NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - Wild Animal

raggabagga - Feb 03, 2004 - 05:05 PM
Post subject: Wild Animal

I'm playing chaos this season, I needed a real challenge. After looking into the new wild animal rules I spoke w/the guy running the league and we came to the consensus that if blitzing isn't considered a block, then the minatuar is really kinda useless. its bad enough that when he falls down 50% of the time he's gonna stay there, but 50% of the time your gonna lose a blitz action b/c the minatuar is the best blitzer on the team(horns are useless if you can't take one step)? It also made sence to us b/c blitzing is a violent act, maybe even more so then blocking itself. Sence then I checked out a few forums, and they seem to wish to overcomplicate things w/rolling the dice to see if he goes wild or not. How have other league managers been dealing w/this issue?
I honestly think we have come up w/the easiest and best way to deal with it(blitzing is a block action).
What were they thinking when they made this rule anyway?

Zombie - Feb 04, 2004 - 12:10 AM
Post subject:

If you change the rule in the way you're proposing, this will barely be a negative skill at all. Having a big guy with no negative skill like this will be highly unbalancing.

If you really must change it, go with Chet's suggestion. Block and blitz = 2+, anything else = 4+.

Xtreme - Feb 04, 2004 - 12:40 AM
Post subject:

Chets sugestion is the best I have seen, I'd go with that.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 04, 2004 - 06:24 AM
Post subject:

What were we thinking? Well, in a nutshell, what Zombie said: without a restriction on blitzing, this isn't a negative skill.

I'd add Foul action to the list as well. I doubt many coaches would foul with a WA, but it's a violent act against an opponent.

So!

"Wild Animals are extremely unreliable and violent creatures. After declaring an action with a Wild Animal, roll a D6. On a roll of 4 or more, the player may take the declared action, but on a roll of 1-3 the action is wasted, and the Wild Animal refuses to do anything that turn. If you declare a Block, Blitz, or Foul action with the Wild Animal, you may add +2 to the roll."

Cheers.

-Chet

raggabagga - Feb 04, 2004 - 10:23 PM
Post subject:

Chet, if the rules in the rule book stated +2 on roll for block and blitz i would agree w/it and i would not have submitted a querie to this forum. unfortunately its a 3+ to roll on a blitz or foul(although i would not foul w/a wild animal as its a 50% chance for him to stand up). Thanks for the info I will offer this idea to my league manager, its a great idea.

mikeyc222 - Feb 05, 2004 - 07:33 AM
Post subject:

chet, any chance the rest of the bbrc could be talked into the 2+ for blocking and blitzing? i think that makes a lot more sense than a free block and 4+ blitz which is kind of a waste of horns. i guess we can always hope for the next RR.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 05, 2004 - 10:50 AM
Post subject:

I'm positive we'll discuss it again next October. I'm sure we'll discuss "prone to stunned" as an action, too.

-Chet

mikeyc222 - Feb 05, 2004 - 10:55 AM
Post subject:

sounds good to me.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 20, 2004 - 10:51 AM
Post subject:

I played my first league game last night with the new rule. My Minotaur was a bit confused by all the action, because he failed the only Move action I asked him to take, and blew 5 or 6 D6 rolls of 2+ to throw blocks and blitzes Smile

Anyway, worked well for me. It was frustrating at times, but it's designed that way. More reports as they come in.

-Chet

Carnage4u - Feb 20, 2004 - 12:55 PM
Post subject:

i am sure the wild animal talk has been done to death.

altough taking away the roll to blitz does lower the neg skill set. the current ruleset is crap.

howerver a minator has horns and making blitz hard takes away the point of giving him those skills

i think there is so much wrong with wild animal that debating it just leads to a messs tha thas been proven so many times recently

im hav emore of a dislike to roll to unstunn myself, Its to the point the neg skills are so lame on some like wild animal i dont even care about them, and i love minotaurs, but neg skills should not be this lame

Tutenkharnage - Feb 20, 2004 - 02:15 PM
Post subject:

Carnage4u wrote:

howerver a minator has horns and making blitz hard takes away the point of giving him those skills

Just to nitpick, the game designers didn't give Horns to the Minotaur player just so it would be good at blitzing. They gave it Horns because that's what Minotaurs have on their heads.

-Chet

Carnage4u - Feb 23, 2004 - 02:20 PM
Post subject:

True, but why give them a neg skill the directly negatives one of the postive skills.

Clan_Skaven - Feb 23, 2004 - 03:52 PM
Post subject: i know i'm alone on this

For my Rat Ogre, I actually like, the new WA rules.

Only thing I would like to see changed on all big guys is no roll needed to roll from belly to back.

Even though my Skaven team finnished I think 27th out of 28 in the 2003 Canadian Open, it was not due to my Rat Ogre. In fact in the last game I played againt a very nicely painted Dark Elf team, where I lost 4-0. My Rat Ogre was about the only one who was doing anything right. It was my Gutter Runners, & Throwers that were rolling nothing but 1's. My Rat Ogre did contribute to 2 double skull rolls, mind you, but thats nothing to do with WA.

Like I said earlier WA to me is better now than it used to be. (& I know I'm alone on this way of thinking). To me its fits better with the "Fluff" of the Rat Ogre.

As far as the Minotaurs go, I do see it as a worse deal. Hey but the Minotaurs are a messed up character anyway (explain to me why they have "Always Hungry" but do not have "Throw Teammate")

Zombie - Feb 23, 2004 - 04:16 PM
Post subject: Re: i know i'm alone on this

Clan-Skaven wrote:

Like I said earlier WA to me is better now than it used to be. (& I know I'm alone on this way of thinking).

You're not. I've kept telling this to Galak ever since the new rule came out.

Darkson - Feb 23, 2004 - 04:22 PM
Post subject: Re: i know i'm alone on this

Clan-Skaven wrote:

(explain to me why they have "Always Hungry" but do not have "Throw Teammate")

Um, I can't, because they do. Wink

LRB p.25 wrote:

Minotaur 110K 5 5 2 8
Skills & Traits: Mighty Blow, Frenzy, Horns, Thick Skull
Racial Characteristics: Always Hungry, Big Guy, Throw Team-mate, Wild Animal
Allied Teams: Chaos, Chaos Dwarf, Norse

smeborg - Feb 23, 2004 - 04:53 PM
Post subject:

I'd like to see Wild Animal become truly wild. For example, if the Minotaur is taking a "violent" action (Block, Blitz, Foul) and rolls a 1, then he carries out the action against the nearest eligible player (whether friend or foe). If there are one or more eligible players, then randomise it.

This would be quite entertaining in play, because it would be dangerous to stand next to your own Wild Animal.

Bear in mind that going "wild" in this way would not necessarily cause a turnover.

How about it?

Cheers

Smeborg the Fleshless

Tutenkharnage - Feb 24, 2004 - 06:33 AM
Post subject:

Two quick points in response to this thread:

* The old WA did affect Horns on the Minotaur. Since you could force the Minotaur to block an adjacent opponent, you could prevent him from using his Horns by marking him with a single player.

* The oldest WA rules allowed something much like Smeborg suggested. They were put on trial in the court of public opinion and found very, very wanting.

-Chet

Clan_Skaven - Feb 24, 2004 - 07:00 PM
Post subject: Re: i know i'm alone on this

Darkson wrote:

Clan-Skaven wrote:

(explain to me why they have "Always Hungry" but do not have "Throw Teammate")

Um, I can't, because they do. Wink

LRB p.25 wrote:

Minotaur 110K 5 5 2 8
Skills & Traits: Mighty Blow, Frenzy, Horns, Thick Skull
Racial Characteristics: Always Hungry, Big Guy, Throw Team-mate, Wild Animal
Allied Teams: Chaos, Chaos Dwarf, Norse

Ooooops, ok sorry there, but still big deal they have Always Hungry & Throw Team-mate. Show me what player are they gonna throw!

Zombie - Feb 24, 2004 - 07:20 PM
Post subject:

A freebooted goblin star player on a chaos team. Old news, brought up too many times before.

Clan_Skaven - Feb 24, 2004 - 07:40 PM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

A freebooted goblin star player on a chaos team. Old news, brought up too many times before.

Only 2 goblin Star Players that can play as a freebooter on a team that has a Minitaur.

