Diving Tackle

[GalakStarscraper]

What changes if the DT'ler also has Tackle, I have never seen an official ruling on that one.

Assume a standard 3+ dodge.
1. Make dodge roll. It comes up 3 or 4.
2. Opposing coach decides to use Diving Tackle and apply the -2 modifier to make the roll a failure.
3. Use TRR to re-roll the dodge (since the Dodge skill is not allowed due to Tackle). Note that you're re-rolling the same dice, so the standard 3+ which became a required 5+ because Diving Tackle was used remains a 5+.
4. Place Diving tackler prone and apply result of dodge roll.

Or:
1. Make dodge roll. It comes up a failure.
2. Use TRR to re-roll the dodge (since the Dodge skill is not allowed due to Tackle). It comes up 3 or 4.
3. Opposing coach decides to use Diving Tackle and apply the -2 modifier to make the roll a failure.
4. Place Diving tackler prone, knock over dodging player and roll his armour as normal.

Galak

[wesleytj]

I just thought I'd take this opportunity to make a cheap jab at the new skill...

With all this confusion about how it works, and how much explanation is required, wouldn't it be easier to just go back to the old way, where everyone had pretty much figured it out, and wasn't that tough to figure out in the first place? Just make it an AG trait...

Yes I know I'm a louse.

[Deathwing]

The old Diving Tackle was waaaay overpowered, and restricting access doesn't change the fact. Go back to Dauntless/3e DT recievers? No thanks. I don't care if it required 2 doubles and would be relatively rare, I don't want to see it again. Ever.

[Balrog]

I don't care if it required 2 doubles and would be relatively rare, I don't want to see it again. Ever.

Amen to that.

-Dave

[Acerak]

I could live with Diving Tackle as the old 3E description. I'd have only two requirements:

1. It has to be an Agility trait.
2. The player has to place himself prone after using the skill.

This skill would gain a lot of use by killing declared blitzes, though.

-Chet

[wesleytj]

I don't care if it required 2 doubles and would be relatively rare, I don't want to see it again. Ever.

Amen to that.

-Dave

So you think that was worse than a chaos warrior with claw and razor sharp fangs?

Or a skaven thrower with big hand and stunty?

Or a Gutter Runner with just about any 2 mutations...

Or a Mummy with Diving Tackle and Jump Up?

Those were all "double-doubles" skill combos that a player could have in 3rd ed...and most of them can still be done now. You think Dauntless and DT on a wood elf lineman is scarier than that? Especially since you're not even considering block, so presumably they wouldn't have it.

It's really easy to make a Diving Tackler do a 2db against block, with no team reroll since it's not their turn, whether they have dauntless or not. It's NOT that scary people.

[wesleytj]

I could live with Diving Tackle as the old 3E description. I'd have only two requirements:

1. It has to be an Agility trait.
2. The player has to place himself prone after using the skill.

This skill would gain a lot of use by killing declared blitzes, though.

-Chet

Well sure, that's the whole point of the skill...

But I'd be willing to make the concession you list as #2...and obviously if the player would have wound up falling as a result of the block he'd risk injury as well, with mighty blow or whatever else the blocker wants to throw at them.

Also what you forget is that it often actually allowed one blitzer to drop more than one guy...I can't remember how many times I tried to DT somebody and I fell, and then the blitzer could go and hit someone else himself...like the ballcarrier the DT guy was trying to protect in the first place =\

[Deathwing]

So you think that was worse than a chaos warrior with claw and razor sharp fangs?

Or a skaven thrower with big hand and stunty?

Or a Gutter Runner with just about any 2 mutations...

Or a Mummy with Diving Tackle and Jump Up?

Those were all "double-doubles" skill combos that a player could have in 3rd ed...and most of them can still be done now. You think Dauntless and DT on a wood elf lineman is scarier than that? Especially since you're not even considering block, so presumably they wouldn't have it.

It's really easy to make a Diving Tackler do a 2db against block, with no team reroll since it's not their turn, whether they have dauntless or not. It's NOT that scary people.

I'd still be tempted to take it almost every time I rolled a double on a Welf team. I always felt that a Welf team (once developed) was probably the strongest thing you could field in 3e, esp. with a good coach. Multi-leaping Strip Ball WDs were one reason, plenty of DT was another. One isn't a real problem, a few on a team are.
Now think outside the elf mindset.
How about Norse Catchers flanked by a Guarding Blitzer or 2? All of a sudden you're looking at a problem with just one double. ST3 Block 3e DT? Yes please, and Pro next. Same can be said for Amazons to a lesser extent.
There's also the point that the moment you make it an AG trait, you're taking a double option away from the majority of players.
Played against Orcs last night with Delfs, and a DT tackle BOB caused me no end of problems. Lots of tactical thinking and lots of fun. Really don't see an awful lot wrong with it the way it stands (declaring before or after the dodge roll is a different issue), but I can see an awful lot wrong with 3e DT. I still think it's broken, and denying Mummies etc access to it lessens the abuse but doesn't fix it.
I guess we'll have to agree to differ on it, but it was one of my most hated skills in 3e. I hated playing against it and I abused it when I had it. You might miss it, I rejoiced to see the back of it! C'est la vie!

