macd21 said: Redcrow said: For those of you who like this idea, I would suggest a simplification by just having the person with the highest Agility on each side roll initiative for the group because all that really matters is whether the good guys go first or the bad guys do. If the fast elf can make one member of their party faster by whatever (nonsensical) means, why not the entire party. And if the good guys can do it, why not the bad guys too. So you really will only need to determine which side goes first rather than each individual participant. Because having the players think about who will act when adds to the tension, forces them to think carefully about what they are going to do and is all-round more fun. +1 spot on reply... I could not have said it better...

Hi, at the moment I am conducting my first two campaigns (playing with WoD and AoD expansions also) and they are both in Copper level (in one I'm thrasing the heroes 34-95; in the other we are at a more even 31-49)... I've read some people complaining that Copper level is too hard for the heroes and Gold level too easy and giving reasons that seem sound from what I know of the game up to now... So, inspired by all ideas I read in the forum and in Boardgamegeek, I was thinking to make three easy changes to balance things a bit: 1. Use the feats from the Tomb of Ice expansion (I'll have to buy it first)... this will help Heroes in all campaign levels. 2. Dungeon level bosses and encounter bosses get double their armor and wounds boost in Silver level, and three times the boost in Gold level... this will help the Overlord a bit in Silver and a lot in Gold level. 3. Monster advances cost 10 less when upgrading the monsters to the actual campaign level, and 20 less when upgrading them to a level below the Campaign level; monster upgrades above the campaign level cost the usual amount... This means that, in Silver Level, monster upgrades to silver would cost 15 or 20; in Gold level, monster upgrades to silver cost 5 or 10 and to Gold cost 15 or 20... this would help the Overlord a bit in the Silver level and a bit more in Gold level. 4. For the final battle, I was planning on having the monsters on the dungeon still fight together with the Avatar, him keeping his cards, threat and power cards, but drawing one less card per turn after that... We'll try the final battle twice, with this rules and with the original rules to see which battle is more exciting. To summarize, heroes are boosted in all campaign levels with the feats. Overlord is boosted in Silver and Gold levels, and maybe at the final battle. Thus, balance would improve a bit. I'll finish playing my two first campaigns with the original rules, though, as I would like to experience how a couple of full games goes with them (and we are all having a great time for the moment) but wanted to ask if anybody has tried any of my above proposals and whether they work.

macd21 said: cogollo said: The only thing I see could be abused is acting twice in a row with the same character, although I am sure that FFG has already taken that into account; otherwise it is so simple as houseruling that no creature can act twice in a row before anybody else acting before. I believe it has been mentioned that you can take more than one action in a round, but every additional action will cost you a point of fatigue. I like it - gives the players more options, forces them to consider the cost:benefit involved. You are right and I also like the rule about 1 free action and extra action spending fatigue, but I was referring to something else... It could happen, as in the example given, that one of the players (i won't call them Heroes as in WFRP campaign that's not usual) has to act first and another last. What could happen is that the group decides for one player to act last in a round and first in the next round, getting two free actions in a row... probably not a big deal but could be abused.

Poe said: Curiously, that's the bit I liked Redcrow. For me having a system where every Dwarf is slower than every Elf in every situation has always jarred. Throw in the fact that the players need to decide their order under time pressure and you've got a system that actively encourages cooperative gaming (I've one player who actively tunes out until it's his turn but also want to be flamboyant in combat - this should help keep him on his toes). I feel exactly the same way and I think this seems excellent! And if you want an in-game explanation for it you could say that the elf shouts a warning to the dwarf pressing him to take action or something similar. I like how more emphasis has been put on the party and cooperation in this edition. I also like a lot the new ideas for Initiative. I think they'll make combats more dynamic and immersive as all the group will be taking decisions all the time. There are also lots of in-game explanations for it, as the above comment proves. With a fixed initiative, some players feel that they can disconnect from the game between their turns (happens to me all the time while playing D&D3 or D&D4) as sometimes you really don't have much to add while others are playing their turns. The only thing I see could be abused is acting twice in a row with the same character, although I am sure that FFG has already taken that into account; otherwise it is so simple as houseruling that no creature can act twice in a row before anybody else acting before. The game is looking better with every new preview... I can't wait to get my hands on it!

