NezziR said: P.S. For the record, there are things I wish had been... fleshed out more *snip* After reading a bit more, and doing some cross system research, I may have jumped the gun on that - disregard.

Gah! as in, 'I need to shut up before I spoil all the cool surprises'. The artwork is typical Warhammer art - you want to look at it till your eyes bleed There a couple of pictures I've book marked and keep flipping back too over and over.

It's killing me not to be able to talk about this. The Injury, Death, and Healing rules are superb (grim and gritty indeed). I can't believe so much information is crammed into so little space, it's very well formatted. The artwork is... Gah. *NezziR shuts up* No web cam here, but I will take plenty of pictures and get a write up in the new forum as quickly as I can. P.S. For the record, there are things I wish had been... fleshed out more, but that's what expansions are for. My overall impression is extremely positive.

It's not his either. There's some wiggle room there Though I must say, for not being your native languages, you both speak very effective English.

Dude... settle down. He was joking.

Since we don't have a cool font (yet) and may want to write in formats that don't support picture imports, i thought it would be helpful to standardize a notation for the various dice so that scenario writers could easily reference them. Hence forth, this will be known as 'Nez Notation' The symbol includes the basic shape of the dice as well as a letter to indicate the color for quick 'at a glance' reading: [W] = White, 6 sided fortune dice = Black, 6 sided Misfortune dice (or [bK]) [Y] = Yellow, 6 sided Expertise dice <P> = Purple, 8 sided Challenge Dice <B> = Blue, 8 sided Characteristic Dice (or <BU>) (G) = Green, 10 sided Conservative Dice ® = Red, 10 sided Reckless Dice [N], <N>, and (N) for blanks. 'N' stands for 'Nothing'. I use that rather than 'B' for 'Blank' so as not to conflict with Blue and Black. This is just an alternate way of saying, for example, {N} (the blank face of a negative die) [0], <0>, or (0) are 'no dice', or in the case of (0) could also mean you dropped the soap in the shower. For example: 'A Simple Challenge is <0>' For the symbols { } are negative effects and * * are positive and neutral effects: {C} = Challenge {B} = Bane {S} = Chaos Star {D} = Delay {E} = Exertion {N} = Nothing (Blank) -and- *S* = Success *R* = Righteous Success *N* = Nothing (Blank) *B* = Boon *C* = Comet Multiples could be notated together. For example, 3 hammers (or 'successes') would be written *SSS*. For die faces with mixed/multiple symbols, you would have: Success *S* + Exertion {E} = *SE} Success + Delay = *SD} Success + Boon = *SB* Just a thought. Edit: It might be nice to add the color letter to all dice notation, even the nice colored ones, for the slightly color blind folk

Peacekeeper_b said: No demos, at least that I know of, are anywhere near my post in Germany. Though Im sure a military demo edition of any game would be appreciated (hey, Troll Lord Games did it with Castles and Crusades. Honestly for like a year any military member got like 25% percent off their books, 50% if you were deployed when you ordered them!) I would be glad to try and run it for you across a virtual table. Maybe with a voice chat program or something. There are no tables (I know of) that support the iconic dice, but we could improvise (I have some ideas). If you want to try, get with me after the demo and I'll take some pics for you and try and work something out. It will be an awkward task, but being a vet, I don't want to see our soldiers suffer

I'm holding it in my hands as we speak (...er... as I type). It's spread out in front of me. I've already punched the boards and separated the cards out into boxes I've been saving for them. My FLGS was even kind enough to promise me the promotional posters and other swag after the initial sales run. I have to say, the box is exactly how I imagined it from reading the diaries and speculation posts. Kudos to the FFG marketing team. The presentation of the game is beautiful and the components are top shelf, as expected. While I am still reading through the rules, I haven't had any huge surprises so far. The WFRP community did an excellent job of taking the information presented to them and extrapolating rules information. Out of respect for the FFG launch and the dev team, I will not be offering any spoilers or information beyond what is presented here until Jay puts up the green light. In fact, I think I'll back up from my keyboard to avoid temptation. Suffice to say, the game is beautiful and is published exactly as presented here. There will certainly be a slew of expansions for this game. I can't wait to see what's next. Did I say there were no surprises? Aight... There are a couple.

