Jump to content



Photo

Core Set Card Errata / Revision 5/7/10


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 gruntl

gruntl

    Member

  • Members
  • 461 posts

Posted 22 May 2010 - 03:39 AM

Fresnel said:

The 'Slayer' trait marked on the card is not a restriction. Non-slayers can use this card. Most humans/orcs are more than a 'few inches' taller than dwarfs... The meaning of outnumbered is also clear. (Number of opponents in engagement) > (Number of allies + you in engagement).

Placing a host of house rules on the card is your choice. However, the point is that, using a 'Fast' weapon, 'Trollfeller Strike' is as powerful (if not more so) than the original 'Double Strike' in RAW.

That's not house rules, they are interpretations. The text on the card is not exact, thus the GM is free to interpret how it can be used. I find it pretty obvious that a dwarf is not meant to be able to use the card against normal sized opponents (humans, beastmen, orcs).

If you want a more game mechanic restriction I would require the opponent to have Toughness higher or equal to 6 (or just higher than the player's To) for the card to be used. In my opinion this is still not a house rule, it is an interpretation of the vague statement "facing a physically larger opponent".



#22 Bindlespin

Bindlespin

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 11:58 AM

you could rule that larger means larger die-cut standup. so larger would be limited to trolls, giants, rat ogres, etc.



#23 r_b_bergstrom

r_b_bergstrom

    Member

  • Members
  • 505 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 12:34 PM

Gotta say I really like Bindlespin's idea about "bigger" refering to size of cardboard standup, and Fabs' idea about TFS being "active" when there's a situation that would purge your dishonor if you died. Those are both cool interpretations.
 

Troll-Feller Strike certainly can't literally mean "if they're half an inch taller than your character, it counts". In this edition, we don't roll up height or weight, so you could totally metagame that by just describing your character as being short for his or her race, and thereby get the bonuses against more targets. There has to be a cutting off point, and that grey area is totally GM perogative. I wouldn't let a Troll Slayer use that particular move against a scrawny elfin teenager or sickly human senior that was technically an inch or two taller than the dwarf, for example. I think spirit of the rules trumps the letter.

A couple weeks ago, I was running WHFRP for my weekly one-shot group. We're a big group, and there were 6 PCs at the table. One of them was a troll-slayer, and he had Troll-Feller Strike. They were fighting a bunch of beastmen, I think it was 7 beastmen to 6 PCs. I told them that he couldn't use it against the Ungor unless they outnumbered him in his engagement. Him against 1 ungor was a no-go, even if 6 more of them were within medium range. 2 ungors double-teaming him up close allowed for TFS, though. I also allowed TFS on the Wargor regardless of numbers, because he was a big enough threat. The player didn't have any trouble with this ruling.

 



#24 Mal Reynolds

Mal Reynolds

    Member

  • Members
  • 683 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 04:41 PM

And yeah I am a midget-dwarf trollslayer so I can basically use my Troll-feller strike against everything, even a snotling.

 

Nah, that doesn`t fly right with me.  I think both fab and Bindlespin makes a solid case here about the honour codex and the size of cardboard stand-up.

There seems to be three different sizes of this cardboard stand-ups, and they could represent size catergories used for game terms.  Snotling stand-up (small size), All PC career stand-ups (medium size) and Troll stand-up (large size).

And only large size creatures could be effected by the Troll-feller strike, and in other situations or against monsters deemed fit by the GM accordingly to roleplatying and the honour codex.

 

 

Good gaming



#25 ffgfan

ffgfan

    Member

  • Members
  • 745 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 08:39 AM

Mal Reynolds said:

There seems to be three different sizes of this cardboard stand-ups, and they could represent size catergories used for game terms.  Snotling stand-up (small size), All PC career stand-ups (medium size) and Troll stand-up (large size).

And only large size creatures could be effected by the Troll-feller strike, and in other situations or against monsters deemed fit by the GM accordingly to roleplatying and the honour codex.

I agre in 100%. This is a good idea to use the stand-ups as a definition of size.  This is a effective solution and clears the problem of Troll-feller Strike.

