macd21 said: The problem is that you are viewing the game as a physics simulator - it isn't (nor should it be). The game takes an abstract aproach to combat. The recharge system covers a wide range of combat factors in one simple mechanic, but the jist of it is this: You can't spam your best manouvres. The in-game reasons for this are numerous - it's physically taxing, dependant on opportunity, takes time to set up etc. Taking the basketball example - you can't dunk every round. Once you've dunked the opportunity to do so again won't come up for a while - you'll have to retrieve the ball (min 1 round), wait until the opposing team leave you with an opening (2 rounds), make your move (roll your 'attack'). Of course another system could have been used - the one mentioned in this thread, for example, which allows the player to try to spam attacks but increases the difficulty drastically. So why didn't FFG go with something like that? Answer: it isn't worth it. When you get down to it that system is more complex and requires more book-keeping and for what? The option to use an ability that the player won't use anyway. 1. I don't view the game as a physics simulator... what I won't use in my games are mechanics that are clearly artificial. My players will not like it if I tell them: sorry you cannot whack again this round because the rules say so... there has to be some sort of real explanation for a mechanics rule, otherwise I won't use it. 2. Basketball example. The same you are saying about the dunk can be applied to the normal shot, so still I don't see why dunking would require 3 recharge counters and shooting only 1 (extrapolate it to any other action of the game). 3. I am going to use the system proposed where you increase the difficulty if you repeatedly try the same action... I doubt FFG playtested this one... I don't see why a player would feel more frustrated if you tell him "OK, try again but with X difficulty dice extra because the opponent already knows your trick"... Are you really defending that the same player would feel less frustrated if you tell him "Sorry, you cannot use that action again until some time has passed"?.... really strange argumentation on your part here. 4. Again, the problem is trying to apply the same mechanics in all circumstances... What works well as a Magic mechanic does not necessarily have to work well for physical attacks... This is what happened in D&D4: now all players have "powers" as if they were "spells"... Then the problem is that, firstly, Magic becomes less an exception and more another way of doing cool things... secondly, players' minds will be focused only on the action cards and the mechanics to solve them, thus combats will lose a lot of roleplay... I agree combats will be more tactical, but I don't want too much tactics in RPG combat... if I want to play a good tactical game, then I go and play one: Descent, Tide of Iron, Battle Lore (just from FFG) but there are many other games much more interesting at tactics than what an RPG can provide... RPGs should focus on the role aspects, that's why they are called RPGs. OK, I'm leaving today for Essen Games Fair, so I won't be able to answer any more posts until next week. I clearly understand your point, but I still feel the "recharge mechanics" feels artificial the way it has been proposed and I think I've given enough arguments to explain my stance. I don't want to convince anyone here. I'm just making my point... I'm buying the game (I already preordered it) but I doubt I will use the "recharge mechanics" as proposed in the developer's diary even one single session... I think here FFG went too much the MMO way (again, I have nothing against MMOs, as I have played WoW and LOTRO but they make for dangerous inspiration to RPG mechanics).

@dvang and @killridemedley I was not saying that all actions take the same time; what I've been saying is that the main difference for deciding whether you are doing an action is not only the time it takes, but mainly the risk, and that a "recharge time" has nothing to do with it. Clearly, there are actions that take more time than others but... if an action takes you more time than another to carry out, then the solution is not to say that it has a higher recharge time, but that it costs you a higher number of "rounds" to perform it... Going to the basketball example. Let's assume the dunk takes three times as much time to carry out than a normal throw, but then after you carry out the dunk, you should be able to start dunking again; a rule that prevents you from starting the dunk again feels unrealistic and artificial. Maybe while you dunked the other player has thrown 3 shots, but then the way to represent this is to say that dunking takes you three "rounds" to perform while shooting takes you one "round". So, my question is, why after performing a dunk should the player be unable to perform another one almost immediately? Yes, it will take him some rounds to do it, but why should he wait for X extra seconds to start performing it again? What's the physics behind it? Now, I like the recharge system for Magic, as it feels you could explain it by saying the caster needs time to collect again some power from the Winds of Magic to be able to cast the spell, but that's also the point I was making when saying that unifying systems are not necessarily good... OK, they have unified the system, but then they have applied something to the combat that, in my opinion, feels artificial... plus, I do think that RPG gamers, in general, are relatively smart people and they should be able to cope with 2-3 mechanics for 2-3 different aspects of the game.

