Warrior General Games

And a cLB having a bonus SA in each tree is just LOL too.

And a RB OL arch having Pass Blocker SA penalize while a Pass arch doesn't have Run block SA penalize (instead get low??)...??

Basically haphazard thinking or NO thought given to the process of archetypes when cobbled together.

I mean the sFB doesn't get anything in stamina either... what's your point?

Get Low is a huge SA for run blocking.

Run Block, not so much.

Already made my point. It's a free world and you're welcome to disagree. Don't really give a rat's a$$.

It is what it is and was pointed out long ago.

Originally posted by Black Peter
Already made my point. It's a free world and you're welcome to disagree. Don't really give a rat's a$$.

It is what it is and was pointed out long ago.

Are you implying the run blocking SA's that are penalized are much worse than the pass blocking SA's?

ass

meant to edit the original post instead of another one

but

ASS

dat ASS

also, cLB bonus SA's make perfect sense. What do you want differently? Your problem isn't with the bonus SA's but the LB SA tree? Which most people dislike.. I actually think they're p decent and utilize the SA trees in almost all of my LB's.

Originally posted by Homage
Are you implying the run blocking SA's that are penalized are much worse than the pass blocking SA's?

No, am stating (not implying) that the the decisions made for setting up archetypes are akin to a blind man in a room throwing darts.

Originally posted by Black Peter
No, am stating (not implying) that the the decisions made for setting up archetypes are akin to a blind man in a room throwing darts.


No, they appear to make sense. Pass blocking tends to take more time, therefore the bonus to holding a block in pass situations is much stronger than the bonus to Run Blocking per se.

Catch and co, did a p damn good job with the AT setups. So your gripes are p stupid and poorly placed.

Originally posted by Homage
also, cLB bonus SA's make perfect sense. What do you want differently? Your problem isn't with the bonus SA's but the LB SA tree? Which most people dislike.. I actually think they're p decent and utilize the SA trees in almost all of my LB's.

No, my problem is that you have a penalized/bonus SA in each tree so wtf would someone buy the CEQ tree bonus? Ill thought out archetypes again. If you can't understand the argument (which I think you can and are just being Homage) then keep going as I have a counter to anything you may want to say.

Originally posted by Black Peter
No, my problem is that you have a penalized/bonus SA in each tree so wtf would someone buy the CEQ tree bonus? Ill thought out archetypes again. If you can't understand the argument (which I think you can and are just being Homage) then keep going as I have a counter to anything you may want to say.

lol, your argument is stupid and makes no fucking sense... you're mad because there are penalized SA's in more than one tree?

LB's trees are heavily rooted in Pass Rushing or Run Stuffing. Pass Coverage is going to be a mix of both... since Diving Tackle is p awesome and Swat Ball is p key in coverage... it appears you'd want both as you'll most likely have your key attributes that will work in conjunction with those attributes.

You're just bitching to bitch and I'm stating you're wrong. You don't understand their thinking and just assume they didn't think about it and I'm explaining that it makes legitimate sense. It's not my fault you can't fathom why a Run Block penalty instead of Get Low is a bit unfair.