Sinso said: While we are at it: can the OL use that rule more often then once per Lt encounter?? Buying "danger" and "dark balm" for one event treachery, and "dark charm" and "crushing" block from a trap treachery, for example? Remember you have a card limit in your hand, though. So if you start with more cards than allowed, you'll have to discard some for threat at the beginning of your first turn... at least that's how I play it.

Sorry for answering my post, but on a second thought, it occurred to me that this could be applied to almost any other skill in the game. For example, Intimidation could be calculated using Strength, Fellowship and Willpower... Intuition could be calculated using Intelligence and Willpower, Ride a mix of Agility, Strength and Willpower, etc. Because of the way the character sheet is organized, you would only need to write the final basic value on the character sheet and recalculate it only when your basic stats change.

Some posts ago I read someone mentioning he liked to have WS and BS not being based solely on Strength and Agility, and I also liked it in WFRP1 and WFRP2 that they were considered as separate stats, so here is a quick and simple house rule to get a similar feeling in WFRP3. For Weapon Skill, instead of using only Strength as basic characteristic, add your Strength, your Agility and your Intelligence together, then divide by three and round the result to the closest integer: that will be your basic characteristic for Weapon Skill. For Ballistic Skill, instead of using only Agility as basic characteristic, add your Agility, your Intelligence and your Willpower together, then divide by three and round the result to the closest integer: that will be your basic characteristic for Ballistic Skill. An example of how it would work. Let's say Wulfric, a Reikland Human has the following characteristics: Strength: 4 Agility: 3 Intelligence: 3 Willpower: 5 His basic characteristic for Weapon Skill would be: (4+3+3)/3= 10/3=3.33; rounded to closest integer, 3. His basic characteristic for Ballistic Skill would be: (3+3+5)/3= 11/3=3.67; rounded to closest integer, 4. Other variations could include changing the stats you use to calculate the basic characteristic, or giving more weight to one stat (as an example, Strength for WS and Agility for BS could be multiplied by 2, then the division would be by 4)... anyway, the end result is very simple, as you would only need to write down the final number next to your WS and BS skills and would need to recalculate it only when you change any of the stats used for the calculation. Any comments on this idea? Also, what do you think of having WS depend solely on Strength and BS depend solely on Agility? Do you prefer it to having them as separate stats as in WFRP2?

Invaluable resource, thanks for sharing. Maybe people could start adding also information about fan made adventures. There were a lot of them for WFRP2.

1. Every week has the same turn order, so the first week means the Overlord gets 1CT, then moves his Lieutenants, then the players move. 2. No, a hero uses his whole turn to move to town, so no Rest order... The rules are not clear on whether you are allowed to use a turn in town to rest, but I allow it in my campaigns... Rules are explained in pages 17 and 18 in "Glyphs of Transport in Dungeons" and it says the heroes can only restock in buildings...when you check the possible Restock actions (pages 21-22) the only thing they can do is buy potions, buy in the market and pay 25gp to regain Health... still, I allow my group to use one turn to regain their fatigue... seems reasonable and I like it when I am able to stall them 3. To go to next dungeon level, at least one hero needs to go through the portal, the rest can go through portal or to town (page 18 of the rules "The Portal". 4. I agree with your interpretation here; that's what I do in my campaigns. 5. Again your guess is correct (see page 16 of the rules: "In addition, if the overlord has any treachery, he may spend it on a hand of cards...").. 6. Cards in Lt encounters are played as in dungeons (page 16 of rules say "Cards in the overlord hand may be used normally during the encounter"), at least that's what I do in my campaigns.

