Strong Arm, a worthwhile doubles pick?

[spubbbba]

Ok, done some number crunching for the odds of the pass being on target, I have assumed the player always has pass. I have not calculated the improved odds for not fumbling though.

Code: Select all

 Pass skill only
       Quick Pass  Short Pass  Medium Pass  Long Bomb
AG3     88.9%       75.0%         55.6%       30.6%           
AG4     97.2%       88.9%         75.0%       55.6%         

Code: Select all

Pass and Accurate
       Quick Pass  Short Pass  Medium Pass  Long Bomb
AG3     97.2%       88.9%         75.0%       55.6%           
AG4     97.2%       97.2%         88.9%       75.0%  

Code: Select all

Pass, Accurate and Strong Arm
       Quick Pass  Short Pass  Medium Pass  Long Bomb
AG3     97.2%       97.2%         88.9%       75.0%           
AG4     97.2%       97.2%         97.2%       88.9% 

Code: Select all

Improvement for adding Strong Arm
       Quick Pass  Short Pass  Medium Pass  Long Bomb
AG3     0.0%       8.3%         13.9%       19.4%           
AG4     0.0%       0.0%          8.3%        13.9%

So a reasonable improvement when throwing a long bomb or for AG3 when doing a medium pass, but for AG4 the odds are pretty good with just accurate so it does feel to me a lot like overkill.

The other doubles choices such as dodge or guard are skills you are more likely to use several times a game and can do so every turn regardless of whether you have the ball or not.

[richardleitch5]

Persinaly i would DEFNITLY get strong arm for a thrower just to combind it with all the other passign skills. His job is to get the ball then give it to someone in a better location and the longer he can safly send that ball the more choice you get. Also consider that messign up ENDS YOUR TURN and then you start to think an extra +1 mod that can be used most the time and lets me take a few -1 mods on the chin without careing is worth it.

[dode74]

I'm assuming spubbbba's numbers are right here, but I would interpret them differently.

The improvement for AG3 goes from 55.6% to 75%. That means the chance of failure (and therefore of turnover) have reduced from 44.4% to 25%, a reduction of 43.7%. So you will get almost half as many turnovers through passing long bombs by taking Strong Arm on top of Pass and Accurate.

For AG4 you go from 75% to 88.9%. That means the chance of failure (and therefore of turnover) have reduced from 25% to 11.1%, a reduction of 55.6%. So you will get more than half as many turnovers through passing long bombs by taking Strong Arm on top of Pass and Accurate.

As an aside, the improvement on a long pass for AG4 is from 88.9% to 97.2%, reducing turnovers from 11.1% to 2.7%. That's 75% fewer turnovers from passes.

To me, that's the definition of reliability - making fewer turnovers. If you end your turns according to plan then you are more likely to succeed (reduces the effect of the dice from the game), so I would say that these pretty large reductions to the turnover chances from a pass will mean that your odds improve in a big way.

[spubbbba]

I'm assuming spubbbba's numbers are right here, but I would interpret them differently.

The improvement for AG3 goes from 55.6% to 75%. That means the chance of failure (and therefore of turnover) have reduced from 44.4% to 25%, a reduction of 43.7%. So you will get almost half as many turnovers through passing long bombs by taking Strong Arm on top of Pass and Accurate.

For AG4 you go from 75% to 88.9%. That means the chance of failure (and therefore of turnover) have reduced from 25% to 11.1%, a reduction of 55.6%. So you will get more than half as many turnovers through passing long bombs by taking Strong Arm on top of Pass and Accurate.

As an aside, the improvement on a long pass for AG4 is from 88.9% to 97.2%, reducing turnovers from 11.1% to 2.7%. That's 75% fewer turnovers from passes.

To me, that's the definition of reliability - making fewer turnovers. If you end your turns according to plan then you are more likely to succeed (reduces the effect of the dice from the game), so I would say that these pretty large reductions to the turnover chances from a pass will mean that your odds improve in a big way.

But by that logic if Strong arm increased your success rate from 98% to 99% that would be a 50% reduction in failure rate, but I doubt anyone would recommend taking it then.

People seem to be far too focused on Strong Arm improving your chances of passing and missing that by taking it you are turning down other options that will be a better choice for your team. And that the skill is only used on 1 specific roll out of 6.

The fact is that passing is a risky manoeuvre and should really be avoided if possible. By making a dedicated thrower you are investing a lot of TV in a player who is only good at one thing and of less use the rest of the time. I'd find a Blodge, Guard High Elf thrower much more useful than an accurate, strong arm, sure hands thrower as not only is he still pretty damn good at passing but he's also good for giving assists, dodging and blocking.

[Smurf]

You can have (usually) have 2 throwers. Apart from turning one into a glorified lineman, the other could be your best passer.

[DoubleSkulls]

the problem with 'best passers' is what you do with them when you don't have the ball.

Some teams, e.g. skaven, humans, generally have big enough squads they can have dedicated offensive and defensive players only won't expect to have to field them on the wrong sort of drive too often.

However its rare on an elven team to have that luxury. If I've got 11 elves to start the 2nd half I'm normally happy!