Nobbla Blackwart & Scrappa Sorehead. Can these 2 be thrown? Yes they both have Right Stuff, but they do also have Secret Weapons. Can you throw a Chainsaw wielding Goblin?

Zombie - Feb 24, 2004 - 07:45 PM
Post subject:

Nobbla doesn't have right stuff, because of the chainsaw. Scrappa has it and can be thrown.

Clan_Skaven - Feb 24, 2004 - 08:29 PM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

Nobbla doesn't have right stuff, because of the chainsaw. Scrappa has it and can be thrown.

but it says he has Right Stuff & Chainsaw

Zombie - Feb 24, 2004 - 09:09 PM
Post subject:

I'm sorry, they both have right stuff. Confused this with stunty. Carrying a chainsaw means you're not so stunty anymore, but you can still be thrown. However, the risk of throwing a goblin with a running chainsaw is bigger for the goblin than for the opposition!

Carnage4u - Feb 25, 2004 - 02:58 PM
Post subject:

My only issue really is having to roll to Unstun a creature. I dont think anyskill should make someone roll to do such an action.

Zombie - Feb 25, 2004 - 03:31 PM
Post subject:

Well, this will probably be changed at the next rules review. About time too! It should never have been this way in the first place. Many people have asked for this change, and a few BBRC members have already said publicly that they wanted this change to happen, so it's all but done now, though we could always be surprised.

Carnage4u - Feb 26, 2004 - 02:42 PM
Post subject:

altough i hope you are correct i see to often some odd rules pop up.
i would not be suprised if the new wild animal made them roll a d6 to do anything and requied at least a 7 to do.

Old_Man_Monkey - Feb 27, 2004 - 05:47 AM
Post subject:

Just received word from Jake Thornton that with the new LRB3.0 (to be completed in the next two weeks) and the Rules Review that will be in the first Fanatic magazine, the official Wild Animal rule will be:

"Wild Animals are uncontrollable creatures that rarely do exactly what a coach wants of them. In fact, just about all you can really rely on them to do is lash out at opposing players that move too close to them! To represent this, when you declare an action with a Wild Animal, roll a D6 adding +2 to the roll if taking a Block, Blitz or Foul action. On a roll of 1-3, the Wild Animal stands still and roars in rage instead, and the action is wasted. Note that the Wild Animal no longer has to move first and that he can now use assists. Also note that no dice roll is required for the Wild Animal to turn face-up when stunned."

Which is nearly verbatim what Chet proposed and removes any question of the stun-to-prone dice roll. As I understand it, the BBRC has agreed on this but it has not been officially posted anywhere.

Well done, BBRC, and full marks to the community for generally intelligent commentary regarding this particular rule.

-OMM

Melifaxis - Feb 27, 2004 - 06:03 AM
Post subject:

Sweet!

mtn_bike - Feb 27, 2004 - 07:02 AM
Post subject:

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Deacon - Feb 27, 2004 - 07:44 AM
Post subject:

Bad..bad..bad! Maybe even worse than the last one.

So now you declare a Foul action with your Minotaur - up he gets, moves around, oops..no body to Foul. End of action.

Dumb. So much for being a negative skill.

Carnage4u - Feb 27, 2004 - 08:28 AM
Post subject:

what deacon?

that is so much better then before... how often do you worry about fouling with big guys.. that would have to be a minor issue.

now i wont belive it to i see it printed but that rule makes me happy enough. i might even consider taking a big guy now again.

Deacon - Feb 27, 2004 - 08:34 AM
Post subject:

The point is you don't have to Foul. You use up the Foul action for the Team Turn just to get your Minotaur to do something useful - like stand up or move to where the action is.

Wild Animal is suppose to be a negative trait.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 27, 2004 - 08:42 AM
Post subject:

You most certainly have to foul a player. The definition of a foul has two parts: (1) you move some squares and (2) you lay the boot. Choosing one makes it a Move action, not a Foul action. It's cheating, plain and simple.

-Chet

Hoshi_Komi - Feb 27, 2004 - 08:43 AM
Post subject:

yes it is cheating but not against the rules.

pass action on page 8 says u must throw the ball at the end of the move.

foul does not say the same thing.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 27, 2004 - 08:54 AM
Post subject:

"Yes, it is cheating but not against the rules."

Now I've heard everything.

Anyway, the description of the Foul action explicitly states the following:

"This [the Foul action] allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player who is both prone and in an adjacent square."

It says "move AND THEN foul." The description says nothing about NOT making the foul, nor does it say "MAY make a foul." This is obviously a deliberate attempt to misread the rules.

On cccasion, a coach declares an action he cannot complete - as when a Bonehead fails to Blitz, or when a coach declares a Pass that is found to lie beyond the range ruler. But he can't declare a Foul with no intent to follow through on it any more than he can declare a Block, add +2 to the roll, and then say, "But now he'll move instead." That constitutes a Move action, not a Block action; substitute "Foul" for "Block" and you'll have the proper reading of the rules in this case.

Just don't go down that road.

-Chet

Hoshi_Komi - Feb 27, 2004 - 09:02 AM
Post subject:

i totally agree with you chet but people will just move themselves so they won't be in position to make a foul....then they can't throw it.
if you are required to declare action at beginning of turn there is no other way to rule it. just remove the foul action from this change and it's fine. who fouls with a big guy anyway?

As for pass action on page 8 of lrb it says they MUST throw a pass at the end of the move.

Deacon - Feb 27, 2004 - 09:03 AM
Post subject:

My opponent ends his turn all his players are now on their feet. My minotaur is down, I declare a Foul action with my downed Minotaur - he gets up but has nothing to foul so just moves. Nothing illegal about that.

Darkson - Feb 27, 2004 - 09:26 AM
Post subject:

And if you tried that in any league I ran, you'd be warned about gamesmanshp, and if you still tried it, asked to leave.

So, this is going to be legal for the BB...hmm, maybe I should give the rats one more try (and it means I only need to paint one figure, rather than 12! Rolling Eyes

Darkson - Feb 27, 2004 - 09:28 AM
Post subject:

Deacon wrote:

As Chet said, you declare a foul to get next to a prone opposition player. If none are prone, you can't declare the foul.

However, I can see people getting Stand Firm on WA, so they can declare a foul and run into a TZ to hopefully fail a dodge.

Carnage4u - Feb 27, 2004 - 09:31 AM
Post subject:

but how often or how many poeple are going to do something like this?

this is taking a fix of something that was messed up.. making it better,,
but then looking at that fix.. finding something that could be abused by an odd situation... then going off on it...

now i think looking at it from all angles is good, but really the # of times this will be an issue by most players will be very low, at least in the crowds i play blood bowl with. Most people I know dont abuse or try to do things like that. If they did, we dont play with people like that.

I dont know why so many people seem to have these rules abusers in their group, but i guess im lucky to just not have to run into them

Deacon - Feb 27, 2004 - 09:40 AM
Post subject:

Darkson - my point is the new rule is open to abuse. Take out the 'Foul' option and it's a workable rule and actually demonstrates a Wild Animal at work.

mtn_bike - Feb 27, 2004 - 10:08 AM
Post subject:

What if the opposing coach gets to roll for the ref if a foul occured or not? If the WA keeps using the foul action to get up/move the WA will always have the possiblity of getting thrown out.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 27, 2004 - 10:13 AM
Post subject:

Actually, I think "Block, Blitz, Foul" illustrates a creature who is more motivated by blasting an opponent than not blasting an opponent. If your league is ripe with beards who insist on cheating like this, perhaps you should house rule it away; if these players are ubiquitous, the BBRC's options are:

1. Leave it alone, preach a bit, answer it in a FAQ.
2. Change the WA description to eliminate fouls.
3. Enforce turnovers for failing to carry out (foul) actions.

I prefer to do #1, because I don't believe in adding or changing rules just for the sake of a few twits (to be blunt).

-Chet

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 10:46 AM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

The old WA did affect Horns on the Minotaur. Since you could force the Minotaur to block an adjacent opponent, you could prevent him from using his Horns by marking him with a single player.

I thought you just had to block that player, not declare a Block Action. Specifically, under WA/LRB2.0, you could declare a blitz, dodge out and hit the mark, using your horns.

And as for the new WA/LRB3.0 rule being different from the rules listed in the October Rules Review, I don't like this precedent. The whole point to the BBRC is to get together once a year and vote on changes, rather than have changes come up whenever people feel like it, potentially with no BBRC deliberation.