42! said: I might have missed it but is there an explanation of what Coordination handles (except it being a Dockhand career skill)? 42! This skill will be used for participating in coach driving races after a long revel at the tavern and lots of rotgut... so I see this skill being used a lot by my players... I'm even thinking about adapting Carwars rules so that there could be a similar sport in the Warhammer universe... I would call it Blood Indy Racing...

dvang said: On the other hand, you state that you don't like someone getting stuck with Strength 2 and a Fighter career and then the player gets frustrated... why? why should someone get frustrated by this? Again, because my vision of my character was Conan, not pee-wee herman... Also, it's interesting to see that in most conversations I've had about this, this comparison always pops up... so it seems that not many people have pee-wee herman as a character concept, or maybe not many people get frustrated when getting a Conan character when all they wanted to play was a pee-wee herman So, you see, either one or the other does not add up: either you feel ashamed about playing a pee-wee herman or you can (not only in a hypothetical physical way, but as in a real "psycological free" way") create it with a point-buy system... The real truth is that point-buy systems don't give as results pee-wee hermans but only (or mostly) Conans (in Strength, Agility, Wisdom or you name the skill)... once this idea of "we have to balance all characters in a party" gets a grip on your players, then everything around them will have to be balanced: the XP, the loot, the times each of them kills a monster,... because, you know, you can also feel a pee-wee herman if someone is going around with some cool item and you are not... and then you get a step closer to D&D (a great game for Munchkin evenings) in a very difficult players' state of mind in which to roleplay effectively.

dvang said: On the other hand, you state that you don't like someone getting stuck with Strength 2 and a Fighter career and then the player gets frustrated... why? why should someone get frustrated by this?... Again, because my vision of my character was Conan, not pee-wee herman... You see, that's where our points of view diverge a lot. I am not interested in having people play Conan-style characters in my Warhammer campaigns only "because they want to", I've seen enough of them already, specially in D&D and they become boring after a time... I find it's easier to get inspiration when you get handed some random stats and have to concoct some story out of the stats... gives you more interesting characters than just copying the same stereotype over and over... And you don't answer to my question of what does frustration about stats have to do with roleplaying... OK, so you are a pee-wee herman, still you can roleplay and make the story advance, I don't see why the character would be less enjoyable... It may be that I started playing when most games had random stat generation and I saw how it worked where some people got frustrated because of bad rolls but then accepted the flaws in their characters, then played point-buy and I saw how they regularly became exercises at character optimization where people got frustrated because the choices they made were not optimum, then were even more frustrated because they could not blame the dice... About Bertolac's suggestion, I see your point. I'll have my players roll 3 times for stats and once on the extra table, then spend the rest of their points as they want. I'll also have them choose their career before rolling their random advances...

Necronomicus said: As long as you can have a snotling roll a killing crit, the game hasn't changed from 1st ed enough for me to worry about players not feeling risk, and trying to avoid risk with alternate decisions to combat. So from that perspective I love the new Henchman stuff. I see your point, so I'm starting to appreciate that probably the Henchmen rules are an interesting addition, as I have had also a couple big combats in my campaigns and it would be nice to have something to speed them up... I think I'll use the Henchmen rules, but only in special occasions.

Bertolac, The ideas you propose are very interesting. As in your example, one could have the players roll for 3 random advances in their stats, then let them spend the rest of their points as they want. This way all characters get the same total creation points without necessary being a purely point-buy system and a min-max situation will probably be avoided. Maybe I'll even make them roll for 4 random advances, including the 6 characteristics and the 4 extra stats (using a d10). Another advantage is that the Human will usually have more points to spend than the other races after rolling for the 3-4 random advances. This compensates a bit the fact that they get 1 less creation point and, roleplaying wise, it makes humans a bit more in charge of their "destiny", which makes sense from the point of view of the world (in v2, Humans had more Fate Points). I must say I prefer the system you propose to the one I initially proposed, so I'll give it a try for my first campaign! Thanks a lot for the idea!