dvang said: Example: a basketball match... Slam dunking a ball is highly precise and players that can jump high enough will always try it if they can, so why don't we see players continuously trying to slam dunk the ball?... not because there's some kind of hidden recharge counter that forbids them from trying again, but because the risks of their action is higher than just making a normal throw; Yes and no. Most, if not all, basketball players cannot slam dunk the ball every 4-6 seconds repeatedly. Not due to fatigue, but the fact that it physically takes time to set up the run/angle and themselves to actually perform the maneuver. There *is* a kind of recharge taking place preventing them from trying again immediately. Remember that 4 rounds is only 16-24 seconds. True, but that recharge time is approximately the same for the dunk than for a normal throw... that was the point I was making: that giving combat actions different recharge times is artificial and feels "gamey" to me, and that actions in real life are not mainly balanced by "recharge" times, but by the different risks they pose.

I downloaded it from the original website without problem. It looks very impressive and I'll read it as soon as I can (at the moment I'm busy with WFRP)... Thanks a lot for sharing!

dvang said: It makes the system easier to learn and easier to understand. It makes changing characters from a spellcaster to a fighter (and vice versa) not as large a leap of learning. The point of much of 3e is to try to make the game easier to understand and use, without delving into the rulebook. Thus, making combat actions somewhat similar to spells (notice they aren't exactly the same as far as we can tell. Divine casters need to try to gain favor, etc) by using recharge, allows players to more easily transition and understand the mechanics of the different career types since they have that much more in common. You are right here, but in WFRP2 the Magic and normal Combat systems were clearly different systems, yet somehow they were very easy to understand and you could have each system give a different flavour. When you unify every system in an RPG, then you need to compromise and you end up giving Magic the same feeling as normal combat manoeuvres which, in my opinion, destroys a bit the suspension of disbelief, as Magic starts being "just another option" instead of something much more risky than normal combat but at the same much more powerful. And with that I'm back again to the reason I like inherent unknown risks in the actions... Let's say we rank actions according to their power, from 1 to 10... Then, if action A has a power rank of 4 and action B has a power rank of 2, you can design the game so that you can use action A only half as many times as action B (that's the recharge mechanics)... yes, you have balanced the action power but now you don't have any tactical decision to do anymore, just resource management, as any that has played MMOs knows, i.e., before the battle takes place, you already know the optimum order in which you should use your actions... maybe the battle circumstances will force you to change that order a bit: you want to use your action A on the toughest opponents before using it on the henchmen, but that's an obvious decision, so still not much tactics in it. Now, instead of giving actions a known disadvantage to balance them, you could give them higher risks. Action A should have more inherent risks than action B... Then your decisions become really tactical. At any point in the game you have to take a decision without knowing what the cost will be, which means you'll have to carefully weigh whether the result of your action justifies the risk: that's called tactics (and, btw, risk management by insurance companies). Risk management, that's how tactics really work in real life... Example: a basketball match... Slam dunking a ball is highly precise and players that can jump high enough will always try it if they can, so why don't we see players continuously trying to slam dunk the ball?... not because there's some kind of hidden recharge counter that forbids them from trying again, but because the risks of their action is higher than just making a normal throw; with a slam dunk you "spend more fatigue" and you have more chances o getting injured than with a normal shot, but you don't know how much energy you'll need or whether you will suffer an injury before taking the action... that's it, people, in real life you have actions that have more chances of success than others ("slam dunk" over "simple throw") but then their inherent risks are also higher... WFRP3 has very nice elements (counters, dice pool, cards,...) to create this and I feel it a pity that they decided to go the MMO way instead of fully unleashing the potential of the system (maybe FFG was a bit conservative here or thinking on the MMO crowds?).