The 3 line-of-scrimmage rule is an exception, since it sounds like that was actually a vote miscount. But changing WA 3 months into the rule cycle is a bad idea, plain and simple. Wait until the next ORR to do it.

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 11:01 AM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

I was looking at the LRB here, and I disagree. It is beardy (and we've all talked about that already), but it might not be cheating.

LRB wrote:

However, when you use this rule, one player per team turn is allowed to take a Foul action. This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player who is both prone and in an adjacent square

If you must lay the boot because of this wording, then I'd argue that you must also move your full MA.

The other actions in the game also give precedent to the may-use action in move-act type actions. In a pass action, the LRB actually says that you move some squares, after which you may pass the ball. The blitz action is similar. You are not required to throw any particular block, but you are able to throw a block during your move. You don't even have to designate a blitz target when you start moving.

Player actions like Foul, Pass, Blitz, and Handoff should remain of the move, optional action sort rather than the move, required action simply because sometimes people screw up. You forget that that guy there has Guard, Foul Appearance, or whatever. You fail to break away from the guy with Tentacles. Lots of reasons you might start by saying "Okay, this will be my Blitz/Foul" and end up not wanting to do it after all. You've still burned the team's one Blitz per turn, but you shouldn't be penalized for this.

In the case of the WA, you could add an addendum: if the WA doesn't block or foul someone during an action that was declared as a Block, Blitz or Foul, he gibbers in boundless rage, making him lose his TZs until he stops gibbering.

I don't think we should fix the WA loophole by requiring a Blitzer to throw a block somewhere in their run.

On the other hand, this is an example of why I posted above that I don't like how the rules can get changed between review sessions. The point to the rules review is to allow more time for everybody to talk about this kind of stuff, rather than us finding out about it after people figure it out. I tried to make a point to this effect in another thread about how any rule change will have unforseen consequences, simply because the people making the rule changes can't possibly think of everything, in a sufficiently complex game.

Darkson - Feb 27, 2004 - 11:02 AM
Post subject:

Well, iirc correcty, the BBRC hve been discussing WA since the RR, so if they've come to a consensus on a rules change, and the LRB hasn't bben updated, imo it makes sense for them to release it.

Melifaxis - Feb 27, 2004 - 11:23 AM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

I was looking at the LRB here, and I disagree. It is beardy (and we've all talked about that already), but it might not be cheating.

LRB wrote:

I think the spirit of the rule is crystal clear.

*Move UP TO your MA.
*You must foul.

The wording can be cleaned up to stop the "powergaming". If you don't deliver a foul, it's not a foul action, it's a move action and you don't get the +2 on move actions.

Darkson - Feb 27, 2004 - 11:30 AM
Post subject:

LRB p.24 wrote:

Normally, players that are prone cannot be attacked.
However, when you use this rule, one player per team turn is allowed to take a Foul action. This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player who is both prone and in an adjacent square.

So, to call a Foul action the fouled player has to be both in the WA MA and prone.

So if the opposition has no prone players, or none within range, you cannot call the foul action to get the +2, and to do so is, imho, cheating.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 27, 2004 - 11:56 AM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

And as for the new WA/LRB3.0 rule being different from the rules listed in the October Rules Review, I don't like this precedent.

The published Rules Review has always been a point of reference for the Annual. We release it at that time so we can gather feedback before publication. It's been done in the past, and it could happen again. Changing something in August - well, that's a bad idea.

I imagine that the RR paradigm will shift again once the Playtesters Vault is up and running.

-Chet

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 12:12 PM
Post subject:

What if you declare a Blitz to get the +2 to get up and don't hit anybody?

What if you declare a Foul in general (WA or not) and miscount the number of squares it takes to get to the oppo, or decide that the extra TZ you'd have to dodge through (and didn't notice at first) isn't worth it? Or what if you get ready to foul and then remember that the Eye is on you? Should you be forced to GFI to foul?

I think in non-WA cases, a coach should be allowed to "take back" the Foul/Blitz action. You've still burned the Team Foul for the turn, but you shouldn't have to foul (note the caps) anybody. What happens if you say "this is my Blitz" and run around and forget to actually hit anyone? Should you turn back time? Should you suffer a turnover? Should be you be ejected from the tournament or league?

And if you allow things like that (essentially making the game friendlier), you have to expect some people to abuse those things. Now it is up to you if you care enough about the abuse of a particular rule to make a change to it. You can't just go and say "this rule applies this way in one case (WA) and differently in others (non-WA)". That's being beardy in the opposite direction, and is symptomatic of a poorly designed rule.

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 12:19 PM
Post subject:

Melifaxis wrote:

pfooti wrote:

I was looking at the LRB here, and I disagree. It is beardy (and we've all talked about that already), but it might not be cheating.

LRB wrote:

If you must lay the boot because of this wording, then I'd argue that you must also move your full MA.

There's a difference between the spirit and letter of the rule. Neither you nor I know what the spirit of the rule is unless we ask JJ or whomever wrote the rule. We do, however, know the letter of the rule, which is unclear in the extreme.

If you call "Foul Action", roll a 2, and move (without fouling), do you instead go back and make the rat ogre stay prone? It is only after ending the RO's turn that you know he broke the rules. If you call "Foul Action", roll a 4, and move, do you keep it, but call the action actuall a "Move"? What if you call "Foul", get up and trip in a dodge (or fail a GFI, or fail to break from a tentacle player)? What do you do then?

I don't know of any other rules that have a "turn back time" effect. Too many weird side effects. So, besides calling the opponent Beardy, and perhaps shunning him/her, is there any real in-game effect that can counter this?

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 12:22 PM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

pfooti wrote:

And as for the new WA/LRB3.0 rule being different from the rules listed in the October Rules Review, I don't like this precedent.

I wish I had known. I'm in a league where we fix our rules to whatever is current at the beginning of a season, and only change between seasons. This is great if you only have rule updates once a year, and less so the more frequently you change the rules on us.

Personally, I would rather put up with a bad rule (even the 3LOS one) for a year than end up with a game that is like the WizKids line (an extreme case, I know) where the FAQ comes out monthly or more frequently, and can change the rules significantly from month to month.

GalakStarscraper - Feb 27, 2004 - 12:39 PM
Post subject:

Darkson wrote:

LRB p.24 wrote:

That sure as h*ll would be my ruling as a referee or commish.

I agree with Chet 100%. Calling a foul action and not fouling is cheating and I would not allow a coach to do this in my leagues or tournaments. PERIOD. If you want to argue this ... you are nitpicking rules that I agree with Chet are not nickpickable. There must be someone to foul in range to declare a foul action in the first place and you have to try to get to them or its cheating. Plain and simple. I don't see the confusion point here really.

Galak

GalakStarscraper - Feb 27, 2004 - 12:50 PM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

We do, however, know the letter of the rule, which is unclear in the extreme.

I really disagree with this statement completely.

Quote:

If you call "Foul Action", roll a 2, and move (without fouling), do you instead go back and make the rat ogre stay prone?

YES, because it wasn't a LEGAL move. If someone has already blitzed and then declares another blitz and blocks you and you remember that he already used his blitz ... what do you do? ITS THE SAME THING! You make him take the move back and do a legal one. For pete's sake, its not like illegal movement has never occurred in this game before this WA ruling.

Quote:

It is only after ending the RO's turn that you know he broke the rules. If you call "Foul Action", roll a 4, and move, do you keep it, but call the action actuall a "Move"?

No because a foul action was called which means two choices:
1) He fouls an opponent at the end of the move or fails his movement getting to him (ie falls down or fails a Stand Firm Dodge)
2) You put the player back prone because he performed an illegal movement.

Again, I don't see the issues here. Its very clear cut to me.

Quote:

What if you call "Foul", get up and trip in a dodge (or fail a GFI, or fail to break from a tentacle player)? What do you do then?

This is no different from declaring any other action where the movement stops the action. If the player cannot reach the player through LEGAL effort ... then that's fine. Usually that will be turnover with tentacles and failed Stand Firm dodges being the rare exceptions to this fact.

Quote:

I don't know of any other rules that have a "turn back time" effect.

Really ... I can list a whole bunch.