dvang said: A well written post, cogollo ... but you have a different view of the henchmen rules than I do. You described it as a way to make enemies easier for the player to fight. I don't think that is at all the intent of the rules. I think the intent of the henchmen rules is to make handling multiple enemies easier and faster. A group of henchmen is at least as dangerous, if not more, than a single non-henchman. Consider the Beastman example mentioned. Only one beastman attacks, as if it was a non-henchman, but gains an additional fortune die for each additional henchman in the group. That's a lot more chances for success, and therefore more likely to hit and possibly number of successes also affect damage. So, offensively, a group of just two henchmen is more powerful and dangerous than a single non-henchman. Defensively, they are generally weaker. Instead of 12 wounds a single beastman gets, they get their Toughness of 4, so it would take a henchman group of 3 beastmen to equal in wounds a single non-henchman. Also, add in the fact that they share health, so damage removes one henchman faster. However, the only real thing the loss of a henchman from a group does is remove a single fortune die from their offensive power. In this case, 4 wounds in order to remove a single fortune die from the beastmens' attack. It isn't until the group is down to a single beastman henchman that the offensive abiliy scales down to equal to a single non-henchman beastman. Yowch! So henchmen, although easy to whittle down, are at least as dangerous as non-henchmen until they are totally eliminated. Looking at this, I'd hardly call them easier or safer to fight. A single henchmen group of 20 is putting out a hell of a hurting with +19 fortune dice, you bet the PCs better run. I see your point here and I must say I am not 100% sure I won't use the Henchmen rules, I'll have to read them carefully when the game is published and maybe I'll change my mind... still, I usually don't use many creatures in the combats in my campaigns, as I don't like my players slaughtering tens of, say, Skavens... I feel they could be interesting if you want to make a Warhammer campaign with legendary Heroes in mind, but I feel it would be missing part of the gritiness of Warhammer. They also could be interesting for managing swarms of puny creatures: snotlings, spiders, wolves, Barcelona football fans (sorry for my dear neighbours for the pun, I come from Madrid in Spain, have nothing against them but could not resist myself...). I'm fine with my players finding a 1 on 1 relation of numbers in a battle difficult enough, I don't see why they would enjoy killing tens of creatures in regular combats, that sort of combat gets repetitive too quickly (at least that's my feeling of Minions in D&D4).

@dvang @Foolishboy Interesting points, and I assure you I had already considered them before posting my proposal. That's the reason I decided not to go for a fully randomized character, as I don't know how much of a difference there will be between a stat at 3 and at 5. Still, I believe FFG have playtested the game correctly and an unskilled lumberjack with Strength 5 (i.e., 5 Blue Dice) will fight worse than a skilled Fighter with Strength 3 (i.e., 3 Blue Dice + 1 Yellow Die)... If they have not done this correctly, then the possibility of someone not min-maxing his stats will be even lower. @dvang About point-buy systems not forcing players to min-max characters I have something else to add... I was not referring to the system forcing you "physically" to minmax I'm referring to the fact that a system where you can assign your starting values with complete freedom does not give you the "psycological" freedom not to go min-maxing... If I can create a fighter with 5 Strength, why would I create him with 3?... On the one hand, you say that maybe you want to create a soft noble's son or a witty mercenary... ok, but why not with 5 Strength? The noble's son can be a whiner, still with Strength 5; the mercenary can be witty, still with Strength 5... and so on... actually that's what happens with pont-buy systems, you maximize the most important stat for the mechanics of your character, then give him/her a high stat in the secondary stat you use to differentiate it from others... but here is the danger, the system is already "mentally forcing" you to do this, as otherwise you'll think you did not "optimize" your character and will feel as a fool... go on, try creating a Fighter with Strength 2 in a point-buy system while everybody else follows min-maxing and you'll see what I mean. On the other hand, you state that you don't like someone getting stuck with Strength 2 and a Fighter career and then the player gets frustrated... why? why should someone get frustrated by this?... This statement gets us dangerously close to what happens in most D&D games... people getting frustrated because his/her character is not so cool/does not kill so many monsters/ is not so successful as someone else's character... what does this have to do with roleplaying?... You see, I don't like putting the focus on the "balance of the characters" because it soon degenerates into "I'm frustrated because my character does not do anything in combat/whatever situation"... because, and I think I already wrote this somewhere, getting all players interested in the game is the job of the GM, not of a "balanced system"... If you have a Fighter with Strength 3 and Intelligence 5 it's the GM business to let him shine during the campaign...

