Warrior General Games

That's a gut opinion, not a substantiated fact.

No one was/is forcing fumbles at the rate you seem to expect. My other STer was a WL ST MVP in a season where he had 4 forced fumbles.

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
That's a gut opinion, not a substantiated fact.
No, it's how Bort himself explained the tackle process. Honestly, do you ever know what you're talking about?

edit:
Oh, I thought you were still talking to me. Regardless, it was dumb of you to post "If your tackling roll is strong enough then there is no reason to take it even higher. That's overkill."

ya ya the bourbon made that a slight exaggeration

I'm pretty sure that tackling helps more than strength for KLs, but I have no idea which is better for fumbles.

You guys are all forgetting that the make tackle roll isn't being made in a vacuum.
Your make tackle roll goes directly against the returner's break tackle roll. A lot of returners are pumping carrying and strength higher and higher. Personally I think 102 tackling + another 8 points from Textbook Tackler should be the goal for any STOP intent on forcing fumbles at the WL level.

When you get the FF roll, you get a modifier based on your tackling quality (how bad you beat the ball carriers break tackle roll) and tackling still plays a part in the FF roll, it's not all strength. I'd say that 85-90 strength with the bonus from STer is good enough with 2 ff% pieces to call it a day. I've never seen any benefit for FF's on dots that take strength past 85 TBH. Tackling seems to have a much larger affect on FF's than Strength does. I've found that there is a tangible difference between HH's from 75-85 strength, but I haven't seen any difference really from 85-95 strength. I have followed one STOP with 98 strength and 78 tackling with textbook tackler on top of it, and I haven't seen any tangible difference on that dot either. Maybe if he had comparable tackling with some of the other STOP's and HH's I've watched he might perform better, but there were only so many SP's to spread around and blocking is at 81 end build.

Anyways, my point is that Tackling is more important than strength in the FF equation, donuts to hamburgers.

Originally posted by Sellars
Look at your own ST dot when he was on Benin a few seasons ago, I tried telling u then that u needed more TKL. He made 30 and missed 3, he obviously had no problems making the tackle... but he forced all of 3 fumbles. Now I understand he doesn't have MH, but I can assure u that dot would have had more if he would have taken some STR EQ and put it into TKL.

If you do that math, he caused a fumble 10% of the time he made the tackle. That's really not a bad number. As far as causing fumbles on ST's, I agree with JD that it's a balanced combination of speed, strength and tackling (besides the obvious SA's and VA's). How fast you're going at impact, how high your tackling, and how strong the dot all factors into the outcome.

Also, consider that, if you're actually TRYING to cause fumbles, then your dot probably isn't set to "Wrap-up" and therefore will miss more tackles even WITH a high tackle rating (as opposed to the same dot set to "wrap-up").

The more interesting question is whether there's a significant enough bonus to forcing fumbles from power tackler to off-set the more missed tackles from balanced tackling. I've noticed that it seems like some of my corners had more KLs when I put them on balanced than when I had them on power.

Originally posted by jdbolick
The more interesting question is whether there's a significant enough bonus to forcing fumbles from power tackler to off-set the more missed tackles from balanced tackling. I've noticed that it seems like some of my corners had more KLs when I put them on balanced than when I had them on power.

Wasn't there a change that made power tackler give Monster Hit a double bonus?

Originally posted by Time Trial
Wasn't there a change that made power tackler give Monster Hit a double bonus?

MH/BH/BS all have a chance to fire for double effect on power

Originally posted by Sellars
MH/BH/BS all have a chance to fire for double effect on power

Yeah, so I don't think that the switch to balanced will be beneficial for players with high tackling, though it might make sense for players with moderate tackling (80-85) who have a lot of strength and aren't relying on Monster Hit.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Yeah, so I don't think that the switch to balanced will be beneficial for players with high tackling, though it might make sense for players with moderate tackling (80-85) who have a lot of strength and aren't relying on Monster Hit.

Therein lies the rub. What is the cut-off number for tackling that makes it safe to set it to "power" rather than "balanced" without having to worry about excessive missed tackles? Miss that number and you'd be spending points (or building eq) on SA's that won't get the best benefit of the "power" setting without missing crucial tackles. I'm kinda with TT here as getting above 85 is probably a safe number.

Most good STs units can miss a tackle and not let up too many more yards after the first break. I'd be more prone to power tackling on my FF gunners than on any other dot on the field.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Most good STs units can miss a tackle and not let up too many more yards after the first break. I'd be more prone to power tackling on my FF gunners than on any other dot on the field.

I agree with this as well. Gunners either get through and nail the returner full speed, or get blocked and aren't in on the final tackle (not usually, anyways).

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I agree with this as well. Gunners either get through and nail the returner full speed, or get blocked and aren't in on the final tackle (not usually, anyways).

Actually the 3 guys guys getting blocked in the wedge are usually able to break off and make the tackle. Im not sure why u keep making things up just to sound as though u have something to add to a thread, if u have no idea what your talking about don't post it. You do this on almost a daily basis