So some teams can afford the specialist thrower more than others. For other teams the benefit of having a generalist who can pass is much better than having a passer who can't do much else - and worst of all requires protection since they both vulnerable and valuable.

[daloonieshaman]

how many goblins are you gonna see with strong arm (most trolls but that is not here nor there)?

[dode74]

But by that logic if Strong arm increased your success rate from 98% to 99% that would be a 50% reduction in failure rate, but I doubt anyone would recommend taking it then.

Absolutely right, but perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that my interpretation made a case on its own for taking SA, just that taking it can reduce the number of turnovers you get from throwing considerably. Whether that is of any use to you as a coach depends on a number of things, such as how many throws you tend to make, and whether you play your thrower on defence. As you rightly say, there are other skills which have more universal usefulness on a double and might be a higher priority to you as a coach.

As an example, my old OCC Orc team had two throwers, and I played them both (yes, both!) on offence. The higher level one (#1) had accurate, block, KO return and strong arm and the lower level one (#2) had accurate, block and safe throw. This meant that I could play with #1 in the backfield on his own on offence and he could get the ball from just about anywhere from the kick. On turn one of my drive I could cage up pretty on the centre of the LOS (usually at least a square in after LOS blocks with a troll and 2 BOBs) with #2 in the cage and use #1 to pass the ball to him from anywhere in my half with good odds of it working. Starting an Orc drive on the LOS with the ball gives you at least a turn extra to score as you're not transporting it upfield on foot, so this tactic helped my drives a lot and was very useful against fast agile teams who tend to flood the backfield (skaven/elves).
So what? Well, since this was a setup play which dictated the drive for me, reliability was key. Minimising turnovers mattered here as it meant that I could set myself up for the drive more effectively - my "line" pretty much had to retain shape until the pass was done to try to keep the backfield covered, but once the pass was done then I would want to make other moves in order to improve my field position (important for a low MA team), and that's what reliability allowed me to do.

Would other stuff have been more useful on that double? I had 9 players with guard and plenty of MB too, so that wasn't needed. Nobody else had dodge, and I didn't want to commit to taking it on lots of players, and I saw little use for SS on a player who, ideally, won't be getting blocked. Having a credible passing game on an AG3 teams is also a bit of a gamechanger - it adds a dimension to your attack. As such, SA seemed like a good bet in that case taking all other considerations into account.

So yes, consider all things, including how often you pass and how well you can deal with turnovers from those passes and whether reducing that would be of benefit.

[DoubleSkulls]

Having a credible passing game on an AG3 teams is also a bit of a gamechanger - it adds a dimension to your attack.

I agree with this. Good passing games on Orc teams make it very tough on most opponents.

[Ullis]

I think Dodge is a better doubles pick for those throwers who don't have Agility skill access. It improves the running game on offence and makes the thrower more useful on defence.

For elves I really like the increased chances of passing long distances. Playing a running game with elves is often not feasible late in the game when you're down players. Even when you're up players, the fact that you can leave your thrower downpitch alone adds a lot of reliability to the front line and easily offsets the somewhat higher risk you get from having to make a pass. This is especially true for high elf throwers who start with Safe Throw. It also makes stalling, an important elf tactic, easier.

Last, long passes are awesome and frustrating for the opponent.

How about this, if your elf thrower got +AG, would you still take Accurate?

[lunchmoney]

How about this, if your elf thrower got +AG, would you still take Accurate?

Yes. Because even with AG6 a Long Bomb (-2 on the Pass) will fumble on 3 or less with out skills.

[DoubleSkulls]

AG6 makes no difference to passing over AG5. So if you are only interested in the odds of throwing the ball you'd never take AG6.

AG5 however is better than AG4 for throwing the ball, and although marginally worse than Accurate (although sometimes the fumble is better than the inaccurate pass) does offer other advantages like picking up the ball in TZ or dodging out of trouble.

[Smurf]

AG6 makes no difference to passing over AG5. So if you are only interested in the odds of throwing the ball you'd never take AG6.

AG5 however is better than AG4 for throwing the ball, and although marginally worse than Accurate (although sometimes the fumble is better than the inaccurate pass) does offer other advantages like picking up the ball in TZ or dodging out of trouble.

Then there is no difference because you do not have to use Accurate... couple it with safe throw then you should never inaccurate pass at bands long and long bomb.

[DoubleSkulls]

Sorry - you are right AG4 + Accurate is better than AG5. They are both never inaccurate and AG4/Accurate fumbles less.

[TuernRedvenom]

People seem to be far too focused on Strong Arm improving your chances of passing and missing that by taking it you are turning down other options that will be a better choice for your team. And that the skill is only used on 1 specific roll out of 6.

The fact is that passing is a risky manoeuvre and should really be avoided if possible. By making a dedicated thrower you are investing a lot of TV in a player who is only good at one thing and of less use the rest of the time. I'd find a Blodge, Guard High Elf thrower much more useful than an accurate, strong arm, sure hands thrower as not only is he still pretty damn good at passing but he's also good for giving assists, dodging and blocking.

I agree. IMO the issue is the same as NoS on any player: it's a skill that makes you better then necesary at something, and while it has its uses it just isn't worth its weight in TV compared to other, less sexy skills.