1) Blitzing when a blitz was already declared
2) Trying to hand off twice
3) Trying to pass twice
4) Forgetting to roll for a dodge during a player movement after he's been placed in his final square.
5) Forgetting a player has Side Step and after moving him having to have his position redone by the other coach.

I could really go on and on here.

They are called mistakes. All mistakes have a "turn back time" element and we've all handled them just fine for years and years. Declaring a foul that the player tries to use only as a move action is a "mistake" or "cheating" ... in this game ... we fix mistakes and move on.

I really just don't see the problems here.

Galak

GalakStarscraper - Feb 27, 2004 - 12:53 PM
Post subject:

Forgive my tone.

We get screamed at about how bad WA is and shouldn't something be done.

We do something and the SAME folks screaming that something should be done are on this thread complaining about the fix. GEESCH!!!

pfooti that may not be you, but your posts make this sound like such a confusing rule when its about as clear cut a rule as I've seen.

Galak

Hoshi_Komi - Feb 27, 2004 - 12:56 PM
Post subject:

thank you galak. damn rules lawyers.

GalakStarscraper - Feb 27, 2004 - 12:57 PM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

I think in non-WA cases, a coach should be allowed to "take back" the Foul/Blitz action.

Guess this is one of the part company items.

I don't let coaches on non-WA take back actions they declare once they start to move that player. Either as an opponent, a commish, or a tournament judge.

Galak

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 01:05 PM
Post subject:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

pfooti wrote:

We do, however, know the letter of the rule, which is unclear in the extreme.

I really disagree with this statement completely.

Really. The letter of the rule says that you "move a number of your squares equal to your MA and then make a foul against an opposing player who is both prone and in an adjacent square". The common interpretation replaces equal with up to, despite the fact that on page 8, the LRB describes the move action as may move his MA. A conditional not present in the foul rules.

I'm not saying you should have to move exactly your MA in order to foul, simply that the exact niggles of the fouling rule are unclear in the rulebook.

But I will defer to you, Galak, since you are one of the few people who are qualified to discuss the "Spirit" of the rules.

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Quote:

I don't know of any other rules that have a "turn back time" effect.

All of these need to be handled at the moment the error was made. "This is a Blitz action", "no wait, you already blitzed once", "Oh, okay then this is a Move action". You don't get to say "wait, that was your second Blitz" after the player has gotten up, dodged around, thrown a block, rolled armor/injury, and moved on. Or at least you don't in our league. Maybe you should be able to.

So, I want to know what happens if I do the following:

I declare a Blitz action with one of my (non-WA) players. I move my guy some squares and end up adjacent to an opponent. I count assists, whoops, it's a half-die block instead of a one die block. Never mind, not going to throw the block. Am I forced to? If not, does this burn my team's Blitz action?

I declare Foul action, do the same, and realize the Eye is on me. I don't foul after all. Does this retroactively turn the action into a Move, freeing up my Foul for a different player if I decide that one is expendable (and I don't mind the turnover at that point?)

I declare Foul with my WA and make the roll (barely). I miscount squares and don't make it into fouling territory. Being a good sport I say, "Whoops! I'll just put my WA back down. Oh, now where did he go? I sure don't recall, does my opponent? No, now what do we do?"

From what I hear, it is okay to make a mistake and turn back time to turn actions from special actions into move actions. What about the other way? Can I say, "oops, this was supposed to be a Blitz!" Why not?

Again, I'm not exactly in favor of either interpretation of Foul/Blitz. This is similar to my Long Boring Rant about DT. I want a set of rules that are internally consistent, and not riddled with special case rulings. And from an aesthetic point of view, I don't think you should ever take back moves, at least from the point of view that I've seen reasonable people disagree on where a player originated.

Clan_Skaven - Feb 27, 2004 - 01:07 PM
Post subject: as stated b4

As I have stated before I like WA better now than before.

Its fits the fluff of the nature of the Rat Ogre!

Only thing I guess , I think maybe should be considered as change, is the rolling over from stunned to prone (for all Big Guys). Personally I think waking up from being stunned has nothing to do with how inteligent or wild you are. So rolling over to me anyway should be a free action. Standing up however, you should still roll.

But WA now? Its awsome, don't let those people who cry bloody mary bother you!

Rod

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 01:10 PM
Post subject:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

pfooti wrote:

I think in non-WA cases, a coach should be allowed to "take back" the Foul/Blitz action.

What would you do if a non-WA player declared Blitz and ran near some other players and didn't block them (thought better of it)? In four minute turns, people misjudge where everyone will be and just notice as they slide into the right square. Would you make them go back and hit one of them, which one, and who decides?

For the record, I think the WA rule was pretty bad, but was perfectly willing to wait and see for a year on it.

I think the new WA rule is very clear. I also think that it is subject to abuse because it exposes an unclear corner case of the rules (what happens when you declare Foul/Blitz and change your mind) than never came up before in polite play, because there was no good reason to burn your team Blitz, and everyone I knew/played with just let it stand as a wasted Team Blitz Action. But now it is possible to abuse that action, so we need to clarify the foul/blitz sequence.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 27, 2004 - 01:22 PM
Post subject:

If people continually "forget" this, they're obviously cheating, just as they'd be cheating if they continually "forgot" that their MA -1 player is actually MA -1. If your gaming group is full of such rank-and-filers, I suggest you filter the WA description so that fouls don't give a +2 bonus.

The rules have holes. It's the nature of the beast. But this isn't really one of them. Allow me to post one, since you've pfooti has mentioned it repeatedly in this thread:

1. The pass description states that the player "MUST" throw the ball at the end of his move.
2. Stand Firm allows you to fail a dodge and remain standing, although the player's turn is finished.

So what happens if an Orc Blitzer with Stand Firm declares a Pass action and fails a dodge before he can unload the ball?

Ultimately, "the rules don't say I can't" has always been the worst argument. And that's what this "look, ma, no foul" argument boils down to.

-Chet

Carnage4u - Feb 27, 2004 - 01:30 PM
Post subject:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Galak. YOu know how much i hate the current wild animal and roll to unstun and have been going crazy an many forums over it.

This new current change I like a lot and i agree 100% with you on what you are now saying.

So it is NOT all people who were arguing before. I bet if when this gets out more most of them willl not complain.

This foul issues is just going to be a minor comment that i belive is CRAP anyway because i dont know one league that would allow such a tactic anyway.

GalakStarscraper - Feb 27, 2004 - 01:34 PM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

Really. The letter of the rule says that you "move a number of your squares equal to your MA

By the way ... that one really is poor wording and I'll see if I can get Jake to fix that when the LRB 3.0 gets done. It should definitely say up to not equal to.

Galak

GalakStarscraper - Feb 27, 2004 - 01:36 PM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

Actually in my leagues, you definitely could stop him and make him take it all back as long as it was still during the player's action.

This may be why I don't see this whole foul declared and not done as a non-issue ... and yes, I'd force someone to hit someone if he declared a blitz with a WA.

Galak

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 02:10 PM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

1. The pass description states that the player "MUST" throw the ball at the end of his move.

Where?

I have on p13, top left: "The player is allowed to make a normal move, and after he has completed the move he may throw the football."

I can't find any language on p13 that says you have to throw the ball if you've declared a pass action. Once you've picked a target, you probably can't stop if your opponent surprises you with some passblockers, but if you just say "Pass action", and move your player, I don't see you committed to having to pass.

Related issue: I have no problem with declaring a Blitz/Foul and being unable to follow through because you fell over, or failed a standfirm dodge. But what I was talking about was: does that make the action that player took turn into a Move (and retroactively change the results of the WA roll)?

So what if a ratogre declares blitz, gets up, and attempts to dodge away from the Beastman with tentacles. He fails the tentacles roll. He can continue acting (it isn't like failing a dodge with stand firm). Is he now obligated to hit that beastman? Even if he was supposed to be blitzing someone else? I just want to be clear on this.

Hoshi_Komi - Feb 27, 2004 - 02:39 PM
Post subject:

look on page 8 like he said under pass action. quit being an idiot. If you allow the rule to be abused you deserve the crap you get along with it.

Tutenkharnage - Feb 27, 2004 - 02:48 PM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

Related issue: I have no problem with declaring a Blitz/Foul and being unable to follow through because you fell over, or failed a standfirm dodge. But what I was talking about was: does that make the action that player took turn into a Move (and retroactively change the results of the WA roll)?

