Diving Catch question

[bouncergriim]

I think I know the answer to this, but I want to check...

If a Diving Catch player attempts to catch a ball in one of his TZ and fails the ball scatters from that square not his right?

[GalakStarscraper]

I think I know the answer to this, but I want to check...

If a Diving Catch player attempts to catch a ball in one of his TZ and fails the ball scatters from that square not his right?

No, it is treated as if it had landed in his square so it scatters from his square.

Galak

[Snew]

I didn't realize that either.

[GalakStarscraper]

as if it had landed in his own square

If the ball is treated as landing in his own square ... would not it scatter from the square it is treated as landing in.

Again ... I thought the text was as straightforward on this as we could make it without writing a volumes of text to explain it. Honest question on this one from me.

Galak

[bouncergriim]

I thought that that just meant for catching purposes, not for all purposes. The language would seem clear but common sense (or my lack thereof) makes me want to assume otherwise. It makes sense when explained, but based off of a causal glance it could seem misleading.

I prefer it that it scatters from his square that way he has a TZ on it for the next turn.

[Fronko]

Plus, if it didnt scatter from the square he is standing in, I could then scatter into said square, thus allowing a second chance to catch it.

Which would be totally ... strange ... at least.

[Snew]

Plus, if it didnt scatter from the square he is standing in, I could then scatter into said square, thus allowing a second chance to catch it.

Which would be totally ... strange ... at least.

See... I like that scenario. Catcher reaches out to pull in the ball but instead bobbles it into his path where it's easier to catch. It's happened before.

But I don't care either way. I just didn't read the skill description very closely. I'm fine the way it is.

[DoubleSkulls]

Galak - that certainly was not my intention when I put that original wording together. The idea was that the player can catch balls landing in adjacent squares.

I think the wording still supports that

The player is superb at diving to catch balls others cannot reach. The player can attempt to catch any pass, kick off or crowd throw-in, but not bouncing ball, that would land in an empty square in one of his tackle zones as if it had landed in his own square without leaving his current square. If there are two or more players attempting to use this skill then they get in each other’s way and neither can use it.

My interpretation is that if the ball is not catch it lands in the original square and bounces from there.

[GalakStarscraper]

Sorry Ian ... very much disagree.

Without the "would land" you have have to point to know what squares where eligible. The catch roll is then treated as if it had landed in his own square.

Now if the catch is treated as the ball landing in his own square ... what do the rules say about a failed catch roll? On page 13 it says it bounces one square from the catcher's square.

There is nothing in the Diving Catch skill that suggests that the standard rules for failing the catch roll do not apply ... thus they must ... if they did not the skill would need to say so for the ball to bounce from the original landing square.

====

On top of this ... the skill is still being accussed of being too weak and your interpretation would make it even worse.

====

Since the Slann team that has been being tested starts with Diving Catch has be using this skill since Nov. 2005 has definitely been testing it that way and we haven't found it to be a problem.

Galak

[bouncergriim]

I don't think Diving Catch is too weak, but I do think it is a secondary skill. It works well with catch or kick off return. It is even good with pass block, get beside the reciever and pray for an inaccurate pass if you fail the interception roll.

It also is the skill that I thinks opens up passing games for stunties. Not by making them better passers, but by making inaccurate passes less detrimental. I mean if you aim for your reciever and are inaccurate there is almost a 50% chance it will land in a TZ or on the reciever. (I have run the calculations 46.88% to be exact). That and if you get doubles on a stunty you now have a thrower that will get the pass off 5 out of 6 times with a catcher who will be under it 47% of the time. Overall, in my opinion these are decent odds for a team that normally fumbles on a 4 or less when trying to LB it.

Also if you add catch to that combination and have an ag3 player that makes the probabily of catching it 35% approximately.

[DoubleSkulls]

You've got a point about the wording of catching the ball - so I'll concede the point. As written the rules back you up.

However it wasn't my intention at the time of writing. From a "realism" perspective I would imagine a failed catch meaning the DC player did not reach the ball - so lands in its intended square and then bounces as normal. This even gives the DC player an extra 1/8 chance of a catch should it bounce back to him!

DC is a weak skill - but certain combos make it much more useful (HMP obviously) and if I wanted to boost it I'd probably allow DC to work on any "moving" ball - e.g. failed pick ups, dropped catches etc. Then it becomes an interesting option for blitzer types (e.g. War Dancers) who are often knocking the ball carrier down.

[GalakStarscraper]

However it wasn't my intention at the time of writing. From a "realism" perspective I would imagine a failed catch meaning the DC player did not reach the ball - so lands in its intended square and then bounces as normal. This even gives the DC player an extra 1/8 chance of a catch should it bounce back to him!

Agreed ... but for my money ... I'd rather know I'd have the TZ on the ball after the failed catch than the 1/8th chance to get it again.

DC is a weak skill - but certain combos make it much more useful (HMP obviously)

Kick-off Return is another good combo.

and if I wanted to boost it I'd probably allow DC to work on any "moving" ball - e.g. failed pick ups, dropped catches etc. Then it becomes an interesting option for blitzer types (e.g. War Dancers) who are often knocking the ball carrier down.

We really considered that near the end of testing of PBBL 1.11. The problem we had was the wording to stop a player from being able to use Diving Catch to try again to get his own failed catch or pick-up rolls was really a mess. So for the sake of rule clarity we didn't do it.

So I guess the question could be at this time.

Does it matter if the DC player could try again to get his own failed pick-ups or catch rolls? We'd need to limit the skill to one use per a turn if we did this. The reason I ask this is if this does not matter the wording of the skill becomes a lot easier to give it this upgrade.

And when I say ... does it matter ... I mean ... does the skill become too good?

Galak

[Father911]

A stripball,diving catch wardancer with this skill would become a nightmare. They are already a royal pain... The woodies don't need the boost.

[Warpstone]

A stripball,diving catch wardancer with this skill would become a nightmare. They are already a royal pain... The woodies don't need the boost.

True, but isn't any Wardancer with three skill-ups going to be terribly annoying anyway?

It would be nice to give the other AG-dependent (hit 'n run)blitzers a bit of a boost.

Does it matter if the DC player could try again to get his own failed pick-ups or catch rolls? We'd need to limit the skill to one use per a turn if we did this. The reason I ask this is if this does not matter the wording of the skill becomes a lot easier to give it this upgrade.

And when I say ... does it matter ... I mean ... does the skill become too good?

I think a one-use per turn limitation would be fair. Besides, the player's trying to stretch for the ball, not roll around on the grass after it. I'd take it as a second or third skill for an Elf blitzer.

[GalakStarscraper]

Here is my concern ... picture this:

Elf with Sure Hands, Catch, and Diving Catch goes to pickup the ball.

That a 2+ with a re-roll to pick it up
and if he fails he then would get a
3+ with a re-roll to catch his failed pick up.
(this equates to a 99.7% chance of this player picking up the ball (or put another way .. he'll fail only 1 time in every 1003 pick-up attempts))

Something about that just doesn't sit right with me. It was this problem that made us not include bouncing balls as things that Diving Catch would work on.

Galak