Yet another WA...

[Redfang]

Based on the WA rules suggested by Skummy in his "Wild Animal Redux" topic I would like to post this suggestion:

Wild Animals are really out of control players, blahblahblah, Bloodlust blahblah. Whenever you want to take an action with a WA roll a die, on a 4+ the announced action can be taken, this roll may become a 2+ if a friendly player is standing next to the WA. If the roll is failed, the announced action is lost and the WA will either Block or Blitz the nearest player (if several player are at the same distance roll a die to determine who is blocked/blitzed). If a blitz is taken, this counts as the teams blitz for the turn. If the team has already taken a Blitz, and the WA can't block (because there's nobody standing next to him) then the WA stands around roaring blahblah.
A WA does have to roll to turn around, but failing then means it starts tearing the grass and eating the dirt (or the blood on it). If a WA fails the roll to stand up, it must take a blitz (if available) or stays down when no blitz is available

Bit lengthy, but rather playable, I'd say. Maybe slightly different rolls, or always a 3+ to take an action, with no help possible might be better...

How does this sound?

[Blackscale]

-no roll for going from stunned to prone; other Big Guys get this action for free.
-don't like the random choosing if mutlpile targets are available. The WA should at least attack foes before friends.

[Redfang]

-no roll for going from stunned to prone; other Big Guys get this action for free.

No they don't

-don't like the random choosing if mutlpile targets are available. The WA should at least attack foes before friends.

That would make the trait not negative enough I think

Also, the description of WA's says they are out of control and dangerous to friend and foe alike!

[Joemanji]

Let's try the new WA out first. I think its OK.

When I say OK though, I mean suitably negative.

New WA drives the player's behaviour. To get the most out of him, you must toss him straight into the thick of the action. This way your opponent has to either deal with him or make 3 dodge rolls to get out of the way. This works for me. WAs should not be hanging around the back field as a safety. They're meant to be uncontrollable!

[sean newboy]

I chose good idea.

[Skummy]

Thanks, Redfang! That's exactly what the intent of mine was, but I used the dreaded "Free Blitz" terminology instead of doing the full writup. I like it!

[Munkey]

In order to be negative enough I would say a failed roll results in the player Blocking the nearest friendly player or roaring in rage if none available.

Gives an interesting risk/reward scenario - you can have a player help out but on a one that player risks a beating, or you can just leave the wild animal to it.

For fluff just say the WA is sick of having it's teammates tell it what to do.

[Chris]

Nowt wrong with:-
On any action roll a dice
2-6 - WA takes action as normal
1 - attacks nearest player. If more than 1 potential victim, opposing coach chooses.

[Colin]

Obviously people on the BBRC didn't think a 2+ roll was negative enough, so why there's a 4+ roll to do most actions. The problem with neg traits is that there's no real concensus on what's too negative or not negative enough, so I think there will be more adjusting of neg traits in the future RRs.

[Thadrin]

I was thinking more along the lines of "a Wild animal must always declare a block action if an opponent is in his tackle zone. He may never recieve assists".

roll d6 after acton declaration, on 1 the WA goes nuts and loses the ability to tell friend from foe. He will block a randomly selected player in his tackle zone, or, if there are no players in his tackle zone he will stand and roar.

Slightly harsher than Bonehead in some ways, slightly better in others.

[Colin]

Not a bad idea, the only problem I see with this is that you can't blitz, you just stand and roar if no one in your tackle zone. At least you have a 50/50 chance of blitzing with the current version. I think that they could have been a little more creative with the current WA fix to make it seem a little more wild, but the BBRC seems to be on a crusade to simplify the rules as much as possible, which doesn't always result in the best rules, just simple ones. I think the current version of WA could've been changed so that it wasn't just a version of Really Stupid, they could've had added a little extra to the rule when the WA fails his roll after declaring a blitz action, have him then blitz the nearest player, friend or foe (or if that's not negative enough, then make it the nearest friendly player). Right now WA seems to have been a little too simplified, why not just make every BG RS or BH then?

[Skummy]

Well, blitzing is a special type of blocking, so you would still be able to blitz with Thadrin's wording there.

[Colin]

Actually, blitzing and blocking are considered seperate actions, so wouldn't work as worded, would have to change to something like, WA must block an opponant in his TZ, this block may be part of a declared blitz action (that would then work).

[Thadrin]

That's something to be sorted out in the exact wording (I was at work when I wrote that. For that matter, I'm at work now...)

when the WA fails his roll after declaring a blitz action, have him then blitz the nearest player, friend or foe (or if that's not negative enough, then make it the nearest friendly player). Right now WA seems to have been a little too simplified, why not just make every BG RS or BH then?

I like that.

[Bifi]

I like the dilemma - to help and risk being smashed on a 1, or not to help and let him 50% be uncotrollable?