Talk Fantasy Football

This is a stupid question, so this is a good place to ask (you know what I mean)...

Recently has popped a large discussion about new Wild Animal rules, but the rules referenced are not the rules I supposed to see:

the rules I know state that a WA must roll a 4+ for any action but a straightforward Block, or lose the action;

the rules discussed state instead that a WA must roll a 4+ for any action but a Block, Blitz or Foul, that require a 2+.

Ok, never heard of the latter, and checked the Rules Review Errata, which confirm the former version I already know, so what's the matter?

Is there any update I never heard of? Is the latter a sort of House Rule commonly accepted?

Please help me clarify the matter, thanks.

From an e-mail from Jake:

Hi all,

a quick note on the Wild Animal front.

After continued debate (and no bribery or threats at all - honest), Jervis
has settled on pretty much what Chet's been touting for changes. The
following is what will be published as the WA amendments in the LRB3 and in Fanatic magazine as part of the BB Rules Review. This is somewhat unusual in terms of being after the event, so to speak, but it was felt in general that the WA settled on earlier was unsatisfactory.

Wild Animal is now:

"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."

You heard it here first...

All the best

Jake Thornton

(Head of System: Blood Bowl)

Thank you, this definitely settles the matter

Glad to help

Melifaxis wrote:The following is what will be published as the WA amendments in the LRB3 and in Fanatic magazine as part of the BB Rules Review. This is somewhat unusual in terms of being after the event, so to speak, but it was felt in general that the WA settled on earlier was unsatisfactory.

This single sorry incident makes me think that the BBRC & rule review process isn't working properly. What is going on if they change the rules without proper playtesting and then forget about the rules review process to patch it.

Test something before you release it.

Agreed - seems to defeat the object of the rules review. Does that mean if there's enough vocal complaint against every rule change they'll then patch it up with some new untried variant?

ianwilliams wrote: This single sorry incident makes me think that the BBRC & rule review process isn't working properly. What is going on if they change the rules without proper playtesting and then forget about the rules review process to patch it.

Test something before you release it.

I am not sure why the even any kind of secrecy over the review and then launch it to fanfare (or ire). While speculation is fine for TBB threads, etc they should using experimental to beta all these.

ianwilliams wrote: This single sorry incident makes me think that the BBRC & rule review process isn't working properly. What is going on if they change the rules without proper playtesting and then forget about the rules review process to patch it.

Test something before you release it.

Could not be more in agreement with this statement.

I also think that the new WA is incredibly good, and may even have to be changed again to get it to balance correctly with the rest of the BG's. Not to mention getting the useless "foul" language out of there.

Im hoping and believing (at this point), that this is the purpose of the test vault.