Well, that's not all of them. There's a lot of speculation in there. Not everything in that list is solid. Plus, we don't know how many of the 10 careers in the expansion will be advanced. It could also be that there will be an 'advanced career' supplement soon. This list is just what we (as a group) have seen, and what we think we have seen. For example, the Priest (1-3) and Wizard (1-3) are pure speculation. It could be that the advanced careers for all three are contained on one card (with a lot of options). We just don't know yet

Erik Bauer said: But if a gaming group is used to cinematic combat, then the "rolling time" issue might kick in, a degree of 10 seconds more for each combat action could break the mood and cinematic flow a GM is effortly creating. In that case, having to do several separate rolls instead of a unique one helps keeping the pacing: 10 seconds? I have at least 2 players that can't find 2d10 when it's their turn in less than 10 seconds. I shall have a talk with them. They are doing it wrong! Edit: I even have a small hour glass for one of my players. If he takes to long, we flip it. The timer shares his name. - Player: Rolls to hit/GM rolls to parry for the NPC - GM: Describes the hit action - Meanwhile the player rolls to hit - GM: Describes the caused wounds. I think you are forgetting some steps, but running with that, in v3 it's: - Player assembles his pool - GM assigns a difficulty - GM flips wound cards

phobiandarkmoon said: NezziR said: The points you are making are solid, but I think it's a matter of perception. My point is, 'What's the hurry'? RPG games are composed of a series of interlocking story pieces that are separated by rolls that form what is basically a complex decision tree. The dice rolls are the deciders (much like Bush). The dice rolls are the chaos in the order of the story. They keep things uncertain, even for the GMs (which is what makes being a GM worth all the time and preparation). The results of rolls are the tension builders in games. So, why rush it? OK, but if every roll in combat takes ages then that's a problem - you run into the shadowrun problem of a 10-minute in-game-time combat taking 4 hours to resolve if it's got enough partipants. I have that problem now. In our WFRP2 campaign, and now again in our DH campaign, it's rare that any combat doesn't take up the entire night (4 hours for us). A few games ago, we had 4 players (and an NPC scout) vs. a patrol of 9 Orcs and an Orc Nob (they are fighting their way through a battle zone to get to a recorder that has vital information to their mission). We lead up to the battle and placed the figures on the table the previous week. The next week, when the battle started, it took all night. It spilled over into the next week. They looted the bodies just as the session ended. 15 figures on the board - 8 hours total. My players have a Rhino that they sometimes deploy from their dropship. When it is deployed, you can figure on it taking even longer as they decide how to move it around, use it for cover, and fire its weapons. Combats take a long time. I can't see V3 taking significantly longer. But, if it does, I'll try and roll with it The demo is coming up. They are saying it will take 1-1.5 hours. You can figure there will be at least one combat in there. Since the box is balanced for a GM and 3 players, you can figure there will likely be the players and an similar number of opponents (to properly demonstrate the system). If you can get 6+ participants through a combat, with a new system, and still have time for intro and wrap-up, in an hour and a half, I'd say there's no 'speed' issues. We will have the answer soon

No, I zoomed in on that - it's an advanced career. Here's the current list (along with speculations): Basic Careers: •Agent •Agitator •Barber-Surgeon •Boatman •Burgher •Coachman •Commoner •Dilettante •Gambler •Hunter •Initiate Priest •Mercenary •Roadwarden •Scout •Smuggler •Soldier •Student •Thief •Thug •Trollslayer •Watchman •Zelot Advanced Careers: •Acolyte •Envoy •Giant Slayer •Priest 1-3 (?) •Wizards 1-3 (?) •Witch Hunter •Wood Elf Waywacher Adventurer's Toolkit Supplement •Dockhand •Dwarf Ironbreaker •High Elf Swordmaster •Ratchatcher •Wood Elf Wardancer Party Sheets: •Gang of Thugs •Intrepid Explorers •Servants of Justice •Swords for Hire Edit: Didn't I see 'Spy' in there somewhere?

commoner said: Right, I'm familiar with the rhetoric about Ulric's Fury from other posts about the dice. If you have ever played a game with dice pools, you'd know, they are slower than simple roll below. You have to not only count the dice up, you have to count them down. Grab two percentile dice and throw them (or even easier, roll 1d20) and see if it's equal or below target number is a heck of a lot faster. Warhammer adds additional complexity by having to not count six or so of the same dice, but a number of dice from different ranges. Sure, that's not huge, but it is still slower than grabbing 5d10. You now have to count out fixed sets of : Characteristic dice, skill dice, talent modification dice, conservative/reckless dice, additional fortune dice, additional misfortune dice, and challenge dice. The points you are making are solid, but I think it's a matter of perception. My point is, 'What's the hurry'? RPG games are composed of a series of interlocking story pieces that are separated by rolls that form what is basically a complex decision tree. The dice rolls are the deciders (much like Bush). The dice rolls are the chaos in the order of the story. They keep things uncertain, even for the GMs (which is what makes being a GM worth all the time and preparation). The results of rolls are the tension builders in games. So, why rush it? Instead of thinking, 'let's get these rolls over and get to the next roll', design your encounters where there are fewer rolls, but they mean more. I guess it's just how you look at it. Edit: That was a long way to go just so I could use that 'decider' line...

