New Wild Animal, New Take Root

[plasmoid]

Hi Mestari,
theres one thing that I don't like about the "move like a B&C" WA.
IMO, he'd not be the "wild animal", but the "run away animal".

Consider this:
The WA has 1 player in front of him.
With the template pointed at him he has a 1-3 chance of getting his block. However, if he doesn't get his block then he may very well be dodging into a TZ.
IMO, quite often this would mean that a coach would rather attempt to move away from something in his TZ, hoping for an easier dodge.

I don't think we've found the right solution yet........
Martin

[Grumbledook]

The goblin fanatic moves like that and ignores dodge rolls, players just let him through.

[Shasta McNasty]

While I am afraid that I cant really be of much asistance as to a solution, perhaps this will give incentive to find one:

Currently in our league, a WA must move first, and must throw a Block or Blitz if there is an adjacent enemy player, thought teh coach may choose which to block if there are mulitple enemys adjacent.

Teh Mummy Offence:
To Illustrate a point, in one game, against a brand new Minotaur that was going to "help even teh dif. in STR between teh teams", I was recieving. I set both mummys adjacent to teh Minotaur; placed teh rest of teh field for a drive up teh right hand side. In my turn, both mummy's blocked teh linemen to either side of teh WA. Whether they fell down or not is irrelevent: both were moved back a square, nither mummy followed up. I broke a hole on teh right flank, passed to a ghoul on teh line i teh right wide zone, and ran him his 7 MA. Declared my turn over.
Opponents turn: has to block one of teh mummies, does so, but due to STR6 (either mummy uses teh other as an assist), falls on his ass (skull on one of teh dice, my choice).
My turn: with one push, teh ghoul scores.

Point made, nuff said.

[DoubleSkulls]

Teh

I know aussies can't spell but "the" you should be able to manage at least once.

[plasmoid]

OK,
here's a completely new take on the WA.
Remember that (the way I see it) frenzy was part of the old WA, so if WA changes then frenzy has to go from the WA's too.

"A Wild Animal will lash out at anything that moves. Therefore, a Wild Animals tacklezone is considered to be an opposing tackle zone by both teams. This entails that the WA's team mates will have to dodge to leave it's TZ, and that the TZ will cancel friendly assists."

Any good?

Martin

[Furelli]

Nice, does however mean that the WA plays away from the rest of the team but I see no problem with this.
This new idea also means that the WA's negative is "always on" but once again I see no problem with this, its just different from the others.
Good one Plasmoid.

Furelli.

[MickeX]

That one is definitely interesting. It seems inituitive - don't go near that guy!

Even if it should turn out it wouldn't work as WA, it could be used for something else. Lika a house rule for a Chaos Cup where a monster starts off in the middle off the field.

[Falc]

If I have to be honest, I think the best thing we could do is to take a look at the old Modest Proposal. You know, get rid of the negatraits?

After all, why were they implemented? Because the fluff said that teams consisting of nothing but Big Guys never were good teams. Well guess what? Under the current rules, you can't have a team of nothing but Big Guys anymore.

So what reason do we have left for keeping the negatraits?

[Mestari]

Why to have the negatraits?
If there were no downside at all to having a big guy, everyone would instantly have one. There is related discussion on this in the "Ogre for dwarf teams"-thread. You get an awesome ST5 player. That should not come without a downside - otherwise the power level of the league increases too much.
And it is also clear that the BG's cannot be as coordinated players as the normal players are.

[Falc]

Why should it come with a downside when it's sooooo much easier to make it come with a very hefty price tag?

My own home-cooked cost formula puts a Treeman without TR at 170k. Ogre at 160k without negatraits.

Keep the fact that they can't use Team RR to represent their special nature. It's more than enough already, I think, if their price is right.

[Mestari]

That's the other route you can take. We did that in my first league, but I think that the BG's got a bit too powerful and became too essential players for the team. And besides - the governing bodies of our game seem to be fond of the neg.traits, so I have adopted their way of thinking instead of fighting the windmills.

[sean newboy]

170k and 160k would not faze me a bit, take an extra game to get them but thats all.

[Falc]

Myeah, true...

The fact is indeed that these Big Guys are very hard to dispose of. High ST and high AV... It doesn't quite matter what they cost, if they don't stand a reasonable chance of dying it's always money very well spent...

I'm starting to think that AV should be more expensive than it currently is in the cost formulas.

[plasmoid]

Hi Mestari,
I know that we can't get rid of the negatraits, but I do think that they should not be as bad as WA and take root.
Heck, I'd even like to see them using team rerolls!

>You get an awesome ST5 player. That should not come without a
>downside - otherwise the power level of the league increases too much.

IMO, this logic is flawed.
The teams that didn't get big guys got 2 extra position players. These didn't come with any downsides and raised the power level a bit, so why should the big guys be stuck with restraints?

Martin

[MickeX]

Isn't the point that a human team without a BG should be competitive with a human team with a BG, and so on. It's nive to have the opportunity to field teams without BG:s and still be competitive.

Micke