So what if a ratogre declares blitz, gets up, and attempts to dodge away from the Beastman with tentacles. He fails the tentacles roll. He can continue acting (it isn't like failing a dodge with stand firm). Is he now obligated to hit that beastman? Even if he was supposed to be blitzing someone else? I just want to be clear on this.

A failed Tentacles roll ends the player's action immediately. The coach declared the Blitz, and the Blitz is wasted. The player can't hit the Beastman. This applies to all players, not just Wild Animals. It's just like an Ogre who declares a Blitz and then Boneheads: the Blitz is gone.

-Chet

Carnage4u - Feb 27, 2004 - 02:51 PM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

1. The pass description states that the player "MUST" throw the ball at the end of his move.

question.. are you making these arguments for the sake of it, or do you argue this way in actual games?

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 02:53 PM
Post subject:

Tutenkharnage wrote:

from the LRB, p 37:

LRB wrote:

If the result for the tentacled player is higher than the result of the moving player, then the moving player is held firm and may not leave the square or attempt to move any further.

By my read of this, it just prevents you from moving any further and doesn't end your turn. So you could throw a block (but not follow up), or even pass the ball (I was trying to get out of the TZ but couldn't. Oh well.) So the question stands.

I'm not trying to be ornery really. I'm just trying to map out the special cases so they can be addressed in a timely manner.

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 02:57 PM
Post subject:

Carnage4u wrote:

question.. are you making these arguments for the sake of it, or do you argue this way in actual games?

In actual games this almost never comes up. And if it does, and my opponent and I can't agree on an answer, we would dice for it (4+ it goes my way).

But I'm trying to argue this out (and to death) so when it does come up in somebody's game (and it will), we know what to do. I just learned, for example, that in the eyes of the BBRC, you can't decline to block, foul, or pass after declaring a Blitz, Foul or Pass action (even though in the case of Pass, the rulebook seems clear that you could decline to pass). So I'm in a situation where I don't understand the rules like I thought I did and I want to figure out how it works.

Mostly, I think that's because I'm a programmer and think in terms of special cases and whatnot.

Hoshi_Komi - Feb 27, 2004 - 03:01 PM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

[(even though in the case of Pass, the rulebook seems clear that you could decline to pass

look on page 8 of lrb...it says pass action: at end of move player MUST pass...no option there.

Zombie - Feb 27, 2004 - 04:16 PM
Post subject:

It's obvious to me that in a blitz action, you don't have to actually make a block. It's always been this way (well, as far back as i can remember anyway). If the wild animal wants to waste a blitz action and not make a hit, let him, it's his loss.

As for fouls, this one isn't quite as obvious. I indeed you don't have to foul in a foul action, that's a just loophole with wild animals, since wasting a foul action is usually no big deal at all. However, i believe (not sure) that foul actions have always been stated in a way that forces you to foul, just like pass actions. If that's the case, then we're safe. Otherwise, something definitely needs to be changed in the rules. Making the foul mandatory (if it isn't already) would be the easiest way to solve the problem.

pfooti - Feb 27, 2004 - 04:31 PM
Post subject:

gken1 wrote:

pfooti wrote:

[(even though in the case of Pass, the rulebook seems clear that you could decline to pass

look on page 8 of lrb...it says pass action: at end of move player MUST pass...no option there.

Ah, that's where it is. That means that there is a typo in the LRB which needs to be fixed. Since the may-pass rule comes on page 13 and the must-pass rule on page 8, theoretically the may-pass rule should override the must-pass rule, in the same way a modified-1 fumble can override an otherwise accurate pass (in the case of an AG 6 thrower).

But I'm willing to concede the must-pass rule. But not the must-block-during-blitz rule. So I could waste my team's Blitz action if I needed to get my WA up (if there's nobody in range to hit).

Oh, and I agree with Zombie. Making the foul mandatory is the easiest way to solve the problem.

But it isn't as easy to make fouling mandatory as it is to make passing mandatory. In the one case, you have the ball (probably), so you've gotta throw it. In the other case, you are required to move your player in the right way in order to get into fouling position. They're different, and the must-foul rule would require more difficult enforcement (moving the player backwards maybe).

GalakStarscraper - Feb 28, 2004 - 07:27 AM
Post subject:

Zombie ... several BBRC have rechecked the LRB ... there is definitely not a MAY in the Foul action description ... so it is already required. Using a foul action to only move is clearly cheating. This is not a debate item really.

As for the Pass ... yeah page 8 and 13 say May and then Must. Personally I've always allowed MAY for Pass actions in my leagues. But we'll see if we can get them to be the same word.

And yes, Blitz does not require you to hit someone. The rules are pretty clear on that. I guess I'll need to check with the rest of the BBRC if they are okay with a WA using a Blitz action to only move.

Galak

pfooti - Feb 28, 2004 - 12:21 PM
Post subject:

Okay, no more yelling on my part. It makes perfect sense to require a foul in a Foul action. I hope you clear up the pass confusion, and really hope it comes down with a may-pass rather than must-pass.

And if you want to waste a Blitz to move your WA, that doesn't seem like the end of the world, since a Blitz is really useful (and a Foul is frequently not as useful, since it is hard to end a Blitz in a TO, for example).

And thanks (I guess) to the hard working and underappreciated BBRC who listened to us to make the WA a little better than it used to be.

Zombie - Feb 28, 2004 - 05:00 PM
Post subject:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Zombie ... several BBRC have rechecked the LRB ... there is definitely not a MAY in the Foul action description ... so it is already required.

Zombie wrote:

However, i believe (not sure) that foul actions have always been stated in a way that forces you to foul, just like pass actions.

Carnage4u - Mar 01, 2004 - 03:08 PM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Zombie ... several BBRC have rechecked the LRB ... there is definitely not a MAY in the Foul action description ... so it is already required.

Zombie wrote:

However, i believe (not sure) that foul actions have always been stated in a way that forces you to foul, just like pass actions.

GalakStarscraper - Mar 01, 2004 - 04:18 PM
Post subject:

Zombie ... you stated you were not sure ... I was answering your not sureness.

Zombie wrote:

As for fouls, this one isn't quite as obvious. I indeed you don't have to foul in a foul action, that's a just loophole with wild animals

Yes I saw you put that in your comments ... I also saw the several sentences preceding it that said you really didn't know.

Sorry for actually taking the time to answer your query.

Galak

Zombie - Mar 01, 2004 - 04:44 PM
Post subject:

I was talking about previous versions. I meant to say that i was about 90% sure that it had been this way ever since 3rd ed. I knew about the latest posts, as i had read those. I agree with Pfooti that it isn't as clear as it should be. My initial reaction in such a case is to look back at previous rules to see if it were stated any clearer back then.

The problem with actions has always been that they're not all listed in the same place. Until that's fixed, we'll always have this kind of problem.

And i'm sorry, but the fact that BBRC members have given their opinion on this means about as much to me as if you said that your grandma said so (assuming she knows the game of course). I believe in the rules as they are written, not in a BBRC member's interpretation of a rule that he hasn't written.

mtn_bike - Mar 02, 2004 - 09:00 AM
Post subject:

The LRB P24 under fouls Second paragraph second sentence
"However, when you use this rule,..."

You may omit the foul rule which will omit the WA foul action.

Not to add gas to the fire but the LRB also says
"...Foul Action. This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player whi is both prone and in an adjacent square."

Does this mean that a player cannot GFI to make a foul? Me thinks not. It says "his" So amazon players cannot foul. Wink

pfooti - Mar 02, 2004 - 10:53 AM
Post subject:

mtn_bike wrote:

Does this mean that a player cannot GFI to make a foul? Me thinks not. It says "his" So amazon players cannot foul. Wink

I think amazon players should be allowed to foul (and witch elves). But the wording: "This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player which is both prone and in an adjacent square" is unclear overall. Obviously, they meant that you should move up to your MA (not be forced to move your MA) and you should be able to GFI. The point I was arguing throughout this thread is that "must-foul" and "may-foul" are equally valid interpretations of this (already muddy) passage of the rules.

Example: "This placard allows you to park in the employee lot". That sentence does not say or mean "This placard requires you to park in the employee lot". Similarly, it is not clear that being allowed to move and make a foul means "allowed to (move and make a foul)" or "(allowed to move) and (allowed to make a foul)" or "(allowed to move) and (required to make a foul)".

