In a fighting conflict, animals may use their natural weapons such as claws, wings, musks or sharp beaks. In this type of conflict each action is represented in this way, for example, attacking is striking directly at your opponent, and manoeuvring could be flanking, or positioning yourself on high ground for example.
So, in a chase conflict against an owl, according to the rules, the owl could use its wings to gain +2 to manoeuvre in the fores , this would make it manoeuvre more easily…in the game says that you can use this weapons for OTHER conflicts, in a chase conflict the manoeuvre description would be “it’s a trip or a dirty trick” so the use of his wings would fit more with the attack for example: “head straight for your target”, as the wings would help him to go faster or even for a feint “a sudden change of direction or shortcut to get to your target”. This is just one example but many of the animal weapons would need an overhaul to apply to other types of conflicts…like also a journey for riding animals.
Another small example would be the following… in the game a fox appears that has lost its cub, the mice know where it is, the loremouse of the group succeeds in his test to communicate with the fox, so they start a negotiation conflict, the mice will tell the fox where its cub is, but the fox must move its den away from the nearby settlement and will also promise not to hunt any more mice in that area…The fox is a cunning animal, but this cannot be reflected in any way in the negotiation, the fox will simply roll 7 dice which is what its nature indicates, a moose in this situation would roll 12 dice, when the fox is supposed to be much more cunning than a moose something is wrong with this system and I can’t find a convincing solution.
Any sugestions or solutions??