[wesleytj]

I'd still be tempted to take it almost every time I rolled a double on a Welf team.

Yeah but every time you do that's one less guy with Guard (which they also desperately need), or dauntless, or mighty blow. There are only so many doubles rolls to go around.

I always felt that a Welf team (once developed) was probably the strongest thing you could field in 3e, esp. with a good coach. Multi-leaping Strip Ball WDs were one reason, plenty of DT was another. One isn't a real problem, a few on a team are.

Yes, a developed WE team is very nasty, but it's also hard to get, due to expense and fragility. But we're talking about 1 skill, not the whole team.

Now think outside the elf mindset.
How about Norse Catchers flanked by a Guarding Blitzer or 2? All of a sudden you're looking at a problem with just one double. ST3 Block 3e DT? Yes please, and Pro next. Same can be said for Amazons to a lesser extent.

I'm not scared of St2 people with it, which most non-elves with AG skill access are. When you talk about guard guys too, then you're talking about 2 players working together and that's always nasty, and guard is the skill that makes that possible, not DT.

There's also the point that the moment you make it an AG trait, you're taking a double option away from the majority of players.

That is kinda the point of a trait yes.

Played against Orcs last night with Delfs, and a DT tackle BOB caused me no end of problems. Lots of tactical thinking and lots of fun.

OK now think about it the other way around. How much trouble would a dark elf with DT (the one that "should" have it) have bothered the BOB? If you're answer is "none at all", then you're pretty much right. Now you see the problem. The new DT is worthless in the hands of the people who should have it because most people would be just as happy to smash them as try to dodge away. You've taken away the elf teams main weapon against smashing teams and turned it into an anti-elf (or skaven, or anybody else that dodges really) skill.

Really don't see an awful lot wrong with it the way it stands (declaring before or after the dodge roll is a different issue), but I can see an awful lot wrong with 3e DT. I still think it's broken, and denying Mummies etc access to it lessens the abuse but doesn't fix it.

The only time I ever heard complaints about it was the mummies as you mention, and when an elf team had 10 guys with it. The rest of the time it was annoying (as skills should be) but not broken.

I guess we'll have to agree to differ on it, but it was one of my most hated skills in 3e. I hated playing against it and I abused it when I had it. You might miss it, I rejoiced to see the back of it! C'est la vie!

Yep, you're right, I hate the new version of the skill. I tried it on a few guys to give it a "fair chance", but now I will never take it on an elf again. The only time I'd take it is like you were saying with black orcs on a doubles roll or something of the sort, so you could put them on the wings and keep people from dodging right past you. But as an elf coach there are much better uses of skills than DT for any player type I can think of...ooh I thought of one. A guy with block, passblock, shadow, and tackle would do well to take diving tackle as their 5th skill. Yay.

[Deathwing]

Hey Wes, tidied up the quote marks on your last post (i was having trouble reading it!). Hope you don't mind!

Now think outside the elf mindset.
How about Norse Catchers flanked by a Guarding Blitzer or 2? All of a sudden you're looking at a problem with just one double. ST3 Block 3e DT? Yes please, and Pro next. Same can be said for Amazons to a lesser extent.

I'm not scared of St2 people with it, which most non-elves with AG skill access are. When you talk about guard guys too, then you're talking about 2 players working together and that's always nasty, and guard is the skill that makes that possible, not DT.

Yep, just Ghouls, Norse and Amazon Catchers. But both Norse and Amazon have easy access to Guard. And any use of Guard involves 2 players working together. It becomes a whole lot nastier when used in conjunction with a ST3 DTackler though! My point was that little combo is one double away on a Norse Catcher, and hell, Norse Blitzers take Guard anyway. I guess what I'm getting at is that it's too easy to get for what it does, certainly in the case of Norse.

Played against Orcs last night with Delfs, and a DT tackle BOB caused me no end of problems. Lots of tactical thinking and lots of fun.

OK now think about it the other way around. How much trouble would a dark elf with DT (the one that "should" have it) have bothered the BOB? If you're answer is "none at all", then you're pretty much right. Now you see the problem. The new DT is worthless in the hands of the people who should have it because most people would be just as happy to smash them as try to dodge away. You've taken away the elf teams main weapon against smashing teams and turned it into an anti-elf (or skaven, or anybody else that dodges really) skill.