Mal Reynolds said: Would these more combat/action orientated rules, have any impact on the setting and world of warhammer? Will it change the strong gravity that the warhammer`s world have? I am not sure about that. Will it have any impact on the players? we do know that certain rules and mechanics to influence how the game is played. For instance some players get more and more reckless as more Fate points they get. Maybe. My D&D4 GM (a critic of D&D4) likes saying: "if the mechanics give you only a hammer, then you only see nails around you"... and that's what happens with D&D4. Sure, you can always roleplay using almost any rules, but D&D4 mechanics clearly put the focus in "character's balance" and "combat, XP, treasure" so no wonder most games of D&D4 turn out to be a soulless tactical fantasy battle game, where a player feels outraged if he is not able to down more monsters than another player... I also see WFRP3 giving a bit extra weight to combat situations and that scares me a bit. It is also the reason I don't like the Henchmen rule... If you see a Beastman, it is the job of the GM describing it as your usual dangerous Beastman or as a bloodthirsty Beastigor, but there should be no metagaming in the players' minds... they should not ask themselves "does the GM want us to flee, ergo this is a normal Beastman, or does the GM want us to fight, ergo this is a Henchman Beastman"... that does not get the players into roleplaying mood, it puts them only in "gamey mood"... Players should always fear combat, that gives them more incentives to talk, bribe, investigate and try to plan the combat ahead to have an extra advantage... that's what WFRP was always about, the grimness is not only in the world, it's in the fear of your character turning up dead, insane or corrupt if you do something stupid or you are unlucky... The players should think as their characters would, that's what makes RPGs a roleplaying experience. If they see 20 Beastmen, Orkses, even Goblins charging towards their group they should run "y punto"... they should not spend a single second of their time considering fighting them; now, if they are defending a fort and have prepared for the siege, and have a couple extra guards to help them, well then the situation changes, but because the players prepared themselves, not because the GM decided to use Henchmen to "balance the combat"... Each creature/monster should have an inherent/implicit threat value... Giving "levels" to monsters only detracts from the "suspension of disbelief" experience...

Antistone said: Plus, IMO, gold weapons ought to do more than just damage. They should have special effects, so that the heroes feel like they're doing new things, not just doing the same things with bigger numbers. Then again, I guess that's not something that RtL can fix. I agree with this comment. Maybe FFG could create a "small expansion" with treasure cards that give players more tactical options without giving them too much extra damage when they roll a lot of Gold dice... It could be called something like "Campaign Treasure Madness" or some such.

Interesting discussion about Progress Trackers... Now, please try to talk about something related to my original post, as your conversation seems to be straying a bit from the topic...

dvang said: I will point out that in v2 two starting characters with the same race and career are nearly identical. Just a few stat differences from random rolls (which the OP in this case said were identical), and a random talent. Initial career skills, talents, and equipment are all the same (other than a single initial XP purchase choice). v3 allows players to choose how many skills and actions they start with, as well as which ones they start with. This leans quite heavily in favor of making characters different right off the bat, roleplaying personalities aside. The main problem I see with point-buy systems is that they force a player to max-min his character. Who is going to create a Fighter type with less than 5 starting Strength? I love the roleplaying aspect of RPGs more than other aspects of RPG, that does not mean I'm careless about my character's stats. It is not the same to start with a slightly crippled character due to bad rolls than to start with a purposefully crippled character... almost nobody will try it (and I've seen my share of RPG games with point-buy characters). So, to me, the debate is not whether you can create different characters with the same stats or whether v2 or v3 will make less identical characters... both question are hitting a straw man, as there is an obvious answer: of course you can create different characters with same stats, and of course both v2 and v3 can produce different characters,... The debate should be about which system gives a player more "psycological freedom" or "less stress" to create any kind of character?... and in this case the winner, in my opinion, is a system like v2 because, at the end of the day, it really can bring any kind of character into play, whereas a point-buy system will make you feel a fool if you decide to play with a 3-Strength Fighter. That does not mean I don't like v3; indeed I like almost everything that has been presented in the developer's diary, but I can still keep my critical mind and cry wolf when I think there's one... that's why I have already made a house-rule proposal in a post, although it seems some people have derailed it into some rant about their manhoods...