But, the BBRC is already changing the rules, so they could fix this up and clarify it at the same time as they release the WA rule, so the argument is semi-moot. It is only really important if they release the new WA rule and leave the foul section of the LRB untouched.

mtn_bike - Mar 02, 2004 - 12:00 PM
Post subject:

I know I'm the small majority but I would like to see
Must Pass during a pass action.
Must throw a block during a blitz action.
Must foul during a foul action. (which I think it is anyway)

Granted, a team is only allowed one of each but I have been burnt on not declaring an action. Even if no rolls were involved up to the point I was currently excuting. I'd like to see just the opposite.

pfooti - Mar 02, 2004 - 04:18 PM
Post subject:

mtn_bike wrote:

I know I'm the small majority but I would like to see
Must Pass during a pass action.
Must throw a block during a blitz action.
Must foul during a foul action. (which I think it is anyway)

Why? What does/would it add to your game? I'm not saying this to be argumentative, I really do want to hear the other side of the argument (at least something other than "that's what's in the LRB!")

Zombie - Mar 02, 2004 - 05:19 PM
Post subject:

From my experience (we've always used the must pass rule here), i can tell you that it adds an interesting game decision (shall we call it gamble?) of whether or not to declare a pass when there are many rolls to make before the pass itself and you might end up without your team reroll for the pass and catch rolls. It may be enough in some cases to make you decide not to pass. Anything that makes in-game decisions more complex is good for the game if you ask me.

Doubleskulls - Mar 03, 2004 - 02:53 AM
Post subject:

I prefer the tactical option of being able not to pass. For one thing it means I'm more likely actually declare a pass/hand off action in the 1st place.

e.g. My ball carrying orc thrower is going to have to dodge to get away from his marker. Now I have a blitzer a few squares further forward who can go for the TD - or I can easily cage up again. So hopeing I don't need the RR I call a hand off action, but use the RR on the dodge. So I don't hand off to the blitzer and cage up again. If I'd had to hand off there is no way I would have declared a hand off action.

Zombie - Mar 03, 2004 - 03:45 AM
Post subject:

No way, really? Even though there's only a 5% chance (1/3 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 2/3) that the reroll used on the dodge would come back and haunt you? Maybe i like taking risks a little more than you do, but i might call it a hand off depending on the situation. In fact, since this guy is a thrower, i'd probably call it a pass even and go for the extra SPP. The point is, it's not set in stone.

mtn_bike - Mar 03, 2004 - 06:46 AM
Post subject:

pfooti wrote:

mtn_bike wrote:

I know I'm the small majority but I would like to see
Must Pass during a pass action.
Must throw a block during a blitz action.
Must foul during a foul action. (which I think it is anyway)

Why? What does/would it add to your game? I'm not saying this to be argumentative, I really do want to hear the other side of the argument (at least something other than "that's what's in the LRB!")

In my league your not forced to take the action that you declare (pass, blitz). If you _had_ to take the action some coaches would be more careful. If I played zombie I know that it now becomes must pass. That adds a whole new game strategy if I were playing a passing team. It does seem odd that the rules are explicit that "you must declare an action before you move the model" but you are not held to the action. Pass you kind of are on P8. I know it will never become must for all three actions Sad

so I won't make a big deal about it. Thank god for house rules. Laughing

Doubleskulls - Mar 03, 2004 - 07:14 AM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

I had a no-risk cageing option so why take any risks at all?

pfooti - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:16 AM
Post subject:

My opinion is that a must-pass rule would force players to be MORE conservative (at least I would be more conservative). It's along the line of doubleskulls' reasoning. Passing is already risky enough, if it becomes worse, I'll just play a running game instead. Running games are boring.

There's already a risk involved, because usually if I'm going to throw a pass, I set up a receiving corps downfield first, and even if I end up not throwing the ball, I'm all spread out and blitzworthy. My catchers are not near each other, the thrower has some protection, but not a full-on cage, and my blitzers might be out of position to help either side effectively.

So a Pass action that ends with me not throwing the ball will still end with me pretty open to a good blitz. I'm gambling from the moment I set up the pass, way before I declare a Pass action. I just decided it was better to wait a turn (for whatever reason) rather than risk the interception or something.

Mordredd - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:24 AM
Post subject:

Quote:

My opinion is that a must-pass rule would force players to be MORE conservative

Rubbish! It just means that you only declare a Pass action if you mean it, and that you only set up a pass if you intend to follow through with it.

Oh, and the rule already is that you must pass.

pfooti - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:44 AM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

Rubbish! It just means that you only declare a Pass action if you mean it, and that you only set up a pass if you intend to follow through with it.

I always intend to follow through with a pass when I declare a Pass action, to the best of my knowledge. But if I end up getting a few unforseen 1s, I should be able to change my mind, plain and simple. My passer is not an idiot, he knows when it is a bad idea to pass the ball, if he's stuck to the FA, tentacles beastman that has been shadowing him, for example. To force him to throw the ball in that case is silly, both in terms of fluff and playability.

Mordredd wrote:

Oh, and the rule already is that you must pass.

Cheap shot. I would say that the pass ruling is still open. Furthermore, I'd say that we're debating that in another thread. Even furthermore, based on postings in that thread, I'd say that there is a stronger case for not having to pass based on a strict interpretation of the LRB. The case for the must-pass interpretation is based mostly on "that's the way we play it" and "that's what Chet said", rather than "the p8 rules make more sense" or "the p8 rules are later in the rulebook and override the p13 rules"

Doubleskulls - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:46 AM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

Quote:

My opinion is that a must-pass rule would force players to be MORE conservative

Rubbish! It just means that you only declare a Pass action if you mean it, and that you only set up a pass if you intend to follow through with it.

You obviously haven't read my earlier post.

It doesn't happen that often but sometimes I'll declare a pass/hand off and then decide against it because I blow the RR earlier in the action. In some of those instances I'd just declare a move action instead because the risk/reward of the pass isn't good enough.

Must pass/hand-off will result in fewer of them being declared.

Mordredd - Mar 03, 2004 - 11:26 AM
Post subject:

Quote:

My passer is not an idiot, he knows when it is a bad idea to pass the ball

I would say that when you declare the pass your thrower has decided that the pass is on, or has to be made, so is going to go through with it no matter what. Also picking a very rare example as to why he should be able to choose not to is pointless and proves nothing. Similarly rolling a couple of 1s usually results in a turn over.

Quote:

Cheap shot. I would say that the pass ruling is still open.

Both are untrue. Read the other thread, I have already posted a grammatical analysis of why the interpretation that passing is optional based on the text on p13 is wrong.

Quote:

You obviously haven't read my earlier post.

No, I had read it. I just think that your position on this is wrong. If you decided that the whole play was worth the risk then you should be made to follow it through. Just because you tripped at the first hurdle doesn't mean you should be allowed to wimp out. The fact that you have to follow through with the whole pass should be taken into account when you do your original "risk assessment".

pfooti - Mar 03, 2004 - 11:48 AM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

Quote:

My passer is not an idiot, he knows when it is a bad idea to pass the ball

These extreme cases are very central to my argument, because it is in those extreme cases where I would find myself declaring Pass Action and not wanting to throw the ball. Again, in most cases the may-pass and must-pass rules are indistinguishable, because when I say Pass I usually mean it, and actually it takes more than a blown RR to make me back down. If I blow a RR on a GFI, I will pass to my receiver who has catch instead of the lineman I was trying to level. But if I get stuck on a tentacled player, or something else extreme, I don't want to be forced to make an obviously poor pass.

Mordredd wrote:

Quote:

Cheap shot. I would say that the pass ruling is still open.

Both are untrue. Read the other thread, I have already posted a grammatical analysis of why the interpretation that passing is optional based on the text on p13 is wrong.

You have posted a grammatical analysis. Who are you? You are not the BBRC or JJ. So you are allowed to post opinions on the matter. You are entitled to say "this is how my league plays it and why". You are simply not qualified (and neither am I for that matter) to say "this is the rule".

Furthermore, I already know that we're in contention over the meaning of this rule, so saying "btw, you're wrong" at the end of a post is indeed a cheap shot. Not a cheap shot in the way that "btw, you're a poo-head" would be, but cheap nonetheless.

Mordredd wrote:

Quote:

You obviously haven't read my earlier post.

