Streamlining the Negatraits

[Munkey]

Is this 'bad enough' for the Wild Animal trait?

As far as I can see this just means Wild Animals will play away from the rest of the team to avoid hitting them, assuming you do this then it is only as bad as Bonehead.

I think it would have to be tried to see if it was balanced or not. I don't like wild animal as it is but I don't want to see players with this trait become too good either.

[plasmoid]

Well,
as you said - it is at least as bad as bonehead.
Why should it be a lot worse?

Anyway - it is worse.
If you have to keep one of your key players away from the rest of your team mates, then you can be pretty sure that it will be brought down easily by the opposition.[/i]

[Munkey]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound down on the idea, was just playing devils advocate

Your right it is worse than bonehead, I was just concerned that it might not be bad enough, often my big guy (ogre) ends up out on his own anyway so the real effect of it would not be worse than bonehead in many cases.

Maybe this is enough though.

[plasmoid]

Hi all,

Piepgrass,
the reason that I don't like that the WA should potentially have to blitz to get to his team mate, is that this can be "abused" by opponents to force nasty dodges on the wild animal.

Also,
Munkey, I justed revisited the WA player descriptions.
I had forgotten that they have frenzy. In my head the frenzy thing has always been part of the WA.
If WA is changed to something less nasty than the current version, then the frenzy trait definately has to go. IMO.

BTW,
I came up with this entirely new and nasty WA:

Roll d6 before declaring action.
On a roll of 1, the player must cause an armor roll on this action. If he has not succesfully done so, then his team suffers a TO.

Pretty simple, yet pretty annoying - especially since big buys can't use rerolls. It might cause the desperate creature to foul, even when the refs eye is on the team, just to be sure to inflict that armor roll.
(If you want this to be even harsher, then it could be injury roll).

I like this a lot - but I may be dillusional.
Comments please
Martin

[Furelli]

The only problem I can see is that you declare your action before rolling the d6, as such if you declare a Move, Pass or Hand Off there is an automatic 1 in 6 chance of a turnover. As such you would only be able to foul if that was your declared action.

Furelli.

[plasmoid]

Hi Furelli,
thats why I said roll d6 _before_ declaring - so that when you roll a 1 and a TO might be comming, you can declare your killer action. (Unless you've been careless enough to spend the action with someone else).

Martin

[Munkey]

I like it but there are a couple of potential problems:

1. Rolling before declaring does not quite fit with the current rules. This is just being pedantic though, I expect most players could live with this.

2. An exception would need to apply to players turning over from being stunned otherwise there is a 1/6 chance of a TO, unless this is intentional. This would mean stunned WAs usually roll over after everyone else has moved instead of before like all other players.

Worth playing around with though.

[Furelli]

Sorry Plasmoid I didn't read your post correctly. OK then the oneproblem I see is that this creates an exception in the rules, something that we try and avoid as much as possible.

Furelli

[plasmoid]

Hi Furelli and Munkey,
I see the point Furelli. How about this little tweak: Roll d6 after declaring action. On a roll of 1 you get to redclare......etc.?

And Munkey,
it wasn't intentional, but I see no problem with it.
As you said, a coach with average IQ will turn him over last (and pray that a TO won't come before that).
IMO not that big a deal.

Martin