Am i just Beardy?

[Acerak]

In my current RABBL game, I had 11 players on the field vs 4 for my opponent when I decided to score in the 5th turn after receiving. I could have held the ball for another turn or two with little fear, leaving him no time to equalize before halftime. I opted to score instead. Sure, he might score the equalizer because of it, but I think I'll improve my game by trying to stop him. Any yob can hold the ball out of range

-Chet

[SixFootDwarf]

I just wish you could simulate the crowd coming on the pitch and actually acrue some fan fatalities, Jeff. I love the old statistics for the Star Players like Morg. Ref fatalities, fan fatalities, etc... Pitch invasions are scary, though. My cool AV9 means squat when the fans decide they wanna party on the field during a game. *shudders*

Well Martyn, everyone has to have goals. My current best in 9 casualties and a death in one game. Bretonnians just don't know when to run. haha I played flashy Skaven for 2 seasons (about 25 games) but I couldn't win my league. 1st season I got to the Blood Bowl and was one turn from winning. On his last turn my Woody opponent put his treeman next to my non-blocking Rat Ogre. Need I say more? 2nd season my AG5 Gutter rolled 2 1s to pick up a ball in OT. Next turn my opponent put 2 Mummies on my Rat Ogre. Need I say more?

I love Dwarves anyway, so I got them going. But to win against experienced teams, especially Wood Elves, you need to wreak havoc in the first half, then score in the second. Works pretty well so far. hehe

[Smeborg]

I don't think it's beardy to use the clock to your advantage. That's the privilege of the goon teams. I don't see it as unsportsmanlike, nor have the coaches in my leagues seen it as an issue. The general view is that if you take a high MA/high AG team, this tactic will be used against you from time to time by the goons. And the high MA/high AG teams are not beyond using this tactic to their advantage when it suits them.

I don't think it's boring - play should be very quick if one team has few players on the pitch. It's only boring if one or other of the coaches makes it that way. There's little or no difference, tactically speaking, between delaying your score from turn 6 to turn 7, and delaying it from turn 4 to turn 8.

The one adjustment I would make is to use the "Glory" rule (a player must score immediately if he can do so without rolling dice). Since I first heard of this rule, I have had no difficulty persuading coaches to use it in leagues. It adds risk and a pleasing skill element to the goons' standard tactic.

Cheers

[Ryk]

Two of the three best games of Bloodbowl I ever played, I lost.

Those games were between my basketballing Skaven and my opponent's very well constructed Dwarves.

I knew from before the first kickoff that his intention was to win the game with 2 touchdowns. And that to do so he was going to slowly and deliberately walk the ball up the pitch, once in each half.

He knew from before the kickoff that my intention was to turn the ball over at least once in those two drives, and score from it, forcing him to increase the tempo of his play to outside the comfort zone of his team.

The clash of the two contrasting team styles gave strategic tension to what otherwise would have been a purely tactical game, and provided for three incredibly tense matches.

Without each of us attempting to work the tempo of the game to our advantage, those games would have lacked something special.

It seems to me, that what I should be doing as a Bloodbowl coach, are things that suit my team, and do not suit my opponent's team. And if that includes forcing the speed of the game to a particular tempo, then so be it.

For those of you that feel more will be learnt from scoring and playing some defence, I respectfully disagree with you. Controlling tempo in a game is an important skill to learn.

I would be loathe to see a 'glory rule' introduced into the official rules. I feel such a rule takes away another important aspect of coaching.

Thanks Mark.

Ryk

[Ryk]

Two anecdotes on controlling the tempo of play.

One. Game tied at 2-2. In the turn 6 of the second half, my opponents are camped on on my endzone, intending to score late and deny me the chance of a reply. I blitz the corner of the defensive cage into the ball carrier, knocking him into the endzone for the score. In the two turns I have left, I go on to score to level the game at 3-3. We go to overtime.

I take his attempt to run the clock as good strategic play. He says, "Nice one, I wouldn't have thought of it. Well played."

Two. Game tied at 3-3. I receive the kickoff at the start of turn 6 of the second half. Scoring in two turns allows my opponent his own two turns for a reply. My team, reknown for its uptempo play and fast scoring pass plays, runs the ball. We score in turn 8 for the win.

In neither of those situations did either my opponent or I consider controlling the tempo of play to be anything other than the privilege that comes with having control of the ball. In the first situation, my opponent was not able to successfully secure that control. In the second, I was.

Ryk

[Marcus]

I'd agree wholeheartedly with Ryk's assessment. Mainly cos I was the Dwarf coach in his story.

There is one important aspect that Ryk didn't mention: The first kick to my dwarves started the most intense flurry of cards, spells, and desperation plays as both of us fought tooth and nail for possession with a ferocity unseen in the opening turns of the game.

In the first quarter of the match all special play cards and Ryk's wizard were used up trying to gain possession.

Why?

Because we both knew from the outset that the outcome of the match would be determined by who controlled the pace of the match. I needed a good march downfield to secure a 1-1 scoreline at half time and to get some casualties on his rats. He needed to turn me over to force me to play catchup against a 0-2 scoreline.

The fact that neither of us had any "but that's just beardy" preconceptions about any one tactic led to a fiercely strategic game; and a memorable one.

The moral of the story is that, the more you remove a coach's ability to choose the more you remove their ability to make intelligent and exciting decisions.

Marcus

Thanks Mark.

Back at ya