Gruntl. That is it exactly. No need for further rules, etc, to detail a mechanic already in place. A formal taunt or challenge is really a 'Social' encounter that happens to occur during a combat - quick interlude for social encounter and then back to the combat. Trying to divert the attention of monsters use a skill check. Simple, straight-forward and easy within the current RAW. Thanks for showing this in a better light. Alp

Cards are looking great, as is the PDF! I like the idea of GM information on the back face and character on the front face (simply put it on a stand between you) - this could quite easlily define what a player sees and what the GM sees. (I hope I am getting the intention correct). If this is the case I would put such details as as the disarm "key" and sensitivity on the GM's side of the card. Whilst the 'fluff', a sporty picture, and all the stuff that a player can SEE without interupting the roleplaying aspect on the players side. This leads to two eventualities. 1) The characters stumble on a TRAP and observation tests are made. If one or more successful tests are made the card is placed between players and GM (on a stand etc so each player can see their relevant information, as can the GM). 2) A character decides to set a TRAP and looks through his inventory of cards - those that he has learnt how to build (purchased through training - money, time and roleplay - but not costing an adavance?). The character would then take ownership of said card - if he has successfully SET the trap. In effect reversing the faces of the card - quite tricky unless the Set Trap Action Card details the modifiers for spot, sensitivity, etc. I love this concept as it is, but I am still just trying to put a few ideas out there to see if we can produce a few refinements - which I very much doubt. Just a few thoughts - hopefully inspirational, but probably more of a hinderance. Food for thought? Alp

With regards to taunting enemies to favour attacking you rather than another character, it may be possible to view this as a manoeuvre (instead of using any one of the action cards discussed and thus losing you action for the round). Maybe the description could read; Manoeuvre: Taunt - (pre-requisite close or engaged range from the target) You taunt the enemy causing it to attack you in preference to others (or suffer one misfortune to attack another), if within the realms of reason as determined by the GM. Due to the nature of the rage boiling inside of you and the increase in your tension, this manoeuvre will always cost one Stress OR increase the parties tension by one step. I hope that makes sense, and is possibly even useful to someone. Alp

Hi all (long post - sorry), It does seem to be rather cumbersome working on two concepts at the same time, so splitting this is a great idea. Once we have finished with traps we can move onto other projects. I have just finished reading the updated file that Sunatet has made and like what I am seeing. What is written below is probably a reiteration of the PDF, and is written mainly to aid my own thoughts. I love the card templates and ca't wait to see them fully populated with a whole host of traps to surprise the party with! The first thing I think we need is a definition of what a TRAP is. I have put my own version below, but it is a bit rough and ready and could probably use some polish. The words I have capitalised are those that I think warrant special detail on the card. DEFINITION a trap is a DEVICE (being MECHANICAL, MAGICAL or HYBRID) that, once SET, is designed to cause an EFFECT once TRIGGERED. Most traps also have a method to DISARM them (either by simple evasion, or a defined method). By their nature they are CONCEALED. A trap can be either SIMPLE (eg: a hunters snare, a covered over spiked pit, etc) or COMPLEX (eg: a needle trap, a time DELAYED mine, etc) DEVICE trap name DESCRIPTION the fluff about the trap MECHANICAL, MAGICAL & HYBRID the components that make up the trap SET the degree of dificulty it takes to create this trap (used in conjunction with the Action Card - Set Trap) EFFECT the result of triggering the trap (eg: physical damage, magical or physical alarm, etc) DELAY the time period before the effect is triggered. TRIGGER the means by which the trap is activated (eg: pressure switch, proximity, casting magic, etc) SENSITIVITY how much of a hair trigger does this thing have? Represented by misfortune dice when trying to perform a Disarm check. DISMARM the method by which the effect of the trap is avoided (either by knowing how - no test required, or by using the Action Card - Disarm Trap or Cantrip - Disarm Trap) CONCEALMENT how well the trap is hidden or disguised (a base symbol modified by the result of the Action Card - Set Trap roll) SIMPLE a simplistic trap that once spotted is easy to avoid or disarm (a simple Spot Trap roll would suffice here as once you have seen the bear trap you don't stand on it! - unless you are a particularly billigerant troll slayer) COMPLEX a much more intricate device that will take multiple levels of tests to disarm. These traps can't be avoided - they need to be disarmed. This is represented by the checks required to disarm the trap (mundane or magical) - each check taking one round. I still need to think about re-set, althought 1 through infinity is fair. As for cards! Spot Trap is vs the base concealment of the trap modified by the results of the set trap action. Disarming a Simple trap is either automatic or a simple test against disarm trap. Disarming a Complex trap will require a number of tests, mechanical or magical or a combination thereof, using either disarm trap or the cantrip modified by the Sensitivity. I think I have understood how Sunatet is approaching this, and hope this is a fair response - albight I have tweeked some things for how my mind works. In truth we could go with the PDF as written. I am looking forward to seeing on how much we agree, or disagree Alp

