I'm going to assume both teams have eleven players, and three kick-offs per game as above. So, I think a nice way to work out the influence of a Pitch Invasion is to consider 'net stuns': The number of stuns my team takes less the number the opposing team suffers. I'm starting to get a bit tortured here myself, I hope that makes sense.
If doing four extra GFIs to get into a technically more advanced position reduces our chances of winning then it wasn't the 'super best turn' at all.
I guess I am trying to say that the 'best' turn is the one that gives us the highest chance of getting a result, and the nuances lie in deciding whether that means playing safe, taking a small risk or going for broke. So isn't that the best turn after all? Sorry, the semantics have got a bit muddled here. We only don't go for the 'super best turn' when actually we feel that - weighing the risks against the rewards - not doing so is really better for our long term chances. I'd like to think that when we are playing well we are trying to take the turn that gives us the best statistical chance of getting a result. I don't see why that reasoning should necessarily be wrong when considering team construction.That's an interesting one. Purplegoo wrote:Every game of Blood Bowl we play, most turns we turn down the maximum, super best turn (even if it's pretty likely in relative terms), because we're mitigating, in part, against the unlikely, cataclysmic fail. Like practicing OTS attempts / defences if we get this right pre-event, advantage us at EB. Joking aside, Bren, this is the kind of nonsense that we can perhaps bottom out and 'solve' remotely. Don't know.Īnyway - long story short, Indi agrees with me, so I'm worried now. I don't see why that reasoning should necessarily be wrong when considering team construction if I believe most of the time I am going to have enough RRs / can probably wear giving my opponent a RR one game in six (or less, I seem to remember it's less than that, but I don't have my sheet now), I should likely take the Fan(s)? Maybe I'm playing Dwarfs and even a -1 PI gives me a proper issue in an agility favoured meta, but giving one set of opponent Elves a RR, while more likely and annoying in it's own way, is not half ending. Every game of Blood Bowl we play, most turns we turn down the maximum, super best turn (even if it's pretty likely in relative terms), because we're mitigating, in part, against the unlikely, cataclysmic fail. My thinking while subjectively reviewing the maths was not just about avoiding a -2 PI, but I find that rationale far from outrageous. I did my analysis for one race in an environment where I knew my likely match-ups and the amount of bits they'd have (Eurobowl), but it could well come out differently if I did it for the next weekend with different rules. I don't actually believe there is a one size fits all right answer.
0 kommentar(er)
