Wild Animal

[Marcus]

*asbestos suit on*

This has always been a bone of contention ever since it's inception but I'd like to see an official ruling on this.

Wild Animal: The player has a nasty tendency to get a bit carried away
during a match. Wild animals must take their actions first of all during a turn; if
you take an action with wild animal after having moved a player that is not a
Wild Animal, then your opponent call you for illegal procedure exactly as if you
had forgotten to move the turn marker.

Now, to me the wording of this rule suggests that the rule is
"if you move the wild animal at all he must move first"
rather than
"if you have a wild animal you must move him first before moving anything else"

Since the IP is called if you move the wild animal later and not if you move another player first it would suggest the former interpretation is correct.

This would mean that you have the decision to either move your wild animal first or not move him at all.

The second part of the rule:

In addition if a standing Wild animal is
adjacent to a standing player from the opposing team then they must take
either a block or blitz action, and throw a block at an adjacent player.

is a little ambiguous as well. Is it:

(a) if the WA is standing next to a player they must take a block or blitz (and it must be the first action
(b) if the WA is standing next to a player and they take any kind of action it must be a block or blitz.

If there has been a genuine documented clarification to this could someone direct me to it. I've read enough opinion on this rule to last me a lifetime =)

Mark

[Acerak]

Yep, this one is rather poorly worded at the moment. All I can say in defense of the BBRC on this point is that these sort of hobgoblins tend to creep into any published GW material, and it's NOT supposed to be like that!

How's it supposed to go? It's supposed to go like this:

1. Move turn marker.
2. Start turn.
3. Declare action for WA.
4. Carry out action.
5. Carry out action for remaining players.

Less scrupulous coaches will argue that they can move other players first and "not move" the Wild Animal, but you should first hit them with a metal pipe (http://www.pentasmal.com/d/20001116.html), and then ask them how they are going to "do nothing" while also satisfying the second part of the description. You know, the bit about how you MUST take a Block or Blitz action against an adjacent opponent

Really, though, just slap them around and make fun of their sisters. Unless their sisters happen wot be "Wild Animals" themselves, if you know what I mean.

-Chet

[GalakStarscraper]

Agree with Chet ... this Wild Animal rule is really supposed to be very simple.
Adding interpretation and such is rules lawyers and as Shakespear aside ... "first we kill all the lawyers".

I'll add that the only time you can "do nothing" with the Wild Animal is if they had no opponents adjacent to them OR if they are prone ...

Otherwise its really very, very simple WA moves first each turn ... if adjacent opponent and the WA STARTS the turn in a standing position he must block or blitz ... that's it ... very, very simple really!

Galak

[Acerak]

Remember: Even though the IP rule for this is sort of "arse backwards" in that it allows you to call IP only if your opponent tries to move his WA *after* moving other players on his team, your opponent MUST still move first. A few beards out there have chosen to read this as, "Hey, I don't
have to use my WA first, it says you can call me for IP only if I try to move him later." They've conveniently overlooked the "MUST move first" restriction.

So: Let's say a Skaven coach brings a Rat Ogre to Resurrection. At the start of his third turn, the Rat Ogre is surrounded by four ST3 opponents who are free of TZs. He has to move first, and he has to throw a 2-die, defender's choice block first before following up for a likely 1-die block.

The Skaven coach figures he'll suffer a near-immediate turnover, so he tries to move some other player first. His opponent gently reminds him that the Wild Animal must move first, so he should start there. The Skaven coach doesn't want to do that, so they have to call over a ref...who will, I hope,
point out that no matter what the semantics of the IP call, the rule says the WA must move first, so he *must* move first.

Just remind the same to your coaches. The rule says the WA has to move first. If you catch your opponent trying to move someone else, just say, "I'm sorry, but you can't do that." If he insists on trying to cry his way out of it or trying to twist the IP wording into something it isn't...well, reach for the gasoline and the matches, I guess!

-Chet

[Ryk]

I must admit that I find it a little strange that, given that a WA *must* move first, there is also a rule covering the situation in which the WA moves "not first".

If the intent is that the WA *must* move first, then surely a rule stating so is sufficient, and clearer.

If, as a coach, I am able to inform an opponent, "I'm sorry, but you can't do that", when he attempts to move a non-WA player, then surely that suffices. In much the same way as "I'm sorry, but you can't do that" suffices when he attempts to throw a 4d block with a halfling on.. well.. on anything.

Having said that, I concur with you that the IP rule is "arse backwards" and would better suit the intent in posts above if it were to come into force on moving a non-WA before WA's.

Ryk

[GalakStarscraper]

Oh .... even better instead of "first we kill all the lawyers" ... "first we burn all the lawyers"

Galak

oh and I mean the rules lawyers ... I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm advocating setting lawquoter on fire (unless he's a rules lawyer also)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GalakStarscraper on 2002-03-06 14:41 ]</font>

[Marcus]

Agree wholeheartedly with Ryk on this one.