Sunatet, Could not agree more that Legal open of a lock is a simple action that requires no test. Characters can make their Gossip test locate the key, steal it, and open the lock. Unless there is a further degree of complexity (a hybrid lock as I sort of intimated). The characters may or may not know about the spell - the second level. If they do - do they know the corrct spell to cast or are they suddenly in a position whereby they have to dispell the magic to counter its impending retaliation. Hence the tracker. If the characters have in their possesion the key and know which spell to cast no test required. Not knowing the correct spell would call for the tracker whilst they all screamed at each other about what to do, all the while the GM is dropping the countdown before he takes action (each step raising party tension?). So in summary if you have all the pieces in the puzzle there is no test required. If part of the puzzle (for your more complex variety of lock with two or more tiers of difficulty to negotiate) is missing the tracker provides a great source to indicate the urgency and tension of the situation. Simple Mechanical locks should just be guaged as a CR to open with a lock pick/ open lock spell. The time taken, and stress of the situation would be covered in the Lock Pick action card. Maybe something along the lines of <ba><ba><ba> You break the lock pick that you are using and have to retrieve another, take 1 stress. <delay> This is taking longer and the guards are within range to make a perception test to see if they can hear anything. <cs> Ooops, your actions have broken the silence - the guards are alerted and are actively looking for the disturbance. Simple Magical locks could follow the same scenario as the simple mechanical lock, but not be subject to the action Lock Pick (only the Open Lock Spell). This brings onto the next stage of Lock - The Complex Lock. The Brammer Lock (I think thats what it was called) from English Lock History was designed as a challenge, and took decades before someone picked it. It took that person 60+ hours to do. This would definately require a tracker for multiple lock pick attempts. Also bundled in together would be hybrid lock requiring different disciplines (mechanical and magical) to open. In essence a lock class (Simple or Complex) could be introduced. The simple locks requiring a straight vs test (of varying difficulty) the time taken and outcomes predicted by the dice symbols. The Complex locks being more plot driven - not a test but a whole episode or act with trackers and pre-requisites - the need for multiple successful tests and conditions that have to be met (password, etc). Trying to codify this onto one item card is problematical to say the least - so maybe a short rules appendum (sp?) governing lock classes and tests required, with individual locks represented by cards. Food for thought anyway. It would be great to here Keltheos' views once he has had time to look through these ideas, as I feel we maybe all talking about the same thing with a slightly different interpretation. Fresh ideas are always like a fresh breeze and sometimes the simplest comment brings everything together. There was talk of a Thieves supplement for V2, which was never published. How I wish we had that - or something similar - now, to draw inspiration from. I think we are getting there. A rules light system like Warhammer 3e needs a fairly straight forward approach so that all cases are covered and the complexity is derived from the GM's wish, or plot requirement. Any thoughts and comments are, as always, greatly appreciated. Alp

Fair enough - and I was probably trying to accomplish too mush into one rule / item type. I would say that I would always give the PURE Lock Pick test vs a mundane mechanical lock a straight forward vs roll against challenge rating. This will get over all the locks that are meant tt be a walk over or a straight forward challenge to an accomplished thief. More complex and plot driven locks that I tried to give an impression for could, and probably should, be governed by trackers and rules. I would think that one card could depict both, but varying the details of the checks and description and effects etc. A simple lock could have a CR rating of just <c> but your more advanced and intricate locks could add details and 'special' rules to deal with them. You have a much clearer mind when it comes to the mechanics and ramifications of these fan rules so you can see where I mess up with more logic or intent. Still I feel that locks should open by design (Legal), Suberfuge (illegal) or brute strength (Force). This gives any party options, and the chance that the guards may catch them. Still thinking my way through this and when all parties have had a good imput I think the finalised house rule will be superb and cover all bases. Thank you for listening and putting up with awfully long posts that ramble. Alp