The Winds Of Magic are closer with every day so I think so are the cards with errata - I hope. :)



#26 Fresnel

Fresnel

    Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 08:55 AM

There would need to be errata on both 'Larger' and 'Outnumbered'.

 



#27 mac40k

mac40k

    Member

  • Members
  • 616 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 10:01 AM

Fresnel said:

There would need to be errata on both 'Larger' and 'Outnumbered'.

 

I disagree. I know the definitions of these two words and I am quite comfortable making a ruling as GM for my game.



#28 Fresnel

Fresnel

    Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 10:18 AM

Good for you - and your house rules :)



#29 mac40k

mac40k

    Member

  • Members
  • 616 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 12:01 PM

Hey, and I don't need to have precisely how many Misfortune dice get added to a roll for being groggy or due to poor footing spelled out for me either!  Or how many Fortune dice get added for creating a distraction, or what constitutes a distraction for that matter. So, nyah!



#30 gruntl

gruntl

    Member

  • Members
  • 461 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 08:18 PM

Fresnel said:

Good for you - and your house rules :)

I'll say it again, they are not house rules but interpretations of a vague rule. I agree that it
wouldn't be bad if FFG released a clarification on the issue, but it's not an error in the rule,
so it doesn't require an errata.

About using the size of the standups. Is the Wargor a large standup (I don't remember
and haven't got it at hand)?



#31 Fresnel

Fresnel

    Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 12:02 AM

gruntl said:

I'll say it again, they are not house rules but interpretations of a vague rule. I agree that it
wouldn't be bad if FFG released a clarification on the issue, but it's not an error in the rule,
so it doesn't require an errata.

About using the size of the standups. Is the Wargor a large standup (I don't remember
and haven't got it at hand)?

So using the size of the standups are a creature 'size' classification system isn't a house rule in your mind...

The Troll-feller Strike card reads: "Melee weapon equipped, engaged with target, you must be outnumbered or facing a physically larger opponent."

The term 'outnumbered' is not vague - it is precise.

Ref: www.-m-w.com  : to exceed in number
 

If it had been worded 'significantly outnumbered' then this would be a calling on the GM to judge what 'significant' meant.  As a GM I do apply a 'significant' qualifier to this card - but I don't pretend this isn't a house rule. However, in order to have a challenging encounter I often have the PCs 'significantly outnumbered'.

The desciption of Beastmen in ToA p50 states:

Ungor Warrior: Have the size and build of a strong, hale human.

Gor Warrior: Standing a foot or more taller than a ungor warrior.

Wargor: A massive and terrible creature.

A reasonable interpretation of 'physically larger opponent', is larger in both mass and hight.  A strong dwarf, human or elf is about the same mass as an Ungor. However a Gor stands a foot+ taller i.e. 6'7" or more. Very, very few modern humans are as tall as 6'7". The number of 6'7"+ humans that are 'well build', as I imagine Gors to be, is even lower. Mass is roughly a function of hight cubed - so a Gor is a significantly physically larger opponent than any non-mutant human, elf or dwarf PC.

To only allow the card to apply to Wargors, would to be effectively rewording the card as 'a hugely physically larger opponent ' - imo that not even a modest houserule, is a bold one.

The beastmen models in the Core and the GM Toolkit are both the standard 44mm hight - one I interprete as a Ungor and the other a Gor. Imo classing a Gor as not 'significantly physically larger' than a human/elf/dwarf is absurd. The only larger standups are, Rat Orge, Giant and Troll. The only smaller ones are a Snotling (I think) and a Nurgling.

 



#32 Bindlespin

Bindlespin

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 05:28 AM

thanks for illustrating, in detail, exactly what i wanted to avoid with other players: DWARF MEASURING. only a mind tainted by chaos would ever attempt to measure a dwarf for "hight or mass," especially for hight. 



#33 gruntl

gruntl

    Member

  • Members
  • 461 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 08:45 AM

 No, using the standup size to determine size relations is just an interpretation to me. Not much point in arguing that though, feel free to call it a house rule if you want :)

The problem is that when you start making assumptions on what physical size means, your immediately interpreting the rules. That you say that an ungor is the same size as a dwarf/human is also an interpretation (or in your words it would be a house rule ;) ). As already pointed out by others, the mean size descriptions in the book is quite worthless when comparing to individual sizes of opponents. To keep the system effective and fast you need some kind of general interpretation that works, you can't really keep track of the physical size of the PC and every individual opponent.

