Page 1 of 1

Need TBB Feedback on Wild Animal rewording

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:56 am
by GalakStarscraper
Well, the current topic of discussion with the BBRC is Wild Animal. Neo and I are looking for your feedback on a possible rewording.

Now for this poll here is the question I'm looking for. For the purposes of THIS poll ... I'm looking ONLY at rewording the current Wild Animal rule slightly. I'm not looking for completely new version or changes to the 4+. That's on another poll. I'm looking to get guidance on rewording the current WA.

Now here is the concern. Is letting the Wild Animal stand up on a failed Wild Animal okay or should a failed 4+ mean he stays prone? This is in effect giving the Wild Animal 3 points of MA even with a failed negatrait roll. Is that okay?
Wild Animal: Wild Animals are extremely violent creatures. If you declare any action other than Block with a Wild Animal, roll a D6. On a roll of 1-3, the Wild Animal stands still and roars in rage instead, and the action is wasted. A failed roll on a prone Wild Animal will result in the Wild Animal standing in his own square and roaring in rage. Wild Animals do not need to roll to become unstunned. Note that the Wild Animal no longer has to move first and that he can now use assists.

Q: What happens if a Wild Animal is prone - must they roll to stand up?
A: You must firstly declare an action with the Wild Animal. Once you have
declared an action, then roll for Wild Animal. If the roll is failed, the player will stand up and their action will be completed. If they succeed the roll, they can take the desired action as normal..
Galak

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:34 am
by Darkson
If I had to pick one of these 3 options, I'd go for the re-wording is OK.

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:02 am
by Dangerous Dave
I voted must stay prone if fails to get 4+.

I am happy to accept unstun to prone for free, however, IMO the trait isn't negative enough without the need to roll to stand up.



Dave

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:15 am
by neverdodge
Dangerous Dave wrote:I voted must stay prone if fails to get 4+.

I am happy to accept unstun to prone for free, however, IMO the trait isn't negative enough without the need to roll to stand up.



Dave
same for me

Re: Need TBB Feedback on Wild Animal rewording

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:38 pm
by MickeX
I like it. Looks a bit strange if a rule for free standing up is in a Q&A though - it's not a clarification. That will seem even stranger as lng as the Q&A aren't published in the LRB, but I hope that'll change some day.

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:38 pm
by Wonder
I vote for the rewording.

I nevertheless think it would be necessary to do the same rewording for really stupid and bonehead rolls : you don't need to be particularly smart to recover from a stun or to stand up.

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:16 pm
by GalakStarscraper
Need more votes please.

Galak

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:45 pm
by Xtreme
I like this rewording I think it is still plenty negative with the 4+ roll. Negative enough that I wouldn't take one on my teams but could see them on other teams in my league.

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:56 am
by gken1
well hopefully this thang will get changed....keep the votes coming.

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:43 am
by DoubleSkulls
I think I'm one of the few people who likes the current WA rule.

I don't think standing up for free is necessary as the WA is very powerful anyway.

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:57 am
by martynq
I too think the current WA is fine. Deal with Bonehead rather than WA... Bonehead needs to be more negative.

Martyn

Unstunning OK

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 9:42 pm
by Bevan
I don't think unstunning should be an action that requires any Big Guy rolls but standing up is (part of) an action so the rules should be consistent for all Big Guys, i.e a roll should be required to stand up but not to roll over.

Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:39 am
by Sixpack595
No way, Bone Headed is negative enough. Make them all boneheaded and call it quits. There is a reason no one has a good WA rule.
martynq wrote:I too think the current WA is fine. Deal with Bonehead rather than WA... Bonehead needs to be more negative.

Martyn

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:18 am
by 'Ed Basha'
I'm al for the rewording. I posted my opinion on this in another thread so I'll shut up now