commoner said: So, most of the time it will go down like this based on their recharge rate. Super Smash the first turn. Now that will take four turns to recharge. While it recharges I will then moderately smash which takes three turns to recharge, then light smash which will take 2 turns, then I'll hit with a basic attack for one turn. Four turns have now passed so I go back to super smash. Clean, rinse, and repeat - Spam Order. At the same time, it prolongs the encounter by characters waiting for super-smash to recharge since they need it to deal any real damage to the Blood-Tthirster. This will be especially true at higher levels where we'll still be waiting for super smash to recharge since most things will have huge soaks and huge armor rating. This point is especially true since damage in this system is fixed, So how it will end up will be all the other turns are one to two point damage fillers until Super Smash recharges. Oh you died while waiting for your recharge? Sorry. It's the reason why Anixia (sp?) in WOW was so hard to kill because people simply couldn't super smash, super smash, super smash and died while waiting for their powers to recharge, hence why kiting is a tried and true practice of the MMO. Furthermore, a system of recharge does not make the combat more tactical. Instead the actual combat tactics are simply being replaced by tactical token management. Especially since we'll have cards that lower the cost to manage the tokens. Obviously, the first one I can lower will always be super smash because it does the most damage. Why? Because I get to super smash one turn earlier than if I put it on moderate or light. Only if I had any to spare would I even consider lowering moderate smash because it's just not as good as being able to super smash sooner. So with these lower recharge rate cards you'll end up with - Super Smash, Moderate Smash, Super Smash, light Smash, Super Smash, moderate smash, Super smash, light smash. Is that more tactical? Is that really different than super smash per turn? No, it's a spam order that just delivers a lower net damage, but in effect, plays out the same. Like I said before, Warhammer has many systems and great ways to impliment what I'm talking about, even better than straight fatigue. Some cards risk fatigue. Others give smaller bonuses but bigger bonuses under certain conditions, others could adjust stance meter. Others could put misfortune dice on the next attack made. They have already cracked the surface with the Bane conditions on the cards. For instance, using Backstab, lets start out under the pretense that card's never recharge. But you keep the fact when you roll two banes, put two recharge tokens on the card. That would be the downside and in that case, recharge would make sense. Sure you may have or may not have succeeded in the backstab, but since you rolled a double bane that guy is aware of you so you can't backstab again for another two turns because, basically, he's watching you. Sure you can say that's why it's recharging over four? Is it really, since every-time you try it it's an opposed agility versus observation? The innate penalty idea s both more interesting as part of the story and as a system. You see the 3e system has created double penalties to every action card. The first penalty is how often it can be used. The second is the negative side effect the action causes. Therefore, this doubles system complexity and also further limits card choices. Players will pro-rate the cards for the lowest amount of penalty to the highest gain. It happens in every game that uses the same system. You talk to WOW players, certain abilities are just junk and not worth your time, the same will happen in Warhammer, thus creating not only a spam order, but a more limited spam order based on the cards functionality that your group of players will as a whole always take. great post, commoner... and exactly what was in my mind when I wrote a post in the "Influence of MMOs in RPGs" thread and why I don't like MMOs influencing RPGs in general... and, by the way, anyone that has played D&D4 should be able to identify the problems to which commoner is pointing in his post. To sum up, I would also prefer to have actions that have inherent penalties on them. Then combat would become a decision about whether the risk I'm taking compensates the possible advantages if I pass the test: that's tactics... Knowing beforehand the penalty I have for the action (i.e., the recharging time) means you no longer have tactics but resource management as in an MMO. WFRP3 has a lot of cool mechanics to apply unknown risks to an action (taking fatigue, taking stress, taking wounds, suffering free attack from enemy, Tzeentch's Cuser,...) so it should be a piece of cake to adapt it to a style where tactics and not resource management are the important things in combat: I'll let my players use the same actions repeatedly if they want, but adding Misfortune dice for each recharge counter on the card; I'll also change the Bane result section of each action so that the risks become higher for actions that can give more successes.

Good advice about the Mordheim miniatures. I have a lot of them already but, as I'll visit Essen Convention this week, I'll try to buy some more.

Mal Reynolds said: Even better, why not let FFG produce a whole series of Strange & Dark City-sourcebooks. there`s a bunch of unusual and strange cities in the old world that deserves attention, the skaven haunted Miragliano, to the zombie infested Mousillion, and the chaos cursed Praag. And make them complete with different power factions, guilds, secret societies, and interesting NPCs and encounter tables. A Mordheim supplement would also be nice in the Strange& Dark-City series.

A good adventure compendium (something along what Plundered Vaults was for WFRP2) and a good campaign box...If FFG manages to publish interesting adventures/campaign that get people interested, then they'll be able to sell all kind of extra rules and supplements... I'm quite convinced that good adventures is what makes RPGs a success... The best example is D&D, never the best mechanics and still the RPG leader, probably because so many interesting adventures were published for it in its day.

Jericho said: Wouldn't that be better represented by the rules by adding misfortune dice if you use the same attack over and over ? Or put it another way, add one misfortune die per remaining recharge counter still on the card ? The game has to be able to deal with irrationnal and emotional use of skills. Or else we're back into systems optimisation mode, which has no place in RPGs, IMO. So many other games let you play like that, rpgs are about player creativity and FREEDOM. I like your idea as it adds freedom to the players and GM and it is very simple to houserule... basically you use the cards as given but instead of forbidding a character to use the same action over and over you allow him to try but with higher difficulty level. I remembered once reading that the GM should never say no to a player's idea but instead assign a difficulty... that's exactly what you propose here and I like it... Such a little thing... yet still you saved me a lot of houseruling work... Thanks for sharing the idea!

I like a lot the dice pool and the use of cards and counters in an RPG. I think here FFG has really done a good job. With these tools the mechanics should be faster than in previous versions of WFRP or other games. As for the influence of MMOs, I must say in general I dislike MMOs influencing RPGs mainly for two reasons: MMOs focus a lot of their efforts in balancing player's avatars so that every player in the game has a good experience. This is good in an MMO, because you are playing with hundreds of other unknown players and you want everybody to have a fair chance and, as a designer, you don't want to end up with all players choosing the same class... But for RPGs I think it's a mistake focusing so much in balance, because you are somehow telling the players that this is an important question in the game, where the real important thing in RPGs should be meeting together with your friends to tell a fun and involving story... once you start focusing on balancing an RPG you get a lot of "gamey" mechanics and strange systems that have nothing to do with reality... In my case, I don't like the recharging system and I liked a lot that WFRP2 classes were not balanced at all... that made the game feel more realistic and grittier. MMOs focus a lot of efforts in combat tactics... that's good for an MMO because, at the end of the day, the roleplaying aspect of an MMO approaches a lot the absolute zero... so, you can dress your character to differentiate it from others or may be part of a gaming guild and have fun talking with other people but, during combat, you are just trying to optimize the use of the skills your avatar comes with... again, I think for RPGs this is a mistake, because you lose the contact with your character and, instead of trying to act and roleplay your character in combat, you take decisions based mainly on tactical reasoning, which has very little to do with roleplaying...plus, tactical discussion unnecessarily lengthen combat and bring silly discussion between players to decide whether a tactical move was correct or not... There are a lot of great tactical combat games out there (from FFG you have Descent, Battle Lore and Tide of Iron) and I prefer these games for tactical gaming because they have been designed mainly for that. And now, I'll keep preparing the first scenario for my future WFRP3 campaign...

I think Jericho and Commoner make good points here. I also find it's a pity that the initial idea (using dice pools) was innovating and seemed exciting to use but the action cards I've seen and the recharge mechanic are not very appealing to me... In D&D4 you also have lots of "actions" with fancy names you can do with your character so that at the end the game focuses too much in the combat tactics using the powers you have instead of describing the scenario to the characters, letting them say what they want to do, then deciding how to solve the action... players no longer describe anything, they just move their miniature on the table and say the power they are going to use... At the end I realised with D&D4 that it became a sort of tactical combat game and, let's face it, there are much better tactical combat games out there, Descent being my favourite. So, I was a bit tired of the mechanics forcing too much tactics in the games and combat in RPGs being influenced by MMOs, and when I saw the dice pool and how WFRP3 intended to manage movement and distances, I was very pleased but, as Jericho and Commoner point out, I see too much "gamey" aspects in the action cards for my taste... I'm going to buy the game, but I will most probably redo a lot of the action cards myself... Maybe FFG could publish alternative combat rules that cater more to those of us who want to see a bit more realism in the game?... I would like to see: Combats that are shorter and that involve less tactical discussions during the combat. One idea I proposed was giving the PCs some time (a minute, for example) to decide what to do (could be done by them choosing the action card they want to use or writing down their intention), then making them roll initiative... but anything that avoids people endlessly discussing tactically how their characters will act (instead on thinking in-character how their characters would act) would be useful. Action cards that leave more opportunities for the GM to decide the result of the action. At the moment, basically you just add your successes and banes and read in the card what happened... this is not what we were told at the beginning... well, at least for story mode the GMs will have some freedom, I hope... Equipment that gets damaged during combat... I think one of the aspects that make a universe gritty is that you have to take care of any penny... seeing your equipment destroyed during combat would add to that feeling... doing this with the dice pool banes should be easy... Nasty critical hits, as in the old MERP or Rolemaster... I think FFG will provide WFRP3 with this... So, to end my comment, I like the dice pool mechanics, I like that the game will use cards and counters, but I feel the actual implementation of the combat using these tools is a bit too much MMO for my taste.

commoner said: In General: My number one concern was and still is, the recharge system. I know MMORPG'S are huge right now, but it works in a video game universe or with things that aren't natural, but people can backstab until the cows come home. You can say it's an awareness factor of the opponent, but fact is, his awareness contests the ability to pull off the backstab, so it's really not a good explination. It makes absolutely no sense you can't parry every turn, none what so ever because people are always parrying attacks coming at them. It also won't make sense with Super Smash powers where you can swing your sword as hard as you want time and time again, but it'll just tire you out probably a bit quicker than always super smashing. Also, saying the opportunity doesn't present itself is a roleplay call, not an arbitrary gaming mechanism that has the illusion of "balancing powers" where it really doesn't. I'm sure advanced versions will probably allows these cards to recharge faster. For instance a Parry you can use every turn instead of every other turn. Other cards may allow you to recharge your cards faster, but that is ALOT of book keeping and deals way to heavily with the minusha of the system rather than focusing on the narrative elements (which this game supposedly focuses on more than most games). I agree with Commoner here, and I also think I'll houserule the recharge system in combat cards... I think adding fatiguing results to the cards would have worked much better, so that all out attacks do more damage if they hit but fatigue the attacker quicker... the recharge mechanic seems an artificial attempt to balance actions, because in real life these actions are implicitly balanced by their difficulty or the energy they require... or maybe you could explain the recharge mechanic as a way to abstract all these factors to simplify rules... The recharge mechanic seems to work better for casting spells, although that could have been solved also by adding fatigue or mental stress rules to the magic actions... Also, I would have preferred an opposed check for combat, where both attacker and defender rolled pools of dice and successes of each are cancelled. Banes for attacker would account for extra fatigue, mental stress or weapon damage, whereas banes for defense would also account for extra fatigue, mental stress or armour damage... I will create a table, similar to Tzeentch's Curse of WFRP2, for banes in combat... the more Banes you get, the nastier the result could be. Finally, after playing D&D3.5 and D&D4 for the last year, I am a bit tired of too tactical combats, as I think each round takes ages for everyone to decide what to do. Also, the players end up focusing too much on combat and feel ashamed when they make tactical errors... So I plan on houseruling the initiative system so that at the beginning of each round each player will have 1 minute to decide, without consulting with the others, which action they want to use and on whom... I'll do the same with the monsters, then the actions to be used are revealed and everyone rolls initiative... I'm pretty sure doing it this way will make combat faster and a bit more dramatic. Still, I'm very curious on how the game will turn out... I hope I'll get my hands on the box soon.

johnmarron said:

Foolishboy said: Why am I sensitive? I did have not claimed that FFG have backstabbed me. Perhaps if you read the post that you intend to attack it would help..... It's a way of talking... you have not explicitly said FFG backstabbed you, but you have implied they did some sort of treachery on WFRP1 and WFRP2 fans. And I read your post and am not attacking it... again you resort to victimism and implying some of us are there to somehow attack you... I repeat: if you don't like the game, fine with me, but don't blame FFG for being careless with WFRP2 fans, because that's not true for my case and I'm also a WFRP2 fan.

Foolishboy said: macd21 has basically answered this issue: FFG could not care less if they upset every single WFRPv1 and WFRPv2 fan. The new game is not designed for the existing fanbase and any existing fan that buys it is just an unexpected bonus. The Arkham minis however were designed to be sold to the existing fanbase so when they protested FFG withdrew the minis because it looked like they would lose money on the deal. And what's the result?... No minis, even if you want+can pay for them... I don't see what there is in it to be happy about... It is as if you tell me that company A decides to not create new games because nobody has the money to pay for them and people feel their opinions were taken into account... it only proves that there's not enough money in gaming industry and too much in other stuff like betting, sports and nastier things... a sad world that would be, but I digress... The point I wanted to make is that, as usual, I disagree 100% with you when you say FFG does not care about WFRP1 and WFRP2 fanbase... I'm a fan of WFRP2 and I don't feel backstabbed by them... some of you are a bit sensitive it seems... How can you call careless to a company that will continue publishing content for our favourite game/universe?... If you don't want to buy it because you don't have the money or don't think the game is worth it, then it's OK, but calling FFG careless is, in my opinion, unfair and unsensitive... and that from one that, as you are constantly doing in these forums, is constantly complaining of being treated unfairly and hinting that people are constantly attacking you... I fear the proverbial 10 feet long pole in your eye is not letting you see the picture clearly...

Great post... And I also love Mordheim... I usually don't like miniature wargames (I prefer tactical hexagon wargames), but Mordheim was ans still is such a jewel... Actually, I think it was Mordheim that made me such a fan of the Warhammer universe... Time for a Mordheim 2nd edition maybe?

NezziR said: Peacekeeper_b said: After I play in a session of a game Ive never played before, based on my interests I may be willing to sink $30-$50 into the core rule book, but $100 is stretching it a bit. Wait, didn't you see the link to Amazon for $62 and free shipping? Here it is again: www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Fantasy-Roleplay-Core-Set/dp/1589946960/ref=sr_1_1 Thanks for the link, Nezzir. Seeing this price, I decided to preorder. I live in Euroland, so the price for me will be 70$ (63 plus 7 shipping). That's a bit less than 50€, and just so that some people know what can be done in Europe with that money I'll give some examples: 1. Last weekend I went with my wife and a friend to see UP in 3D (very nice movie, btw). Tickets were 11€ each, so adding 3 beers and some popcorn we spent, between the 3 of us, around 50€ (33€ cinema, 10€ beers, 6€ popcorn). 2. It is very difficult to find a nice restaurant where you'll pay less than 20€ per person to eat "à la carte", so if I want to impress my ex-girlfriend (now wife) I usually have to dish out at least 40€, with wine it will be at least 50€, and that for a normal restaurant... 3. I recently bought all episodes of Battlestar Galactica for a great price. They cost me around 50€ at a hefty discount (again from Amazon). That's around 50 hours of entertainment for me and my wife... probably the closest thing to the price/time relationship of WFRP3. And I could go on giving more examples, but don't want to bore people to death with petty economics... I don't think price is the issue here... The issue is some people feeling betrayed because FFG and GW don't go on with WFRP2... I feel it can be a reasonable feeling, but at some point most of them will pass the "outrage stage" and give the game a fair chance... for my playing group, it's playing time!... I'm starting with them in a couple weeks with an scenario using WFRP2 rules to start getting in the mood... If WFRP3 ends up being a failure, we can always go back to WFRP2.

The facts The previous version of this game, WFRP2, was the first version of the mechanics on which DH and RT were based. This game, WFRP3, comes with newer mechanics, although the soul of WFRP mechanics, that is, the career system (with skills and talents) seems to remain. My opinion At the moment, I have liked most previews I've seen in the diary although there are a couple things I will houserule (personal taste). I think FFG is striving to use mechanics that allow to play gritty Warhammer campaigns, as it has been with WFRP2 and as it should be. The mechanics they have introduced solve a couple problems WFRP2 had and seem elegant. Also, because this game is a new edition of a very active game, WFRP2, you'll see many "hater" posts out there from people that feel betrayed because GW and FFG will discontinue WFRP2 (remember FFG has a license to publish Warhammer material, but GW is the owner of Warhammer so I don't know exactly how much freedom FFG has on marketing, new rules, etc.). Game is being presold already at Amazon for 63$ (in amazon.com search Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Core Set) so I guess the price in retail stores won't be much higher than that... I find it a very reasonable price for the amount of stuff you'll get, so I have already preordered it a copy for myself and will probably buy one for my gaming club (I'll have to discuss this with the club's committee, though).

@GreyLord Well, I would say that, if you are already playing a regular campaign with WFRP2 it feels normal to avoid getting into WFRP3, at least until you finish the actual campaign and have more time to decide what to do, so what you are saying does not surprise me. I think FFG should have waited some more months, even a couple years without publishing any WFRP2 material for people to start craving for more WFRP before announcing WFRP3. That would have made WFRP2 fans less antagonistic against this new edition... But, the truth is that they have decided to publish it now... Marketing-wise maybe it was not the best strategy but the ideas they have been putting forward in the designer diaries look groundbreaking and pretty good in my opinion, and once some of the fans pass the "I feel betrayed" mental stage (for some it will take weeks, for others probably the eternity) and decide to give the game a fair chance, I'm pretty sure more and more will join WFRP3... My group is decided to try the game, so I have already preordered at Amazon, 63$ seems an excellent price.

Varnias Tybalt said: superklaus said: As I said. Prepainted are the future. I doubt it. While prepainted miniatures sure do sell well among the casual gamers demographic, prepaints are nowhere near competing with the lead, plastic and resin miniatures used in hobby painting and converting. Machine painted minis are just way to shoddy to have a chance of competing with the miniatures that painters paint themselves. If you don't believe these arguments, check at coolminiornot.com Would you seriously believe that the many members at that site would just stop buying unpainted miniatures because some company release decen prepaints? Not very likely... I agree with Varnias here... Painting miniatures is also an art, and there will always be people interested in them, the same as there are still people interested in paintings or manual cameras, even though taking good photographs with automatic cameras is so cheap and easy nowadays... The feeling is not the same, and that's what matters.