This is a reply to Doubleskulls, I think. But I will reply also. If I called a pass play in the NFL, I wouldn't want my QB to throw it directly at a defender, or toss it as he's being tackled and then come off the field and say "Coach, I didn't want to wimp out!".

Forcing players to pass will result in the coaches who had been playing under a may-pass interpretation becoming more conservative. This would be one more gram on the scale tipping toward a (boring) cage-style run and grind game. This is a prediction, not a statement I have evidence for. Just the anecdotal evidence that I know this is how it would affect my play style.

Mordredd - Mar 03, 2004 - 12:03 PM
Post subject:

Quote:

I am literate and have a copy of the rules. This does put me in a position to say "this is the rule". You are of course free to disagree with me, and argue your case.

As for the 'cheap shot', you were discussing the subject as though the rule was up to the individual to decide on. Saying that it is actually set one way is not saying that you are wrong, just that you should be arguing that the rule "does do" what you say, rather than "would do".

Zombie - Mar 03, 2004 - 06:26 PM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

I had a no-risk cageing option so why take any risks at all?

Many reasons. It might be better for you to score as soon as possible (e.g. you're losing by 2 TDs). Maybe you want a high scoring game with lots of SPPs, and you don't care much whether you win or lose (e.g. you're already out of playoff contention). Maybe you already lead by 2 TDs so there's no risk of losing the game and you want to max out on SPPs. There are many situations that would warrant this.

Doubleskulls - Mar 04, 2004 - 03:01 AM
Post subject:

Shouldn't we take all the discussion on passing etc to the other thread? This one is well off topic now.

Tutenkharnage - Mar 04, 2004 - 07:39 AM
Post subject:

Putting this thread back on topic, Experiment 627 of the Northland Raiders is improving his play. He occasionally forgets what he's doing, but he's reasonably reliable (at all the unnecessary times, of course), and he's learned to work better with his team-mates.

BTW, Sure Feet on a Minotaur is a good skill choice. Trust me on this one.

-Chet

Doubleskulls - Mar 06, 2004 - 04:40 AM
Post subject:

As a "patch" for WA & fouling why not change the rules so any player performing a "Foul Action" (regardless of whether they actually foul or not) has to roll to be sent off - and moves the eye too.

Clan_Skaven - Mar 06, 2004 - 06:55 AM
Post subject: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

pfooti wrote:

Mordredd wrote:

Rubbish! It just means that you only declare a Pass action if you mean it, and that you only set up a pass if you intend to follow through with it.

Mordredd wrote:

Oh, and the rule already is that you must pass.

I still do not see how you are that confused on the Passing rules! I have explained it time & time again! It is not a condradiction! On page 13 its simply telling you what you "may" do if you wanted to decide to commit to a pass action! On page 8 its telling you what you "must" do should you decide to commit to a pass action! I see no confussion there! Its two totatlly different parts of the rules, sure both dealing with the passing part of the game, but dealing with 2 different mechanics of the game! I have explained this to you over & over on the other thread, (I obviosly must be writing in a differnt language!) Cause I'm sure if I was writing in English you would have surely seen the light by now!

Doubleskulls - Mar 07, 2004 - 01:00 PM
Post subject:

Take passing to the other thread!

CoachLazyEye - Mar 14, 2004 - 03:11 PM
Post subject:

I'm running a league in Ottawa and the Wild Animal rule is providing a bit of a challenge.

What I was thinking of imposing is that wild animal is exactly as written except that a blitz action may be made against an opposing model in the Wild Animal's tackle zone without a roll being required - just like the block. That way Wild Animal isn't too restrictive but still offers a negative.

Ratin_Mutants - Mar 18, 2004 - 12:33 AM
Post subject:

Think of it I LOVE the new rules, remember how it was before... you MUST go First, no assists..... how many turnovers did you guys make? I managed to make a total of 5 in one game.... I still won due the fact that I played against a undead team and they could not pick up the ball... but took a beating.

The new rules are quite good, because instead of haveing the opponents running towards the WA, in the hope of causing a Turnover, they run away in hope to have the WA miss a Blitz.

Isn´t it logically that the opponnetns should go away from the WA? They are not nice, they rip your guts out and trample on you afterwards while playing bowling with your skull. I would try to avoid guys like them EVEN if i´m a BB player whith a death wish.

Doubleskulls - Mar 18, 2004 - 03:09 AM
Post subject:

IMO the new rules are an over-reaction to the RR2003 ones. 2+ to block & blitz with no loss of TZ if you fail? Much better than Bonehead IMO.

Why couldn't the BBRC leave the rules (or revert to the must move 1st one) and then put all these options through some serious play testing...

Lupus - Mar 18, 2004 - 11:30 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

IMO the new rules are an over-reaction to the RR2003 ones. 2+ to block & blitz with no loss of TZ if you fail? Much better than Bonehead IMO.

Much better than bonehead? The WA has to roll +4 for move, blitz and pass... And the worst is that has to roll +4 for un-stunned and stand up! Shocked

Lupus

Melifaxis - Mar 18, 2004 - 11:43 AM
Post subject:

I'd bet on Unstun being free for Boneheads and Really Stupid players as well in October.

Doubleskulls - Mar 18, 2004 - 02:00 PM
Post subject:

Er - I'm not talking about the RR2003 rules, but the "soon to be official" 2+ to block/blitz/foul 4+ to move etc.

Reinkenstein - Apr 20, 2004 - 11:33 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

Er - I'm not talking about the RR2003 rules, but the "soon to be official" 2+ to block/blitz/foul 4+ to move etc.

I guess I'm coming into this thread a little late (and I see it's been all over the place), but I cannot help but put my two cents in, since my Minotaur leads our league in casualties, having caused 15 casualties in 16 games. Pow

Our interpretation is quite clean and clear...

A Blitz! IS a block for purposes of WA. As a violent creature, he can execute a blitz! without rolling as well. EVERYTHING else (Pass, Foul, Hand-Off, Move - without blitzing, and even ROLLING OVER) requires a 4+ (and unlike stupid creatures, having your friends aroudn doesn't help!). It works well, and I believe it's what was intended by the change.

1. "Blitz!" is found under the section of the LRB for "BLOCKS"; p.10.
2. "Blitz!" uses the Block dice (not used for any other game purpose). "To see if a block works you will need to use the special blocking dice included with the game."; p.10.

Blitzing and Blocking are what Wild Animals are intended to do! They should be able to do it without having to roll for it. They are NOT stupid (or even boneheaded for that matter), they are just violent. Ogres are forgetful, Trolls are stupid (unless instructed by a teammate), Rat Ogres and Minotaurs are violent... they're not into that passing, catching, scoring scene (which is why they have to roll 4+ to do any of it).

It just makes sense, we use it that way and will continue to do so. Changing it again will revert Wild Animals to once again being useless.

Emberbreeze - Apr 20, 2004 - 02:19 PM
Post subject:

Does seem odd that in the new rule a wild animal will just stop and do nothing if you roll a 1

Doubleskulls - Apr 21, 2004 - 03:08 AM
Post subject:

Reinkenstein,

If those are the rules you are playing then I'm not surprised a Mino is leading the league. WA is basically not even a negative trait with those rules as you are almost always quite happy blitzing with him.

Darkson - Apr 21, 2004 - 06:11 AM
Post subject:

Reinkenstein wrote:

It works well, and I believe it's what was intended by the change.

It may work well (and I don't see that as a negatrait), but it definetly wasn't what the BBRC intended. A Block is a Block, and a Blitz is a Blitz, they are completely different actions.

Reinkenstein - Apr 26, 2004 - 06:55 PM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

"Almost" is accurate. Blitzing is GREAT, unless, of course...
1. He's out of position to accomplish it, or
2. He has to dodge to accomplish it, or
3. He ends up with the ball (... it happens), or
4. He's on his back and doesn't have the movement to get there, or
5. He's on his face, and hasn't gotten up for the last several turns because you can't seem to roll a 4+ on a d6 to save your life, and since he's a "Big Guy" you can't reroll that die

Is a trait only "negative" in your book if it can affect you every turn? If that's the case, "Always Hungry" isn't a negative trait either? (except for maybe the unfortunate Gobo!)

I think a 50/50 chance to do anything except Block or Blitz is a negative trait. Wanna stand? 50/50. Wanna roll-over? 50/50. Wanna move to assist someone else? 50/50. Wanna pick up the ball that's rolling around in the endzone with nobody around for miles? 50/50 to even get a chance at picking it up (which is coincidentally is another 50/50).