With some thought - but of dubious worth - I would approach a LOCK item card along the lines of; Item Name (eg: Fiordin the Greats Study Door) Challenge Rating (eg: Gear Wheel and <c> and/or <m> dice symbols to reperesent mechanical difficulty to pick / Lighning Strike and <c> and/or <m> to represent magical difficulty to disarm with a spell) Sturdiness: To / Soak (representing the locks strenght when trying to force it to open) Lock Strength: 1-5 (a fist symbol maybe) (representing how many successful Str tests it would take to Force the Lock) Description: Fiordin the Great, Wizard Lord of the Bright Order, sees fit to protect his private study, and as such, has taken some lengths to protect his library, work and assorted treasures. The door is a sturdy dark oak door, bound in iron with a simple bronze handle. When turning the correct key in the lock the iron banding and bronze handle dissolve and form a face imbedded in the door and immediatelly depanding that the spell x with the face as the target. Opening: Legal (eg: Key Mechnical and/or Spell (tracker to cast correct spell in time)) The safest and correct method of entry. Opening: Illegal (eg: Lock Pick vs Gear Wheel mechaical CR and/or Dispell vs Lightning Strike magical CR) Opening: Force (eg: strength vs sturdiness of lock (tracker before any imbedded trap is triggered) Effect: (eg: failed lock pick trap triggered and/or failed disarm spell / correct spell trap triggered) (If the trap is triggered the face casts spell x at the nearest person before reforming the door into solid wall for y hours and sending a magical alarm to Fiordin. After y hours the door returns to normal.) This would work in conjunction with new actions like Lock Pick and Open Lock Spell - either of which could be used to overcome the mechanical aspect of a lock - and Dispell - to overcome any magical aspect of the lock. Please excuse the lack of clarity in in putting these ideas in writting, but if you read between the lines and with great imagination, I could this being developed to produce all manner of mechanical, magical and hybrid locks. It would also cut the testing down to one or two rolls, whilst still maintaining a good variation in lock design and complexity. It the example above the lock would have to be Illegally Opened by first using Lock Pick against mechanical CR or Open Lock Spell against magical CR, and Secondly casting either the correct spell or a successful Dispel. Failure any either roll would automatically trigger the trap. Opening the lock by Force would require a number (Lock Strength) of successful Str vs Sturdiness tests before the lock either pops open or triggers the trap. I would use a Tracker for this moving up or down depending on the number of successes and failures, but have a <cs> or <ba><ba><ba> automatically trigger the trap. Enough of this drivel. Hopefully some sense came from this and it may give us all ideas to build a successful model. I would, always, welcome any feedback, criticism or thoughts. Regards, Alp

Great idea! Love anything that increases the item / equipment lists and is functional from both a GM and a player perspective. It would be really good to incorperate these in SE. I have a few ideas about some novel traps and locks that I want to post, and a variant of the item card would be a superb medium. Adding action cards for Lock Pick, Disarm Trap and Set Trap would enhance the existing careers and further develope the diversity between characters. Although there is a degree of complexity in the rules as devised, I just seem this as a way to build unique items with wide ranging diversity. As long as one roll for for the test is maintained (we don't want a Shardowrun scenario whereby the Decker logs in and everyone else may as well go home) it will just give me more options to torment and test the players. I will look forward to further developments. Thank you for yur ideas and dedication. Alp

Love this idea, and the fact that they can be "slotted" onto location cards to create very different perceptions at different times. I hope that this could be incorporated into the SE package that Hurlanc has already excelled in producing. There are so many different weather conditions that could effect play, but here are a few more that you may consider; Arid Heat (hot and dry) Frigid (frozen but no precipitation) Gusty (could effect the flight of arrows) Gale force winds MIsty Foggy (A real Pea Souper) (Just had a idea - which is always a bad thing! If you devised a season card (Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter) and a deck of weather effect cards for each, you could create random weather on a daily basis (or morning, afternoon and night)(or even hourly) depending on your needs. Obviously you would need at least 50% of the cards to have no net effect and load the different "decks" as appropriste to the season. - Sorry for taking over your idea and changing it into something that you may not have considered. I know that most GM's decide what the weather is going to be, but sometimes Random is fantastic and can really effect characters planning their next moves). I am always inpressed with your innovations and ideas and am looking forward to seeing more "weather Condition" Cards. Kind regards, Adam

There are no horses included to date, but serveral people here have come up with some exellent ideas. Check out the following threads; www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp and www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp Hope these help. You could always use the Pet template from the Adventurers Toolkit to define a series of Horses and their "Tricks" - eg: trample, bite, charge, etc. Cheers, Alp