Well, gotta say that if it was their main weapon against smashing teams, then it had to be overpowered. I don't see that elf teams are really suffering because of it, but it was certainly one of the things that made them amongst the very best in third. I'd probably go as far as to say that the two strongest teams in 3e once you got to around 250+ were probably Welfs and Chaos. The toning down of Leap, DT, MB etc have brought them 'back into the pack' as it were.
Anyway, I digress, I'm afraid I'm not going to follow this personal crusade, I should be persuing my own (NOT HAVING TO CATCH A FREAKIN@ BOUNCING BALL!)

[Bevan]

What changes if the DT'ler also has Tackle, I have never seen an official ruling on that one.

1. Make dodge roll. It comes up a failure.
2. Use TRR to re-roll the dodge (since the Dodge skill is not allowed due to Tackle). It comes up 3 or 4.
3. Opposing coach decides to use Diving Tackle and apply the -2 modifier to make the roll a failure.
4. Place Diving tackler prone, knock over dodging player and roll his armour as normal.

Galak

A reroll is always a reroll of the original roll. How can you introduce a new penalty for the reroll if it didn't apply to the original roll?

Surely if Diving Tackle was not used immediately, then it can't be used if the dodge is rerolled.

[Anthony_TBBF]

A reroll is always a reroll of the original roll. How can you introduce a new penalty for the reroll if it didn't apply to the original roll?

Hmm you may have a point there. I have been guilty of using DT as Galak described, but now that I think about it I think you probably have to use it on the first roll or not at all.

[Ddraig Coch]

Exactly !

That is exactly the point I was trying to make when I started this thread. The diving tackle skill (in its current incarnation) is not clear on how re-rolls affect it.

Dave

[GalakStarscraper]

A reroll is always a reroll of the original roll. How can you introduce a new penalty for the reroll if it didn't apply to the original roll?

Hmm you may have a point there. I have been guilty of using DT as Galak described, but now that I think about it I think you probably have to use it on the first roll or not at all.

I fail to see why this skill is so difficult ... maybe since I play a team with 4 DT its easy to me ... but my opponent's don't seem to have problems either. Its a REALLY easy skill to understand to me. Bevan ... I simply disagree with your statement. I think you are nitpicking.

My Norse lineman throws 2 block dice and gets double pushs ... I reroll ... I get 2 Pow/Skull .... my Block skill kicks in on the 2nd roll and down my opponent goes. I didn't declare the use of the Block skill on the 1st roll did I ... hope, but it was available as a modifier but went unused.

DT is exactly the same to me and you could argue with me until we both ran out of breath and I would still say the same thing. I am allowed to use skills on a re-rolled attempt that were available but unused on the original roll. I see zero problem with Deathwing's and I's answer to this DT question. Your interpretation to me is trying to slice the wording to thinly to produce a result that doesn't make any LOGICAL sense anyway.

Galak

[Bevan]

I fail to see why this skill is so difficult ... maybe since I play a team with 4 DT its easy to me ... but my opponent's don't seem to have problems either. Its a REALLY easy skill to understand to me. Bevan ... I simply disagree with your statement. I think you are nitpicking.

My Norse lineman throws 2 block dice and gets double pushs ... I reroll ... I get 2 Pow/Skull .... my Block skill kicks in on the 2nd roll and down my opponent goes. I didn't declare the use of the Block skill on the 1st roll did I ... hope, but it was available as a modifier but went unused.

Galak

Maybe I am nitpicking, but in the case of blocking, a player who has Block and Tackle always has those skills "active", so it makes no difference to the game whether you declare the use before or after a block.

The same applies if my thrower rolls a 1, and I reroll and get 2 and then my thrower declares the use of accurate, and my opponent points out a Foul Apearance player 2 squares away. These effects were always factored into the first roll and it makes no difference when their use is declared.

The only situation I can think of that is relevant that doesn't involve Diving tackle or Piling on is the use of Break tackle. If my Chaos Warrior (with Break Tackle) needs two dodges to get the ball carrier and rolls a 1 on the first dodge, he will wait to see the reroll before stating whether he is going to use Break Tackle for this dodge. In this case it does make a difference when he declares the use of the skill.

This does bring up an interesting possibility. My Chaos Warrior is dodging away from your DT player and rolls a 4. You say you'll use Diving tackle, so I say I'll use Break tackle.

But p15 says "If both coaches want to use a skill to affect the same action or move, then the coach whose team turn is taking place must use his skill first."

So I have to declare my use of Break tackle and now you can decide not use Diving tackle after all. So I succeed in dodging and you don't have to lie your DT player on the ground, but you forced me to make use of Break Tackle that I wanted to use later. Is this all correct?