You want a defense against a Mino? Put a silly little 'git beside him and keep your other players, including the ball carrier, away from him. Watch in glee as your opponent sweats over whether to block the stinking 'git, or declare the "blitz" with his mighty Mino knowing full well he'll have to dodge away from the 'git first without using a reroll!

If a "Blitz!" was anything other than a fancy "Block" maybe they should have put in a section of the LRB not labled "BLOCKS".

To interpret it any other way would simply be insane. Being a WA would be WORSE than being REALLY STUPID, because their friends couldn't even point them in the right direction! Opposing teams, especially those slippery little elf types ( Skull

teams of choice perhaps?) would simply dodge away from him all day long making him rarely ever capable of even throwing a "Block" ... because no one is around him ... and giving him only a 50/50 chance of doing anything else ... ever!

Prior to the change, WA were pretty much useless. If the BBRC intended to make Wild Animals both STUPID and useless ... I guess I can see your point.

Zombie - Apr 26, 2004 - 08:00 PM
Post subject:

Seriously, this is nowhere negative enough to be a proper negative trait. Either play 2+ to block/blitz and 4+ for anything else, or play automatic block and 4+ for anything else. What you're talking about makes minotaurs and rat ogres greatly overpowered and would turn any league into a circus.

Doubleskulls - Apr 27, 2004 - 02:38 AM
Post subject:

Reinkenstein wrote:

Is a trait only "negative" in your book if it can affect you every turn? If that's the case, "Always Hungry" isn't a negative trait either? (except for maybe the unfortunate Gobo!)

Wild Animal has a much bigger cost reduction than Always Hungry - not all skills are equal.

Your version is massively overpowered and I'd take a WA over very other sort of BG in that league.

Jacobin - May 04, 2004 - 02:48 PM
Post subject: Viewpoint

While I'm happy to admit the revised new WA rule in LRB3 are an upgrade to the change that came before it, I still find the alteration from moving first not taking assits to be unexciting and uninteresting.

The new WA rule is just a unimaginative answer to problems presented by the old way (most problems which could be addressed by competent coaching, either by the coach of the WA or his opponent). The new WA rule is just a rehash of Bone Head and Really Stupid. And it's not a particularly interesting borrowing of those rules; you might as well have simply gotten rid of WA and made the Rat Ogre and Minotaur have BH or RS.

In the league I am a part of, our owners voted to keep the LRB2 WA rule instead of using the new one. Yes, that version of the rule is flawed, but at least it is interesting and clearly sets WAs appart from Ogres, Trolls, and Kroxigors. There used to be a distinctive choice between Ogre and Minotaur for the Norse coach, now it's six of one versus half a dozen of the other.

I may be in the minority, but I just wanted to mention not everyone disliked the new rule because it was broken from the start! Some of us don't like it because it is boring, unimaginative, and reduces the distinction between different big guys.

-Jacobin

Mordredd - May 05, 2004 - 03:47 AM
Post subject:

Well you're not alone there. I too think that the new WA is exceptionally dull and I don't like it for that reason.

Zombie - May 05, 2004 - 04:56 AM
Post subject:

What i like about the new wild animal is that they're now wild! The last rule had them running away from all opposition and staying in the backfield where it's safe. It also had all opposition running towards them in an attempt to get them to knock themselves down. It should have been called "pussy", not "wild animal".

The new rule is a bit dull, true. But at least a minotaur is not afraid to get in the thick of things anymore!

Mordredd - May 05, 2004 - 05:03 AM
Post subject:

But that's the problem, they're not wild. Mad

They don't do anything at all that can reasonably be described as wild. They can be safely used in a more aggressive fashion, but that hardly makes them uncontrollable animals. Confused

Zombie - May 05, 2004 - 05:10 AM
Post subject:

Good point. You're right, it's a problem that the new wild animals are not wild. At least they're not pussies anymore, the total opposite of wild! So we're headed in the right direction, but we ain't there yet!

Seannewboy - May 05, 2004 - 07:09 PM
Post subject:

Like he said.

Shaniepoo1 - May 18, 2004 - 08:10 AM
Post subject:

So let me get it right (Ive only used the new WA rules once due to the league i was part of fell apart before the new rules came out).

The official rules are - If i want to move, pass, pick up, catch, foul, blitz, turn from face down to face up or stand up then i must roll a 4+.

Possible soon to be rules are - You must roll a 4+ to do any of the above (inc, block) but add +2 to the roll if blocking or blitzing. Also, Minotaurs can only be used on teams that have them in their roster selection. eg, My Norse will not be able to buy a minotaur as part of their team, only an Ogre.

Zombie - May 18, 2004 - 08:23 AM
Post subject:

Not quite. First, the possible soon to be rules now are (have been for about a week). Second, in those rules, you don't have to roll at all to unstun. Otherwise you're correct.

As for minotaurs, i don't understand your question. You already could only have them if they were available to your team. Nothing changed there. The only thing that changed regarding big guys is that ogres are now available to fewer races.

Shaniepoo1 - May 18, 2004 - 10:35 AM
Post subject:

So the rules on the gamesworkshop bloodbowl site in the playtesters vault (V1.2) are now official!?!

Boy am i behind the times Embarassed

What i ment by the minotaur stuff was that in the old rules (when WA had to move 1st) Minotaurs were available to Chaos, Chaos Dwarf and Norse.

In the print out i got from GW site (playtesters vault V1.2) the team lists have Big Guy's already on the lists-

Norse; Linemen, Thrower, Catcher, Blitzer and Ogre.

Does this mean that Norse are no longer aloud to use Minotaurs?

Zombie - May 18, 2004 - 10:39 AM
Post subject:

No, but LRB 3.0 is. Ignore playtesters' vault except for house rules.

Shaniepoo1 - May 18, 2004 - 11:14 AM
Post subject:

This is copnfusing the feck out of me Question

Ive just been onto the vault and the dam thing has changed again!!!!!!I only printed of a copy of that thing last week Evil or Very Mad

So if i go and re print out the LRB on the GW site and use that and only that then i'll be ok????????? (this will include the 2003 updates)

And i dont need the vault down loads at all?????????

Now i know what a troll feels like when it fails its stupid roll Confused

Zombie - May 18, 2004 - 11:35 AM
Post subject:

The vault is for testing new house rules that might become official in a couple years, though will be changed a lot in the meantime. Like i said, don't pay any attention to it unless you're looking for new house rules to try out.

The only sources of official rules are the LRB and the Annual. Either one is fine but the LRB is often more up to date.

Shaniepoo1 - May 19, 2004 - 02:29 AM
Post subject:

Nice one.

Thanks Zombie. Cool

Doubleskulls - May 19, 2004 - 02:41 AM
Post subject:

And the vault probably wont become official until Oct 2005 (or so we've been told...)

GalakStarscraper - May 20, 2004 - 04:08 PM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

And the vault probably wont become official until Oct 2005 (or so we've been told...)

JJ promised and he's a man of his word from my understanding. So I think you can bank on that date.

Galak

Reinkenstein - May 26, 2004 - 06:25 PM
Post subject:

Okay, here's my "solution" to keeping WA "wild" and "unpredictable" while preventing them from being simply "Really, Really Stupid" (ie, 4+ on any action w/o help from friends, etc.)...

On "Blitz" or "Block", roll d6. On 2+ execute actions as normal (ie, as desired by the owning player). On "1" execute action ... in a RANDOM direction! If "Block" to empty square, WA moves 1 square that direction (no dodging required as opponents won't attempt to tackle the "raging bull") and their turn ends. If "Blitz" was declared, WA moves (again w/o dodging) in random direction to the full extent of their movement ... or until they hit something with their "Blitz!" (For the truly insane, allow this to even take them into the crowd. Who knows, maybe the WA saw someone in the crowd sneering at them? The crowd, of course, would take them down as usual when a player leaves the pitch!) Shocked

[Note: In either case, the "Wild" Block or Blitz should never get assists and can even be against members of their OWN TEAM!] Pow

On any other action, roll a d6. 4+ to execute normal. 1-3 to bellow loudly without acting.

I think this would put a sense of randomness, "wildness" and excitement back into the WA rule and still make it "different" than the BH or RS rule. What to you all think? Question