I created a career in 2ed that was effectively a warrior monk with alot of draw backs. He could duplicate any spell or priestly invocation with a lot of practise and study just using the power of mind - no invocation or ingredients required. It cost him more to do this and more to learn EACH different ability, but primarily he was a melee fighter with limited casting. We played a 18 month campaign for him to gain the equivalent of teleport - reaching through projecing an image, to moving objects .... etc. In the campaign and down to 0 fate points he decided to feign being knocked out whilst spending 5 rounds to muster enough of his energy to telport the elf queen of Athel Loren out of a demonic power source that is leaching her soul and contaminating all the lands of elfking. Of course, by this stage, he was a 4th rank character, but building him up to this fantastic conclusion to a campaign had wheathered and changed him. At first level he was just a simple warrior who could cast one ore two Petty magic spells. It was an interesting evolution of a character and took me place I never thought I would be. Essentially he was unique - and I see nothing wrong with creating unique powers and abilities but they should be exceedingly rare and you would have to work towards them. What a great campaign that was - I still miss the group and think of the character. Alp

Why not draw some inspiration from those 70's and 80's detective series like "Monk" and "Columbo". Both those characters are shrewd and clever and mnipulate people - but they can definately be called 'quirky'. Sometimes a small idiosyncracity can give the character a great degree depth. I don't see this as being particularly damaging to a character or that hard to play. Alp

I have always used the following method; Roll one D6 and one D12. If the D6 has th higher result - the character is LEFT handed. If the D12 has the higher result - the character is RIGHT handed. If both die have identical results the character is AMBIDEXTUROUS. I like the idea that ambidexturous would confer a free specialisation under co-ordination, and you could specialise under weapon skill for dual wield. Different fighters employ different techniques so this could be expanded for their fighting style: ie standard infantry would train the specialisation Sword and Shield, whilst musketeers would train the specialisation gunpowder weapons (arquebus), and spearmen would train the specialisation pole arms (Spear). (PS: I also swap the specialisation fortune dice for an expertise dice, and the the traing expertise dice for a fortune dice - a knack more than dedicated training). Alp

I was thinking of employing a similar method. I was going to use 1 misfortune die per degree of difference between the two characters for the 'under dogs' social tests and one fortune per degree of difference for the 'dominant' characters tests. I like the idea of linking "wealth" to social class / rank in nobility / etc and having these as character development options paid for with XP or as plot rewards (a character could be rewarded with a very minor rank of nobility or social / political position and be granted a very small stipend as in character creation). Alp

I like this as it will be really useful for cavalry type warriors and highwaymen / roadwardens. It definately fills a gap and with a set of good mounted rules will be extremely useful. Alp

ravenpolar said: Alp, that is very cool. Much along the lines I was thinking as well. How about as the base effect, "Target suffers 1 stress per round while he is not engaged or moving to engage with you"? Too much? To strong a power? Cool base effect, seems to be along the right lines. Only problem I can see is if the NPC is delayed and must convert this stress into wounds. I am not sure how to address this. I would possibly replace the [sigmars comet] in the reckless stance for a [boon][boon] effect instead. This could be a really good social / combat action.

What about somethiing along the lines of; CONSERVATIVE Recharge:4 Difficulty: [misfortune][misfortune] Traits: (anti)social, ongoing Requisites: Target within medium range Test: Intimidate (Fel) vs. Target Discipline (WP) Effect: You lock eyes with your foe and shout crude threats and insults, inciting him to single you out. While this card is recharging the target enemy will do everything possible to single you out in combat, ignoring others that may be closer or weaker. He will immediately disengae if already in an engagement and move towards you. Note that this card uses Fellowship instead of Strength. [success] you influence the target as described above. [boon] The target suffers [misfortune] to actions that target you while this card is recharging. [bane][bane] Move the party friction meter 1 space to the right. RECKLESS Recharge:4 Difficulty: [misfortune][misfortune] Traits: (anti)social, ongoing Requisites: Target within medium range Test: Intimidate (Fel) vs. Target Discipline (WP) Effect: You lock eyes with your foe and shout crude threats and insults, inciting him to single you out. While this card is recharging the target enemy will do everything possible to single you out in combat, ignoring others that may be closer or weaker. He will immediately disengae if already in an engagement and move towards you. Note that this card uses Fellowship instead of Strength. [success] you influence the target as described above. [boon] The target suffers 1 stress. [sigmars comet] ? [bane] Move the party friction meter 1 space to the right. Please note that this is not reallywell thought out, but could by a start to define an action that you and your party can work with. Alp

Have a look at the Fear Me! action (Adventures toolkit). It may be possible to use this as a basis to create a Taunt action. The Fear Me! card is similar to taunt in that it is using a social action to influence combat so this would be a good start. Alp

Wow. I have been looking at covering some of this for myself. I would NEVER be able to do this with the same panache and style. You have definately made my day. Thanks and looking forward to seeing more fantastic tools.

