What do people think?

[browwnrob]

ok... i have been annoyed with the wild animal rule for quite some time but im also annoyed with the rules suggestions that have been thrown at us which have been unimaginative and half thought out and untested.

i posted this rule in another topic but i feel this will get more reads just because it is in a topic of its own!

the rule that i like for wild animal is:

Wild animals are extremely violent and uncontrollable creatures by nature. Once you shove them out on the field there isnt much you can do to stop them.
at the start of your tun (after a ball & chain player has moved) you must declare your action and make a Wild animal roll. On a roll of 2+ the Wild animal may contine to carry out his action normally but on a 1 the Wild animal bursts into a fit of rage and MUST BLITZ the nearest player. only one blitz action may be used in this way (opposing coach decides if 2 players are at the same distance.
If the wild animal blocks a teammate then the opposing coach chooses the block die but if not then choose the block dice as normal. The wild animal must block a player or a turnover will result

Pros and cons of this rule:

- Mino must move first and may trip up etc and cause a turnover
- You may end up blocking your own player and knock him over and suffer a turnover
- You may lose your intended blitz action for your turn. if you wanted to blitz the ball carrier and had to blitz a different player instead!

- The "wild" aspect is returned unlike the incredibly "unimaginative" really stupid variant we have now
- Wild animals are now a fearsome presence and a risk to both sides, 17% that your wild animal will go nuts
- this will encourage the wild animal to engage on the LOS (which is what i believe the BBRC are wanting to promote)
- It will help to simulate waryness of other teammates towards the other animal as there is a chance they will get blocked!

I will be the first to admit that this rule isnt perfect but it is NEW and fun but it could be tweaked to make it better! (not tweaked by saying scrap it! or " the old WA was so much better!). this variant gives us back the WILD animal from 3rd ed but eliminates the easy turnover if you surrounded the WA!

Even if this idea is shot down (which it will probably will...) then all i can then say is that i have tried... . this is a great game so why cant we think of great rules for it? we are a community and our opinions do matter!

feel free for the constructive comments i hope will follow!

[BOSSY]

The new rules for WA promote using it as a attacking player & not a ball handler. this makes alot of sense to me.
IMO a WA player should not get assists & should always be moved imediatly. {after the ball & chain}
Perhaps if on a roll of 2 or 3 the WA stands ands roars instead of making intended action. but on a roll of 1 the Wild animal bursts into a fit of rage and must block/blitz the nearest player on either side.

I think your ideas are fantastic, but gives the WA a chance to to be a ball handler, 5 out of 6 times.

Maybe this is the best of both worlds.

[Hache]

I like your rule, because WA will not be "magnet, everyone placing a linemen next to him to cause turnover", nor "must remove every player from him to force him 4+ to do something". More in the middle of the fight, with the little wildy thing of playing him first.

For the real negative part of your rule, maybe it's a little too soft : you want to block with a big guy, so the 1 is a problem only if you have a player standing next. Well, you will play him alone, so no big deal. And you can have a free blitz ! A negative trait a little too powerfull IMHO. Maybe remove the blitz from the team if he rolled a 1.


Hache

[browwnrob]

And you can have a free blitz !

Sorry! I forgot to mention if the wild animal fails his roll he must use the teams blitz move action!

I had considered making the Wild Animal roll a 3+ but then it may be too negative! I am happy this is getting a positive response so far!



EDIT:

i thought the following text may be useful in making the wild animal more negative.

If the Wild Animal is carrying the ball and fails his Wild Animal roll he will forget about the ball, drop it and suffer the consequences of the WA roll.

In hindsight that may prove complicated as soon as he drops the ball is it a turnover or maybe he could drop the ball as soon as he has blitzed??? i dunno but it would be a deterrent to make your rat ogre a scorer. any suggestions?

[Snew]

only one blitz action may be used in this way (opposing coach decides if 2 players are at the same distance.
If the wild animal blocks a teammate then the opposing coach chooses the block die but if not then choose the block dice as normal. The wild animal must block a player or a turnover will result

Remove this whole part of your suggestion adn see how you like your idea.

Allowing the opposing coach to choose the player the WA hits puts the Wild Animal back on the roster of the opposing team again and should be avoided at all cost.

Choosing the block die privledge is for the coach of the moving team only.

Forcing a block roll is extreme. If no one is in hitting range, make him stand still, furious and overcome with rage that there's no one to hit. Calling it a turnover is too much.

[browwnrob]

snotsngrots that could also work. When i think about it more Wild animals are usually frenzied and when he would blitz this would allow the opposing coach up to 4 dice or more to choose a skull which is too much. A result where a pow/skull appears would be very bad! you have to choose between your WA down or your player, and that coupled with pro being a trait!

Your idea if nobody is in range is interesting and logical but it would lead to an ever more reliable Wild animal. As far as i can see there has to be a risk in having a wild animal on the team! I am still tempted to suggest that the WA roll should be increased but that is what i hope to playtest!

Does this look any better?

Wild animals are extremely violent and uncontrollable creatures by nature. Once you shove them out on the field there isnt much you can do to stop them.
at the start of your turn (after a ball & chain player has moved) you must declare your action and make a Wild animal roll. On a roll of 2+ the Wild animal may contine to carry out his action normally but on a 1 the Wild animal bursts into a fit of rage and MUST BLITZ the nearest player. only one blitz action may be used in this way and the coach may choose which player to hit if 2 or more players are an equal distance from the Wild Animal.
If the wild animal blocks a teammate then the coach may choose the block dice as normal. The wild animal must block a player or he will stand still and roar in rage, furious that there is nobody in range to hit. The teams blitz is used up in this action and may not take another blitz action this turn

[Gus]

i just don't like at all the idea of blocking my own players. that just doesn't seem to fit.

[Skummy]

i just don't like at all the idea of blocking my own players. that just doesn't seem to fit.

I agree - and don't forget that blocking your own player with Frenzy is one of the really good ways to manufacture a one turn touchdown. Rerolling a failed action to do this is always dangerous.

[Nosuphoru]

IMHO: The "must go first" idea should not be implemented or only so on a die roll. It brings up way more problems (i.e. if i don't move first is it an IP?, if so can I "sacrifice" a re roll to move the mino later?, if not what happens? etc..) for no real flavor reason. It is a WILD animal, not an impatient, speedy, or hyperacitve one after all .

Also, i believe the main problem with "must go first" is not so much the ganging up on the WA (you can do that to nullify just about an player), but the loss of the whole turn without any real input on the coaches part.

I also like the idea and fluff of blocking/blitzing your own teammates, but it does not seem to get support from the community as a whole, instead it gets some strong supporters of it as a house rule. I can also see where it would be a letdown if you BG regularly killed your star players. The rules committee cant please all the people all the time, so they do their best to please most of the people most of the time (and do a pretty darn good job at it, IMHO). I know there is Really hungary that can do so, but that never seems to come up much, and losing a gobbo is almost never a big deal.

The other negatraits sum up as follows:

BH: Do anything as long as you don't roll a 1
RS: Do anything as long as you don't roll a 1-3, if you got a friend next to you, refer to BH.

My question to the community is where should WA fall? Most seem to agree it should be worse than BH, but should it be worse than RS as well, or somewhere in between? Why? I think we should start with the other negatraits as a guide, and build from there until we get to an agreable level of "negetiveness" of the WA negatrait.

I also believe that all BG negatraits should have the same "feel" in gameplay.

Both other negatraits have you do nothing on a 1, that should be carried over onto WA, it makes him = to BH, and sort of = with RS. It has the idea that no matter which BG you get, there is always a chance he might not do what you want on the field. It streamlines things and that seems to be the way the community wants to go (myself included). I also think that they should be effectively treated the same in this respect (i.e. unstun, tackle zones)

I see how the idea of roaring in rage instead of blocking seems silly, but the community, as a whole, is an imaginitive group and can think of other things the WA may be doing. i.e eating his last casuality, talking trash, mino nibbles some grass...and moos.

Now lets add something negative to make it worse than BH. There are many ideas for this, but here are a few of mine:

1) Do anything as long as you don't roll 1-3, if you are blocking/blitzing refer to BH.

2) Do anything as long as you don't roll 1. If the WA can is next to a standing opponent, the WA must declare a block at that opponent. This block may be part of the teams blitz action for the turn, and the moving coach decides which opponent to block in the case of multiple opponents.
3) Combine 1 & 2

If you are willing to take self inflicted casualties then how about:

4) Do anything as long as you don't roll 1-3, on a 1 refer to BH, on a 2-3 the WA blocks/blitzes the nearest player as brownrob suggests. If the team already used it's blitz that turn and no players are next to him, refer to BH.

5) Do anything as long as you don't roll 1-3. If a friend is nearby make that a anything but a 1, but if you do roll a 1 in this case, the WA throws a block at the "friend".

6) At the beginning of each turn roll a d6. On a 1 (or 1-3) the WA loses control and blocks/blitzes the nearset player as brownrob suggests.

I personally lean to suggestion #3, because it would mean that in general the WA will hit the things around it then go looking for more. And thats how i see WA, like a bull at a rodeo.

IMHO I see no need for BG ball carriers. Every team has MUCH better ball handlers available then the BG, and a BG scoring a TD should be the rare exception, not the rule.

If you have read this whole thing, thanks for listening.

[Munkey]

Also, i believe the main problem with "must go first" is not so much the ganging up on the WA (you can do that to nullify just about an player), but the loss of the whole turn without any real input on the coaches part.

I think that was the point, players generally did not gang up on the player to nullify him, that would have been a tactical choice, but to nullify the whole team.

Ganging up on one player causing a turnover is kind of an odd result and very frustrating for the coach who has been denied any sort of input into his own turn.

5) Do anything as long as you don't roll 1-3. If a friend is nearby make that a anything but a 1, but if you do roll a 1 in this case, the WA throws a block at the "friend".

I always liked this suggestion, it has a nice risk/reward scenario built in.

The current WA seems not too bad to me though, apart from it gives Skaven a front line Blitzer I don't think they should have, but then I'm not a Big Guy supporter in any case.

[Circular_Logic]

The old WA was the best one. Negatrait without a diceroll. Sadly it was changed because there were too many whiners complaining about the "Play-the-WA" instead of learning how to use this BG.
They always forgot, that a WA-trap with some chances of success need at least one turn prep and 4-6 players. And there is still a good chance, that you get trough the trap and the opponent wasted 5 players who cannot cover the field.

[Skummy]

A WA trap required 2 players and no real difficult setup.

You put your big guy in front of theirs, and one of your players behind your big guy. He's got to make a 1 die block and if he doesn't get a knockdown, he makes a 2 die defender's choice block. Smart players can force quite a high turnover rate, especially if the WA doesn't have block.

[DesTroy]

This one looks good too! A WA should be a threat to BOTH teams IMHO!

[kithor2002]

Your rule is a good variant.(And its more a trait than the current WA 'skill')

[PsychoNiko]

How about something a bit more radical (and entertaining):

A failed WA test (2+ or whatever) would cause the WA to behave like a ball and chain secret weapon only the scatter-template is used instead of the throw in template (either the WA could move it's full move in the direction shown by the template or the template could be used to determine each square of movement).

With a rule like that Failed WA tests would cause entertaining and very sudden changes in the flow of play which could be an advantage to either side. Furthermore this rule would make the WA an uncontrollable but very potent offensive weapon.

Come to think of it you could make the WA move like a ball and chain secret weapon every turn (except maybe a 1-2 block per turn limit) using the throw-in template. Failing the WA-test would then remove the block-limit and force the WA to move using the scattertemplate.

Now that would be a WA-rule with some punch.

PsychoNiko