Checkout the Combat 103 diary for a complete example of combat javascript:void(0);/*1257728517414*/ The other two diaries (101 and 102) deal with turn structure and initiative. As far as conversion, the systems are very different. I don't think it would be any more difficult than converting any scenario from one system to another, and maybe easier since the storyline concepts don't need to change (only the stats and the challenge concepts). I've been working on converting a few of my scenarios over to V3. I've had to stop, since there's a lot I don't know about the rules yet, but what I've found is the scenario actually seems a bit more fun. For example: In my scenario 'Chance Encounter' the players meet a Dwarf named Chance deep in his cups. In the V2 version, the players (and Chance) had to make a series of toughness tests as they tried to ply Chance with beer to get him to talk about the treasure he's been mumbling about. It's a standard challenge, fail too many times and he (or they) pass out. The negative modifiers for drinking add up as the contest continues. This is a fun challenge. I've used it a few times in my V2 games with great success. Everyone has a great time. In V3 I juiced it up a bit. I plan to build a "T" shaped track, out on the table where the players can see it. The horizontal track is 8 pieces long with 3 dividers and represents the players progress in talking to Chance. There are social tests (and toughness tests) along the way. Successes move the counter across the track. When the dividers are reached there is boxed text as Chance advances the story. The vertical track represents Chances drunkenness. Failures move the token down on the vertical track. When spacers are reached, there are events like projectile vomiting or Chance getting up on the table to sing and drawing attention to the party, and finally a drunken coma. The players can help their chances on the horizontal debate track by buying Chance beer, but it hurts their chances on the (smaller) vertical drunk track. This is not a pass/fail test. The game continues no matter what the results are, it just continues in different directions (depending on how much information the players get out of Chance). I have a similar challenge for the players searching for a room during the festival the players find themselves embroiled in. It went from a few simple tests to an elaborate encounter with lots of fun events! This challenge involves a horizontal track with a vertical track going down at the end of the track. Successes move the counter across the horizontal track, failures move the token up the vertical track at the end. Which ever reaches the end token first determines the outcome. I think the addition of this challenge format is the biggest change when converting scenarios. Everything is is just stat blocks. Of course you could just stick with pass/fail single roll challenges (like most in challenges in typical scenarios), but where's the fun in that? So, no, it's not impossible, and in my opinion, quite the opposite. I had a blast designing the encounters. They went from 'roll offs' to fun mini-games. The biggest challenge is not putting too many of them in the scenario Edit: Oh, and welcome. Hope you like the new system.

Peacekeeper_b said: And my final thought is the notion that the 2E system doesnt work or is not a playable as this new game and that the mechanicshad to be changed to save the game or make it profitable. That is a slap in the face to everyone who worked on Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader as they are 80% the same rules set. Did I miss something somewhere? I don't recall anyone from FFG saying that 2E didn't work and was unplayable or that the reason for the mechanics change was to make it more profitable. I also think, if I'm not mistaken, that DH and RT are going to carry on, business as usual. I'm not seeing a lot of slapping here (though that would make a great video, particularly if there were fish, animal bladders, or other moist floppy things involved). I also don't see anything wrong with trying to attract a larger crowd. As much as I like D&D, I think players are being cheated a little in that they are missing out on the phenomenal atmosphere of Warhammer. I hope you're right and that it wins lots of awards and it pulls lots of new player from other games so that they can play in the Warhammer world. I've spent my entire RPG career recruiting new players and telling them how great Warhammer is. I have a lot of stories to tell. I can't stop now