If the intent is to ensure the WA moves first then the rule should unequivocally state: "if a coach activates a player without Wild Animal before taking any and all actions by players with Wild Animal then they can be called for Illegal Procedure..."

The wording strongly suggests that it is legal to move a WA later in the turn, suffer the IP, burn a reroll, and continue.

I've always believed that this is not the intention but, looking to the rules as written, if I was umpiring a match I'd have to say that's a legal tactic ("he moved his Mino last in the turn, you called IP, he paid the reroll? rules have been followed to the letter, play on")

Rules Lawyering is not nearly so indefensible as carelessly written rules.

BBRC types - any chance of the intent of these rules being more carefully clarified in a subsequent update? I believe the wording above should suffice.

Marcus

PS: Irrashaimase Riko-san

[GalakStarscraper]

Marcus ... one point if I was the referee in same instance that you described it would go more like this:

Player: Hey Galak, my opponent is trying to move his Minotaur last during his turn.
Me: Okay, that's an IP as soon as he picked up the Minotaur. Mr. Opponent, please set your Minotaur back down in his starting square and remove your fingers from him.
Mr. Opponent: okay fine here's the reroll for the IP, now my Minotaur is going to blitz ...
Me: I'm sorry you appear to have picked up your Minotaur again, that another IP, you must pay immediately. Please set down the Minotaur in his starting square, and remove your fingers from him. And if you desire, we can do this again.

I don't remember who, but I 92% sure that either Chet or Neominal suggested this on the BBC back in November. I agree with this opinion, and would have zero problem using this method in a BB2k1 tournament ... (ie my post above is not in jest its seriously what I would do).

Galak

[Marcus]

You see, I'm fine with that; and I've always been pretty sure the intention was "you must move first". It just seemed odd to put an IP rule in there about what happens if you move a WA after moving a normal player. Given there were several better and less ambiguous ways to phrase the rule I assumed it was phrased that way for just such a circumstance.

Silly me, I forgot this is GW we're talking about

Thanks for the clarification on the rule. It's reaffirmed the interpretation I had assumed for the rule. Here's hoping it gets officially clarified sometime soon.

Marcus

[GalakStarscraper]

One of the great things about the BBRC and the annual rules review is that such poor wording can be addressed on an annual basis rather than being Oberwalded and house rules for years on years.

Galak

[Deathwing]

The beauty of the current system of the BBRC is that us rank and file types can input our thoughts.
Time and time again I've read that no ruleset can be watertight, and I agree wholeheartly. At the end of the day, this game is played for fun, and those who specifically try and 'bend' or 'work around' the rules, basically exploiting poor wording for advantage, are the people I'd choose not to play against on a regular basis.
It goes back to to the old discussion about 'spirit' and 'intent'. Ho hum.
FWIW, I interpretated WA exactly the same as Galak, and I think the intent is obvious in this case.
Hopefully the WA wording will be reviewed before October, but in many ways it's a shame that time has to be spent correcting syntax to eradicate 'rules lawyering' when the intent is clear to 95%. Nature of the beast I suppose.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for clarification, but I really don't think a completely watertight ruleset is achieveable, that's why most games of this nature require DMs, GMs or (in this case) Commishes.
At least nowdays (with the wonders of this internet malarky) there is access to the BBRC guys, and they should be commended for taking the time and trouble to answer most queries (Chet's frustrated and sometimes obviously tongue firmly in cheek replies on the list and Central have raised many a wry smile at this end! ).

[Acerak]

The BBRC will definitely change the wording of the IP description come October. We don't release official Q&A during the year, as this would confuse the "What's official?" question, so that's out for now.

As for Resurrection, I have it on very good authority that the referees understand the intent of the rule, and the Wild Animals WILL be moving first.

-Chet

[McDeth]

The way i've played is that the Wild Animal must declare at the start of the turn either an action, or there and then declare that the Minotaur will do nothing this turn. Therefore making moving him in the middle of the turn a moot point. Plus if my opponent was playing with a WA, and was obviously not going to do either of the above, a gentle reminder would be in the offing.

[DaImp]

McDeth's reading is exactly how I see it as well. To me the rule makes perfect sense and trying to worm your way out of the rule as it is intended is very much not accepted in my league.

[Acerak]

McDeth's reading is exactly how I see it as well. To me the rule makes perfect sense and trying to worm your way out of the rule as it is intended is very much not accepted in my league.

Ah. See, to me (and a few others), declaring "no action" is an attempt "to worm your way out of the rule as it is intended."

You say "to-MAY-to," I say "to-MAH-to"...at the end of the day, whatever works in your league is good for you, and whatever works in mine is good for me!

-Chet