T6R2M15 Quality Delibs

Judge Donatello (Discloud)
Two short and simple strats, and so shall the delib be too!

Brandy goes for an early tactical retreat into a stealth and terraforming strategy, becoming the unholy fusion of Monkey D Luffy and Spider-Man as she slimes and sticks her way along the walls of the alley, watching Zack and wearing him down with javelins made of molded trash until she feels ready for CQC. The creativity on display here is really strong and completely disproves Auster’s concerns that Brandy lacks Deathmatch capabilities. The big flaw holding the strategy back is the fact that Brandy hasn’t really taken Inca into account as a second body (and pair of eyes/ears) on Zack’s side, so a good amount of her strategy ends up on shakier ground due to the misassumptions regarding action economy. This is a good strategy, and while held back by that mistake, it’s not tripped up so heavily as to totally impede its central thesis. I think a low **7/10** is in order.

As for Zackary, this strategy plays more into the rushdown I somewhat expected from both sides - neither a positive nor negative observation, for the record. I think this strategy is largely on par with that of Brandy’s, expressing some good creativity and making good use of the build and space while also coming across as somewhat unprepared for some of the opponent’s advantages, in this case her sheer malleability and ability to engage with the walls themselves. Good work here, and while the creativity doesn’t quite hit the same highs as Brandy’s output, the underestimations hinder the strategy significantly less as well, balancing out to another **7/10**.

Judge Raphael (Rocket)
AP:
This type of match certainly has an interesting dynamic with builds like Brandy’s. A close quarter trickster with some terraforming options has a lot of opportunities, and looking at your strategy as a whole I think you take things in an interesting direction. Playing as an ambush predator hoping to take a solid chunk out of your opponent before finishing them off up close is a strategy that certainly opens up a lot of opportunities for you. Taking a semi-modular approach to your opener is a solid move. Tunneling is always a fascinating move that can catch some flak, and while I don't see any issues with how you do it, I do have some reservations. Making some supports would have been both easy and welcome, and I do not see you really being able to locate your opponent by sound and peepholes with ease, and landing your sneak attack doesn't feel the most likely. A little more effort put into creative ways to keep a line of sight on your opponent could have made this significantly more potent.

The gum and paper strategy is far more risky, as you are definitely more vulnerable to attack, but I think shows a lot of clever thinking and is more offensively viable overall. Using verticality and unexpected angles of attack to take on your opponent are all plusses, and while how stealthy you may be is somewhat in question in mind, your ability to bend out of the way of attacks and move in unorthodox ways gives you a good amount of defensive leeway. Your close combat efforts are similarly quite good as well, taking good note of your opponents fighting style and using your ability to fight adaptively around your opponent. Overall, while your strategy is pretty simple it brings some interesting things to play. However, some tactical gaps especially around your tunneling and ambiguity in positioning yourself relative to your opponent, a little more refining could have done wonders to shore up some issues. Even with those issues I think that a high 6/10 feels fair here.

BTA:
I have to say you guys really took the premise of a simple deathmatch to heart in a rather direct manner in your efforts here. Playing a very simple combat game like this is definitely a classic choice that can pay off when well executed, so let's take a closer look at how you go about things. Your overall close combat efforts are well thought out and befitting of this playstyle. Playing really hard around having competent fighters on either side of your opponent is basic but effective, and your myriad of attacks are all effective. If I had to make a gripe about your offense some more effort put into armor piercing attacks would have been welcome when dealing with such a durable opponent, but alot of your blunter attacks somewhat alleviate that, so it is ultimately minor.

Moving onto your defensive section I think that you do generally well in playing a game of parrying attacks, and keeping advantage in the fight through your to pronged attack to keep your opponent from being able to set up. While this is all and good, a basic offense is vulnerable to the unorthodox and attacks that may come from unexpected vectors could easily slip by. This isn’t some game ending flaw of course but is something to keep in mind going into the future. With all of these things considered I think a decent 6/10 is fair.A little more shoring up of the details in your defense and a little more tailoring of your offense for your opponents unique abilities could have really elevated this. Beyond that I really don't have much to say. A relatively simple strategy ends up with a relatively short delib.

Judge Michelangelo (Bri)
This is a really interesting match! Like most matches that take place in close quarters, there isn’t much freedom as far as delivering an attack right to your opponent goes-- but you guys definitely made it work! This really is just a pretty good match in general; so with that said, let’s get down to it!

On the side of BTA, I think that your best job was in utilizing your two bodies to act as a team against Brandy. You do a good job of planning out your action economy properly and working within the bounds of the actual match, and I think that your close quarters combat was essentially to be expected for most opponents. I do question the effectiveness of trapping Brandy with a painting due to her considerably high strength, but I think that your blunt attacks and your slinging around of trash cans are a decently effective strategy in a situation such as this one. I also liked your grappling and trying to tear off pieces of her, but I question how effective that would be without the proper precautions, since you’re just as in danger from attacks from her.

When it comes to things that I had a problem with, I disagree with the way you treat the beginning of the match as a guaranteed advantage state for you, and I think that a bit of awareness when it comes to what she might do against you (or how she might evade you) would go a long way in this. I also think that you have a bit of a problem with your defensive plays since a trash can lid will only get you so far against a build like Brandy’s, whose unorthodox means of attack can potentially slip by you.

Overall, since this strategy is so short, I don’t really have a lot to say about it-- I think a middling 6/10 is justified. There were some overestimations of your ability and underestimations of your opponent’s, and I think a little more covering of your bases would have gone a long way. That said, a 6/10 isn’t really bad by any means, and I hope you guys keep these evaluations in mind moving forward.

For AP, I felt like you were at a bit of a disadvantage as far as action economy and physical stats goes in this match, but your versatility and creativity was definitely something that I didn’t expect. Your wide variety of applications of your stand coupled with your own unique offensive plays were a sight to behold, and I think that you definitely subverted expectations as far as how effective your terraforming and trickery could be. Your own use of hiding spots behind paintings and using sneak attacks is a very clever way of dealing with a duo of user beasts, and the offensive and defensive strategies you used in terms of close quarters combat makes me think that you definitely have an advantage as far as how slippery and hard to catch you might be.

As far as things that I felt reservations on, I’m not sure how effective tunneling would be in an environment like this. I’m tempted to say you would probably be able to do such a thing, but the actual usage of this against your opponent (who would be watching what you’re doing from there) is definitively limited. The use of your sleight of hand skill to allow you to hide from your opponents seems like a little bit of a stretch to me, and I think that you could have used a bit more clarity when it came to positioning and how you plot out the events that occur.

Overall, I think that your strat faces a bit of the same pitfalls as Zackary, where you underestimate your opponent’s own action economy and overestimate your abilities-- but I think that the strengths present in your creative applications of your stand against your opponent is enough to net you a low 7/10.