I find it a little bit problematic to use standup size (although it is a quite beautiful solution that fits well with the 3e rules) since to me a wargor is definitely something large enough. I would rather go with the toughness criterium.

I'm not arguing the outnumbered thing, I find it ok as written. If you think the player gains too much from it, just don't attack him with multiple opponents (or do it when the strike is on recharge). Also, to me it's quite clear that out-numbered refers to the actual engagement not the battle in total.



#34 Fresnel

Fresnel

    Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 10:17 AM

gruntl said:

That you say that an ungor is the same size as a dwarf/human is also an interpretation (or in your words it would be a house rule ;)

ToA p50 states: Ungor Warrior: ... have the size and build of a strong, hale human.

Imo this is as clear as things get in human communication...

Core book p23 " Dwarfs are a sturdy race: four and a half feet of solid muscle."

So they are shorter, but have more muscle. They are extremely mesomorphic, making them far heavy than a human at the same height . WFRP2 gives the has the average weight in pounds as: Human: 155, Dwarf: 140

An ungor will weigh about 254 pounds. So the average ungor is about 100 pounds heavier and 1 foot taller than the average human. He is 115 pounds and over 2 feet taller than the average dwarf. The wording on the card is ‘larger’. So saying an ungor is larger than a dwarf is a very, very safe position to take. A really extraordinary human might exceed an ungor, but he would be catching the eye of witchhunters…

As I said, I am adding the word 'significant' when I interpret the card. As a matter of gameplay and common sense I cannot calculate a height/weight figure for each NPC. So I look at the racial description for an average and make a call.

gruntl said:

I'm not arguing the outnumbered thing, I find it ok as written. If you think the player gains too much from it, just don't attack him with multiple opponents (or do it when the strike is on recharge). Also, to me it's quite clear that out-numbered refers to the actual engagement not the battle in total.

Oh, I totally agree. I interprete it exactly like this: the engagement as defined in RAW. I hadn't even considered any alternative.

 



#35 Bindlespin

Bindlespin

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:55 PM

word                   



#36 mcv

mcv

    Member

  • Members
  • 281 posts

Posted 02 June 2010 - 11:02 AM

Bindlespin said:

thanks for illustrating, in detail, exactly what i wanted to avoid with other players: DWARF MEASURING. only a mind tainted by chaos would ever attempt to measure a dwarf for "hight or mass," especially for hight. 

Yeah, it's the size of the ego that counts. Dwarfs are huge.



#37 Bindlespin

Bindlespin

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 02:50 PM

mcv said:

Dwarfs are huge.

this conversation is getting disturbing...



#38 ffgfan

ffgfan

    Member

  • Members
  • 745 posts

Posted 24 June 2010 - 08:15 PM

Ok, so "The Winds Of Magic" are closer with every day and if all things are going to go right in the next week their are going to be avaliable.

So my question is - is this card errata in the box? Will we get those cards with "The Winds Of Magic:"?



#39 ValiantOne

ValiantOne

    Member

  • Members
  • 103 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 05:25 AM

ffgfan said:

Ok, so "The Winds Of Magic" are closer with every day and if all things are going to go right in the next week their are going to be avaliable.

So my question is - is this card errata in the box? Will we get those cards with "The Winds Of Magic:"?

If you are asking about getting errata cards in the Winds of Magic set, the answer is no....


"The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing..."


#40 Stuntie

Stuntie

    Member

  • Members
  • 85 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 02:22 AM

mcv said:

Fresnel said:

 

Actually we are finding Trollfeller Strike does more damage per round than the original Double Strike.

Using a 'Fast' weapon means Trollfeller can be used mostly every turn.

 

 

But you can't use it against everybody. Only against bigger opponents or when you're outnumbered (and I take this as meaning: you're going to lose!).

Using a "Fast" weapon with Trollfeller Strike feels wrong to me. I wouldn't mind an extra requirement that the weapon needs to be non-fast.

Also Trollfeller has a 2 recharge so can't be used every round like double strike.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS