poi66
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 09:26 |
 
|
| Matt_wyeth wrote: | | i'd say make the ref spot the foul even if the player didn't actually hit an opposing player. that'd be fair . |
i agree, it would be fair in this special situation to not allow a WA to move free instead of the foul.
But in a realistic way it would be pretty dumb. Referees are blind most of the time, and now they should spot something that not even happened?  |
|
|
Linke_Wipeout
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 10:29 |
|
So what 'penalty' does the LRB use for a so called Illegal Procedure ?
Isn't that turnover ? so basically i just move him last (using foul action) and when he's in position .. i declare i won't foul .. so it's a turnover.... |
_________________
Stockholm -08 Dodgers |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 10:48 |
|
| Linke_Wipeout wrote: | So what 'penalty' does the LRB use for a so called Illegal Procedure ?
Isn't that turnover ? so basically i just move him last (using foul action) and when he's in position .. i declare i won't foul .. so it's a turnover.... |
Brilliant, simply brilliant! And yet another way we can abuse our new rule. |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
theopacman
Joined: Jan 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 11:05 |
|
Geez, is playing the game to the way the rules were intended so alien to you guys that we need lawyers to play a game for FUN!!!!!! |
_________________
Is that a Hoof on your head.....Zzoing |
|
thmbscrws
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 12:46 |
|
Just give the things bone head and be done with it, they've already taken all the fun out of them. The only version of wild animal that was remotley interesting was the pre rules review lrb version. All of this i'm a watered down ogre stuff is just lame. I was under the impression that wild animals where supposed to be horrifying monsters tearing there way around the pitch not crappy line fodder. Making pro a trait was plenty enough to balance out the old wild animals this crap is all overkill. Wild animals may have been a little overpowered but they weren't hugely overpowered. In fact a lot of skaven coaches just didn't take the old rat ogre because he was risky, if he was broken everyone would have had one. Ignoring all that, the old wild animal rules where fun and gave them character making them watered down ogres is an insult to the memory of some truly entertaining players. |
|
|
PhilMan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 13:11 |
|
personolly i think that the old rules for WA were the best, agreeing with thmbscrws here, the old ones were actully fun to play with, alright so they could cause horrific casulties, but that was the whole point, minos and rat ogres are supposed to be mindless killing machines, nowadays we've already got all these people refusing to play anyone who has player with a higher ST than 3, people, it doesnt really matter if you get baeten up a bit as long as you have fun, ive played games where i had almost all my team, including my rat ogre, in the injury box before the end of the game, and i couldnt stop laughing, its not about making all teams completly balenced, if they did that then it would be a bit dull for the older players, its about winning with a weak team against a 'bashy' team, and then killing their big guy |
_________________
as a friend once said: 'Willys'
"Best Bar in This Street" |
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 14:06 |
|
ok...
how about if a foul action is declared with the wild animal and a foul is not committed (or a block isnt made after a blitz movement) then the animal is overcome with rage and to satisfy its rage it must find something to hit so it jumps into the crowd and may not return until the next drive...
this would stop all abuse of the WA IMHO |
|
|
cataphract
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 05:26 |
|
There are times when you declare a foul or pass action and are genuinly unable to complete the action... ie if you miscounted the distance or if the player failed a dodge and had stand firm! Should there be a punishment in these instances?
These changes are retarded...
I say let them roll over for free. And make them declare an action from lying prone if the fail their 4+ roll they simply stand a yell. |
_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity" |
|
slackman
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 06:37 |
|
occham's freaking razor guys. make this simple. make this easy to understand. make me not have to remind everyone i play w/ the special nuiances of this trait. make it a 2+ to do anything and rework what happens if you fail. |
|
|
orochinagi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 08:24 |
|
IMHO i think the old WA rules was best (not the last rule). Okay the rule might seem overpowered but if a coach wasn't careful he could step into a WA trap or something like that.
| gken1 wrote: | | if you can't complete the action then it's not a foul action. you need to foul for it to be a foul action period. there is no option not to foul. |
So according to what you are saying... let's imagine this situation:
I declare a blitz action. since i can't complete the blitz action (block) it's not a blitz action? Or with blitz it's different? if it's different how come?
I never thought i'd say this... but i agree with Britnoth on this one.
well... but if you declare your foul action and don't foul it's a tactical loss. okay... there are coaches who don't foul at all. Good for them. In their case the WA would have no negatrait but to the many other coaches who DO foul it would prove nasty. What would you do if you had the opponent's star runner/catcher/whatever prone on the ground, DP in range and you also had your WA down... how would you use your foul action? it's a tactical issue...
I suppose that they thought about all this when they changed the rule. Leave it be... |
|
|
the_grey_ghost
Joined: Oct 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 10:32 |
|
I differ. The old WA rules were interesting, but not good at all. If you played skaven it was so easily to lose half your team and get into a wa trap. They could not take assists or anything. Then everyone said "oh I can't use my Wa to blitz anymore" so fair enough they let you blitz at an increased risk.
Look some coaches could deal with the old WA rules but a fair few saw the Wa as a disadvantage rather then an advantage. Now it sits in nicely with your ogres and trolls. If the loop hole allows a free move at a cost of a foul let it be. Play test it first, then bitch. |
|
|
jokklas
Joined: Jan 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 11:30 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: | I didn't go to 'high school' because I am English.
|
Anyone thought about how funny that comment was? |
|
|
cthol
Joined: Nov 10, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 13:22 |
|
jokkas: yeah, I did, I have to say I find it hilarious when people think that cos they're from the place they can tell everyone how to speak the language. I'm Irish, does that mean my English is worse than Britnoth's? Don't think so, although I'm willing to bet his Irish is worse than mine:)
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is... well, actually two points.
1st: people have talked about whether you can decide not to foul after declaring the action, and why, and so on. What about this: You declare a foul, but use up a reroll dodging away. Now, rather than risk another dodge with no reroll, you end the move. what's wrong with that?
2nd: I think the basic problem, without wanting to be offensive at all, is that GW can't write rulebooks very well. For example, on page 8 it says that a player who takes a pass action MUST throw the ball. Then, on page 13, under the actual passing rules, it says he MAY throw the ball. It doesn't say anywhere which of these is right. GW, fortunately or unfortunately, is not Avalon Hill when it comes to clarity, or indeed to proofreading. Maybe what we should be doing is asking them, very nicely, to please make sure there are no more ambiguities in the rules any more. The whole debate about whether you MAY or MUST foul if you declare the action stems from the fact that the wording in the LRB is unclear. If this problem was solved, then we could debate the new rule properly, which is good for us and good for GW, because until that happens they're not going to get any proper feedback. I think it just needs someone who is a) patient, and b) good at english and c) familiar with rulebooks to go through the thing with a fine-tooth comb  Although probably not the top candidate, I will happily volunteer for this job if I can have a few miniatures in return |
|
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 14:20 |
|
I've not read all the new posts, but I was wondering what people thought about giving the wild animal the same characteristics as the goblin fanatic, without the ball and chain, to represent his uncontrollable nature??? |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
thmbscrws
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 14:24 |
|
Going to have to back up the statement that games workshop can't write rulebooks well at all. Anyone who plays their other games like 40k is i'm sure familiar with the volumes of faqs and erratta you have to memorize. In fact the only company that can write a rulebook that is more poorly worded is white wolf. This is of course a constant pain in the @$$ for everybody GW included.  |
_________________
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
|
|
| |
Pact/Renegades meta
Search