Great preview! I like the magic system you propose for two reasons: 1. Every time you cast a spell you run a risk, as in WFRP2 (although here I'll probably end using the Tzeentch's Curse tables from WFRP2 when the caster rolls Banes). 2. You solve the problem WFRP2 had with "machine gun" spellcasters. I find the mechanic you propose circumvents this problem in a very elegant and imaginative way. From time to time, the caster needs to "recharge" his magical energies praying to his god (I'm guessing the mechanics for arcane magic will be similar) which seems a "realistic" non-gamey mechanic and gives more options for roleplaying situations without artificially limiting the number of spells a caster may cast. So far, I must say this game is keeping me and my friends very excited... lots of great stuff! The more previews I see, the more I think the game will rock!

dvang said: As for the OP: Well, it seems odd. I guess I'd need to see it in action. I think you might be better served not using any sort of buy at all if you are mixing in random maximums. Like, maybe going completely random (d4+1 or d3+1 for stats, d4-1 other) then give a single stat increase (or maybe two) of the player's choice with a max of 5 in a stat. Personally, I'm not a fan of railroading players into playing a character they don't want or wont like, which is pretty much what random generation does (unless the player is really flexible). For example, if a player wants to play a strong fighter, but their creation rolls give them a 2 strength max .. then either they'll half-heartedly play the character and probably be unsatisfied, or else they'll scrap that character generation and roll up a new one until they get one that can be the concept they wanted to play. Thanks for replying to my proposal. I want to give some control to the players, but without forcing them to go for maximum Strength when creating a character because, let's face it, that's what you are doing when having a point-buy system, forcing the players to min-max their characters... If you are going to play a fighter, why would you not have maximum possible Strength, if the game allows it?... So, in a sense, that's what you are doing with point-buy systems: forcing the characters to take certain options. Now, the houserule I propose is simple and it gives the players control of how to create their characters, but without "forcing" them to min-max them. I had already thought about a simple d4+1 for stats, d4-1 other. The problem with this is that: 1. Players have absolutely no control over what they get... this does not worry me too much... 2. The difference in character stats can be too much, unlike WFRP2 where rolling 28 or 31 for a starting stat was really not a big balance difference... and this does worry me a bit... So, I combine two things: the balanced system created by FFG (I trust they have more time to playtest things than my group of players do) with a simple system that gives my players the "psychological freedom" of creating non-perfect characters.

Page 16 details the extra rules that apply for lieutenant encounters, but you also apply the rules for normal encounters. Page 13 says "The leader's force of minions is a group of unnamed monsters that assist him...". So, you have to treat Lieutenant minions as minions in normal encounters and they do start the encounter on the board.

Well, I basically love almost every preview given so far by Jay, specially how to use the dice pools, and I find most things proposed revolutionary and very interesting. I'll buy the game and my players are already excited by what I've told them. Still, any RPG I have played had things I did not like and I thought how to houserule them, it's natural and my group is very used to changing and adapting RPGs to our own tastes. In the previews given, I don't like much the henchmen and the character generation, but I still think this game will rock. Back to my proposal, I think I'll probably let my players choose their careers, then generate their stats with the house rules I propose. That way, they won't know their maximum stats before choosing their careers and this will bring with it more variety while at the same time giving them some control of their destiny. To sum up: 1. Choose your career, roll it randomly or pick 3 and choose 1 as explained in the preview. 2. Randomly determine your maximum starting values for characteristics (1d4+1) and wealth, skills, talents and actions (1d4-1). 3. Create your character using the official rules but respecting the maximums obtained in point 2. 4. If all of your values are at their maximum and you still have creation points, you can choose how to spend them (sort of Shallya's Mercy) but you cannot go more than 1 point over rolled maximums.

Sorry for replying to my own post, but had forgotten to add something. In this proposal, if you are lucky you'll only have more flexibility to decide how to spend your points, but if you are unlucky you still get the same number of creation points only that maybe they won't correspond perfectly with your career and still will be good at something.