Affirmative Tackling

[mattgslater]

Does this sound fun? Is it counterintuitive?

I'm considering a proposal to my league that "tackling" (the inverse of dodging) be treated as an affirmative decision by the non-moving coach, for which Dodge is the moving player's defense.

By this proposal, acting players may move as they please. However, if an opponent attempts to leave an enemy player's TZ, a player with a TZ on the mover's original square may attempt to "tackle" the opponent, forcing him to dodge. Only the tackling player may use skills, such as Shadowing, Tackle or Diving Tackle. You must specify who will make the tackle when the player attempts to move from the covered square, before the dodge is attempted. If the dodge attempt fails and the dodging player falls over, the tackling player is considered to have knocked his opponent down, and may use skills on the Armor and Injury roll accordingly (and may get credit for a Casualty).

I'm thinking about doing this because usually, the experienced coaches go speed and the novices go bash in my league, and I want to help kick some SPPs the newbies' way, while I'm the only position-control freak of the bunch, and these rules really just penalize the development of overlapping position-control skills (if you have one guy with Tackle and another guy with DT you can't use both on the same dodge) while improving them on a onesy-twosy basis (as a potential avenue for SPP).

I also think it's good for balance, as it makes slow-improving speed-bumps a bit better. Certain players, like Flesh Golems and Zombies, are generally inferior to similar players on other teams because they are difficult to improve. I'd rather have a Zombie on the line than a Hobgob, but by week 5 that Hobgob will either be dead or skilled up, while the Zombie, well, who knows? Likewise with a CW or a Mummy vs. a FG. However, Zombies and FGs would get their fair share of tackles, if such a thing were counted.

[sirsebstar]

mew, to complicated, not needed and basicly I fail to see its merits.

[MadLordAnarchy]

Looks like the opposite outcome your post suggested. This appears to favour dodgey teams and harms slower teams (limit use of tackle).

[Ullis]

Looks like the opposite outcome your post suggested. This appears to favour dodgey teams and harms slower teams (limit use of tackle).

I don't see it quite that way. The only problem would arise when you have multiple players having tackle affecting skills. Diving Tackle and Shadowing are agility skills and mostly reserved for faster teams. Tackle skill could still be used as often as you'd like.

By the way, how would Prehensile Tail and Tentacles work? The same way as others I guess.

[mattgslater]

If one player had PT and the other had Tentacles, it would be an either-or thing. But a critter with both would be able to use both. This seriously makes Mighty Blow a scary thing on a developed elf corner, but I think you could say the same thing about an Orc Blitzer with Tackle and MB.

[Otake]

Well, if I understand correctly it's just like saying with actual rules :
- No skill use on Dodge (so Dodge isn't used to dodge, it's weird)
- MB and Casualty counted on failed Dodge : it was like that (long?) before and it was changed.

So my personal opinion is that it's a... regress ? (the opposite of a progress)

And in addition, if by failing his Tackle the active player may ends Prone, it actually favors dodging teams.


Unless it is the Tackling Player AG that is considered for the roll. In this case, the game is totally transformed, changing hig AG teams matches in slow static brawls and low AG teams matches in crazy running games. But I don't think high AG teams need this kind of defensive boost...

[Ullis]

Actually, for practical purposes, this rule would come down to:

a) If there are more than one player with skills having an effect on dodge (such as Tackle, Diving Tackle, Prehensile Tail or Tentacles), then
b) You only get to choose one player's skills to have an effect.

Otherwise, it would be safe to assume that every dodge would be tackled, as I cannot see any reason to allow someone to dodge out without rolling.

The downside is that this adds a layer of stops to the game. Previously it was just up to the active player to state that he's dodging with this player and roll the dice. Now the nonactive player would be required to choose every time someone dodges out of multiple TZ's. This is bad because the 4 minute rule (I don't know if you use it, but it takes time nonetheless) .

Perhaps make it easier by letting the opponent choose which player gets the SPP's if a dodge is failed and a cas is rolled? And assume that the player having MB is always used. Unless of course there are multiple tackling skills.

Anyway, I like the proposed house rule and would certainly give it a go if the other players in your league agree to it. You'll quickly see if it's too fiddly.

[nerdkingdan]

Bashing teams are supposed to have a harder time getting SPPs than "speed" teams.

A bashing team that is successful by its very nature will weaken the teams its facing, a "speedy" team will not do as much damage.

In either case I think its a bad idea, I have flash backs to 3rd.