commoner said: Not to rehash, but the fact players don't buy anything is one reason the role-playing market is dying. It is easy to say roleplaying games have no market or to look at the facts that roughly 3 out of every four people in that market aren't spending any money on RPGS. This creates the illusion that RPGS are a dying breed. If you look, Wargame miniatures are on a steady increase. Why? Well, in order to play, everyone committed to the game has to buy product (in general...sure you can tell me about your friend so and so or how your specific group shares armies or whatever, but the fact is, in general, everybody buys tabletop games who plays them, everybody buys video games who play them, but that is not the case with RPGS. Which would you and your players like to see, a world without RPGS, or a world where everybody has to fork up some cash to play the games they enjoy so companies will still view them as profitable and continue to buy them?) I agree with your post, and I think this is also a reason why most RPG publishing companies only publish the core book of an RPG and little more. Still, there are a lot of RPGs out there, so maybe this fragmentation is another reason that adds to the illusion of RPG being a dying market... It's more about players not being able to find groups to play the RPG they like than lack of options.

DeathFromAbove said: commoner said: Price Point: 100 Bucks. Seriously, the three 4e cores come out to 104 dollars. Came on... the Gifted Set is $66 (or lower). www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Core-Rulebook-Gift/dp/0786950633/ref=sr_1_1 What we are talking about... Accept that WFRP 3rd is a bit expensive and cut on this one. Sometimes you make it too easy to refute your arguments. You are pointing to a collection of books that has been already available for almost one year, so it's normal you get them now for a discount... but the original price was 104$... Also, Wizards prints bigger editions than FFG for D&D (which is reasonable) so it is normal that at some point you get a discount. Now, if I remember well, I paid for my Tome of Corruption something like 25€, which is approximately 35$. I bought it from Amazon.de at a 15% discount more or less... Now try to find that book for less than 40$... I'm quite sure a similar thing will happen with WFRP3.

dvang said: Well, I guess it's just me. I'm "used to" having to pay $40-60 for a single rulebook, and boardgames/PC games/XBox games are closer to $50-$70 nowadays. So, near $100 for 3e, with all the stuff it includes, seems the right price. Granted, if you don't want to use most of the stuff in the box, then you probably won't get as great a value for your money. It isn't worth it for your needs. I'm just pointing out that the price is justified by the contents. If you are going to use (or attempt to use) the tools they give you, then it seems well worth it. What about at a $62 price, like Amazon is posting? Is that more worthwhile for you? I'm sure you can find some other places selling it near as cheap as Amazon too. If those are still too high, then you might want to wait until people parcel it out on Ebay and just buy the pieces you want, although expect the total cost to come close to what you'd pay for the entire box. Regardless, it has no impact on how good a game 3e will be, nor whether of not the list price is reasonable for what it provides. To me, the price seems also right, considering all that comes in the box and, considering this is going to be a game with groundbreaking mechanics I'm sure the box will be sold for much more in 2-3 years, when it's out of print... I'm quite sure it will become a collector's item, just like Tome of Corruption, Children of the Horned Rat or Thousand Thrones (check their prices in the Internet and you'll know what I mean)... even the core WFRP2 book is sold for a good price nowadays...

NezziR said: Another idea would be a plastic card holder sheet. It's an 8x11 sheet of plastic with 9 pockets in it to hold cards. I use them for my most rare CCG cards. That, a hole punch, and a paper folder (the ones with the bendy metal tabs for holding 3 hole punch papers) would make a nice character folio without the need for packing and unpacking all the small pieces every time you play. As a player I always use a folder with A4 plastic sleeves where I keep adding my character's stuff, equipment, campaign story, etc. When the session is finished it's very simple to pack it. And your proposal to make fan character sheets that appeals to people not wanting to use the cards is very interesting... In my second RtL campaign my players designed a similar thing (but for Descent) so that we did not need to use the cards in the game (which I am using in my first campaign). Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your post... Instead of just critizising the game, it's much more positive to offer ideas that give good alternatives to those people that don't like a specific mechanics.