by a succesfull defense or by cleverly playing the clock in order to deny the opponent the time needed to score while managing to score yourself when receiving.

Or do you deny that? And if you do, on what grounds?

As that is my problem. The fact that it's more likely to score on offense than on defense.

Now, I'm looking for a way to make defense and offense more equal, and the extra player for the kicking team seemed like a possible solution.

[Mestari]

Also I think defence is harder to learn than offence. Offence can be pretty straight forward - protect the ball carrier, make a hole in the line.

And as "making defense easier" can be said in other words as "making offense harder" - the quote above is the reason why I entertained such thoughts in the first place. Offense is straightforward and something could perhaps be done to make it less so.

In addition don't you think 12 player set up helps the sturdy and cheap teams more? Elves are often hard pressed to field 11 players, let alone 12. Maybe make it 10 players on offence instead.

This is the issue I'm most concerned about. What would be the effect on team balance and who'd benefit?
Your concerns are valid, and I did consider them to some extent. The counter-argument is that the agility teams have never needed too many players on offense, while they often find themselves unable to break cages except by specialised players. While the dodgey catchers consider the extra opponent a minor nuisance on offense, the extra defender might in turn help a lot against the constant cries about "what to do against the dwarven cage".

Reducing the amount of players on offense is naturally just as valid idea - nuances might be different, though. The players would perhaps be too thinly spread in that scenario IMO, but you may have another view.

[Relborn]

Sorry for the coming wording Mestari, but the 12 players seem like a brainlame solution for the lazy. As Ian has said already the 12 player version would only favor that teams that could really field that many players ...

A better solution would be a collection of tactics used on defence (I have seen some starting formations for defence teams for example) which helps breaking the position.

If that is really useable by everyone stands on another sheat ...

[Relborn]

Errrmms just one other thing ... keep in mind:

That NUFFLEs holy number is 11

[Trambi]

Nuffle rules !!!

[DoubleSkulls]

You haven't provided any evidence, just statements. Show us some stats!

What dictates the outcome of games is usually managing to "break the possession" by a succesfull defense or by cleverly playing the clock in order to deny the opponent the time needed to score while managing to score yourself when receiving.

You have not put forward any good reason for altering the game - other than for the sake of increasing the balance between offence and defence. Why? Just because something is unbalanced doesn't mean it is wrong.

Good coaches show their superiority on defence - because they manage to force the change of possession, when the odds are generally stacked against them. I reckon ~1/3 of TDs are scored by the kicking team plus all the times the offence runs out of time means that it feels like a much more even contest.

[McDeth]

Let the kicking team set up 12 players

So what happens when the team defending manages the turnover and gets the ball back, does a player have to leave the pitch and the now defending team bring one on.

I dont see a problem with having 11 each. Of course the attacking side has more chance of scoring, Defence isn't about scoring its about stopping the opposition and forcing a turnover, thereby turning into attack.

I'm not sure where this is going

[Lucien Swift]

while i wholheartedly disagree that defence is at a disadvantage... in my experience, teams score as often when they kick as when they receive, it all comes down to a little break here or there and a die roll or two... i think there are certainly other ways to deal with the situation than adding players...

if you want something different, go back to the future (heh) and try something more like 2e's kickoff... have the kicking team set up on the LOS, have the receiving team start in the back four rows outside of the ez and change the KO scatter to 3 d8 rolls... the receiving team now has lost the advantage of first blood, getting just a single blitz hit... it'dchange the dynamics of the matchup...

...but again, those dynamics don't need changing.... if the people you play with are really good at defence and just inept on offence.. well, i could loanb you some locals to beat up on, we're all the other way around...

in these parts, we need a twelth man on O!

[Trambi]

Mestari : Your defending 12 team rule could be good with many team, but with elf, I use to start a team with eleven players, so it will be real handicap for elf at the beginning, isn't it ?

[Mestari]

You have not put forward any good reason for altering the game - other than for the sake of increasing the balance between offence and defence. Why? Just because something is unbalanced doesn't mean it is wrong.

I'm not saying that anything is wrong, nor am I saying that something should be "fixed".
And the main idea is just that - to explore whether and in what ways such a change would alter the balance between offense and defense... (after a brief look at my Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary) ... I mean offence and defence (I try to use british versions whenever possible).

As I got this idea fairly recently, I really can't provide you with any statistics, even though I'd love to. I'm not aware of the PBEM tool statistical options, but it perhaps could provide us with information on that...

I could be wrong, of course, but I and many others have always considered offence to be easier than defence and I'm inclined to think that this would be the most popular trend internationally too.
Lucien certainly seems to disagree, but to me it seems that when I have the ball, I dictate how the game is going to run. Everything the other team does is a response to what the offensive team does. This gives the offensive team the ability to weigh the options and go for the route that most probably grants them a TD. Naturally it can be argued that the defensive team can do the same, but the problem is that they have to place their players in anticipation of the opponents actions. When the defence is done with their turn, the offence can look the best route through without the defence being able to actively affect the course of action. Passive defensive skills, such as Stand Firm, Dodge, Side Step,Tackle, Shadowing etc come into play at this point. One very important point is the block-die, which usually favours the attacker, as he can arrange the assists. But the defence too can blitz? But usually (if the offence plays well) not the ball-carrier, but someone to get near or adjacent to him - which in turn can be usually counteracted by the offense.

Ok, this might not be too coherent text, but the main difference is here:

O)Offence aims to get past the defence
while
D)Defence aims to get a specific player from the offensive team

And when thinking about probabilities, the first aim is usually a more probable one.