I am thinking about changing the skill / expertise system slightly. Training in a skill denotes a 'knack' in that general area of skill and gains a fortune dice. Specialising represents a more thorough grounding and practised ability and warrents an expertise dice. As has been discussed before this changes the percentage chances of success / failure and effects of cards, and I still wondering how much this will effect the system. This would lead to a greater variation of character, probably even if two characters are following the same career.

True: the ratio of sigmars comets and boons changes, but as has been commented on many times in these forums there is a feeling that charcters are more highly powered compared to v1 and v2. I think that this would address some of those concerns lowering the differential between characters and NPC's. The characters taking specialisations would become potentially awesome given a good roll in specific circumstances, whilst those with a good 'grounding' in the general field would still be able to muster a good performance - but never get the same stunning effect. If we put this into modern day life a forencic technician may know all the methods of recovery, sample analysis, etc (gaining a fortune die on forensics checks) but a geneticist would gain the expertise die on checks relating specifically to DNA (having persued active training in that specific field). Sorry for the bad example - but it was the first one that popped into my head. With this in mind specialisation becomes a character concept driven choice and further differentiates between two characters in the same career. I am still unsure as to whether this will 'break' the system - which I love - or just change some of the sucess ratios. I will have to think on this more and play test it before I commit to this house rule.

To me training reads like practise, and specilisation as a directed education. As such I see; Training: as the 'comfort factor' gained by performing similar actions time and time again. Specialisation: as the 'dedication' one puts into a specific skill or ability. With this in mind I have been thinking about transposing the Expertise dice acquired through training with the fortune dice gained through specialisation in a skill. You may be a well rounded athlete (gaining a fortune dice for all strength based checks) but you have been practicing with a sword for example for years and therefore gain the expertise dice in Weapon Skill checks using a sword. I know that this will limit characters, but it is in keeping with training and specialisation. With regards to the NPC A/C/E values I would propose that for the cost of one E point a NPC could add a Fortune dice, or at a cost of two E points could add an expertise dice. I realise that this has not been fully thought through, but was wanting some feedback, before developiong this theory further. What do you ladies and gentlemen think about this concept. Thanks for any feedback, Alp

You can also try the following http://0onegames.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=23 The free ones are OK but there are many more that you can pay for and adapt them to your needs.

Definately no outrage .... or even suprise ... from where I stand. After seeing the exceptional quality of Hurlanc's fan made utility it was only a matter of time before it was pulled and a decision / edict had to be made. The quality and scope of this project was truely breath taking in it's potential to carry the game forward - but also to re-create existing content already released by FFG (illeagal and highly damaging to the future of our beloved Warhammer). We all know that as players and GM's we create more material for our needs than FFG will ever be able to accomplish - there are just simply more of us out here than the writing team at FFG - and we live this every time we play, adapting to situations and particular needs. I have to say that I am on FFG's side on this one - although we all desperately want a similar LEGAL utility. The product and profitability needs to be protected! As I have already said I would pay for such a tool - whether a one off fee or subscription based. I believe it is marketable for FFG to do this! With all our views and desires it would be nice to reach some compromise - our desires as fans and players and FFG's need to protect itself as a viable company. As a side note I would like to see an official version but with a great big credit saying something along the lines of "concept originally developed by ...." I definately do not think there should be any grievance with FFG, or GW for that matter, and we should wait for their guidelines and abide by them - however painful that may be.

This sort of resource is what will drive the game forward. I have the utmost respect for the dedicated fans that made time to provide such a helpful tool. I think that FFG and GW could learn from this and develop a similar resource to allow us all to customise our games! Hopefully nearly as good as the fan created material from Hurlanc. I certainly would not mind paying for a piece of software to this end - or even paying a monthly subscription if reasonably priced. If I were to pay a subscription I would expect official titbits to be released frequently as tasters for upcoming products. A combination between the software preloaded with the core sets cards, a subscription, and the downloadable core books would give you what you need to play and cost us slightly less than the physical core set. This would still generate revenue for FFG without their production costs - hence the cheaper overall price. I suppose that this is what I would like to see if we lived in a utopian world and as such I am not holding my breath. I am waiting to see what FFG rule on this matter and if they will ever consider doing something silimar themselves as a saleable product - which I would purchase immediately. Alp