Holy Sigmar said: I was turned-off by this film as well. schoon said: Well, very slick and professionally done, and also clearly crafted to allay some of the fears expressed on these forums and elsewhere since the start of the design diaries. Schoon has expressed the addressing of fears as a positive. However, for me the addressing of fears was a sign of weakness which is a turn-off. I'll attempt to explain: FFG have chosen to throw away 23 years of successful gaming and go with an entirely different system. That is a very bold move. I think that FFG thought the old players would buy any WFRP product and I think that FFG felt the use of Boardgame mechanics would attract their boardgame fans along with some D&D fans. As a result I think FFG were very confident that WFRPv3 would do well. However, over the last couple of months WFRPv3 has been subject to a great deal of negativity and criticism from both old players and other roleplayers. As I said I felt that FFG were initially very confident, but recently I have felt that confidence begin to erode, in one of the designer diaries Jay Little accredited a design concept to another designer, the tone of the statement made me feel more like Jay was blaming his colleague than praising him. The tone of this film was even worse, it was almost apologetic. I think that FFG know that they have upset a large number of the old WFRP fans and I think they know that the wider RPG community has not embraced WFRPv3 as the new age of gaming. The feeling that this film has left me with is that FFG have lost faith in their own game. So if FFG have no confidence in their work, why should I have any confidence in their work? I'm sorry. I'm just not seeing 'apologetic' in this video. I even went back and watched it again (thinking I may have missed that tone). What I see, and I realize, just like your statement, it's just opinion, is that they realize there are some faulty (and in some cases false) perceptions about this product and they are trying clear things up and reassure their core market that they had the right spirit in mind when they designed the game. That it is indeed an RPG. That there are some new concepts here that they hope will change the way players and GMs perceive RPG systems. They wrapped up the video by stating one of the things I've said all along, that the story is most important and that they are trying to provide tools that help players and GMs tell the best story they can. If they can pull this off, if they can help GMs tell better stories, then I ask - where's the foul? The video tries to cram their entire conceptualized product into just under 12 minutes. They are trying to hit all the highlights of their new offering and trying to help people to understand their intentions and design philosophies. In the end it sounds like they are saying, "We put a lot of thought into this. We think it's fun. We hope you do too." I think that is the correct message for this point in their marketing campaign. I, for one, wish them the best. I want to see lots of new Warhammer product that I can play with along with my buds each week. The more Warhammer there is, the happier I am. I really don't want to go back to the dark drought. Long live Warhammer P.S. and that credit thing. Were you talking about him mentioning Owen Reece? Sounded to me like Mr. Reece is a GW rep, perhaps overseeing the project (from a licensing point of view). I think that was put there to demonstrate that GW was aware of the state of the project and had approved it. I guess you can interpret things any way you want. It really depends on how you listen and what you want to hear. That goes for me as much as anyone

ragnar63 said: Until I get the rules I do not know if this is right, but I would not let a party pick a party sheet until the first adventure is over. Even if you are playing with a regular group, you will not know how their new characters under the new rules, wll mesh together. They may not even have any background history figured out for their character, until the first adventure is over. Also a group of new characters meeting for the first time will not know each others abilities and talents, so should not benefit from the party sheet. This could also apply to initiative order, so that the party members have to go in the dice order for initiative, until they learn about each other and pick a party sheet. This is how I was planning on handling it, waiting until after (at least) the first adventure.

Emirikol said: Great link. I'm converting it to FORM-FILLABLE as we speak. Thanks, Jay H Oh wow... I can't thank you enough. A fillable character sheet is one of the things I've wanted the most.

I'll be watching this over and over trying to digest all the new cards and information. It's information overload right now. Thanks for the great video! Everything looks so shiny

Erik Bauer said: Character sheets... they come with already drawn portraits of the characters. I've seen a Fire Wizard one. What if one wish to play a Jade Sorceress? Are there THAT many character sheets to cover every career/subcareer possibilities? I'm telling this because having the wrong picture on your character sheets can be very distracting. Oh yes, I can do my own character sheets... but then, why the hell do I have to pay for them?!? FYI - the character sheets with the pictures on them are like entries in a book, not actual character sheets. You use them when you create your character and when you level, but otherwise you can set them by your written character sheet (if you chose). The actual character sheets are here: javascript:void(0);/*1257500417003*/

Amketch said: The critical chance from each weapon is based on boons not the comet results, so even unskilled characters can cause critical hits. Not as often or as easily as a trained character but I think this is they way it should be. "Luckily, the other symbol, Sigmar’s Comet, is a good omen. It allows Mellerion to trigger a specific effect from either the action card, or based on the skill used during the check. The Accurate Shot has a Sigmar’s Comet effect allowing Mellerion to inflict 2 extra damage for each stress he suffered before taking the shot. Since Mellerion suffered 2 stress, that grants 4 extra damage! Mellerion could also choose to trigger the longbow’s critical effect, and inflict critical damage. Finally, he has the option to use the Sigmar’s Comet as a success, which would let him trigger the three success line on the card. Weighing his options, he chooses to trigger the Sigmar’s Comet effect from the Accurate Shot card to inflict the extra damage." -also- "2) Weapon Critical Rating. Each weapon has a critical rating (sometimes abbreviated "CR"). The critical rating is how many boons are required to trigger a critical with that weapon. For example, a weapon with CR 3 will inflict a critical wound for three boons." So, yeah, it does look like weapon crit can be triggered by the comet as well. Edit: Interestingly though, it doesn't say that in the dice symbol reference sheet. The sheet says: "Sigmar’s Comet: Sigmar’s Comet has the potential to trigger powerful positive side effects. The active player may choose to have a Sigmar’s Comet result count as a success symbol or a boon symbol. Alternatively, a Sigmar’s Comet can trigger an effect denoted by a Sigmar’s Comet symbol." Maybe is says it somewhere else in the book and Jay included it in the example.

Terwox said: However, I think that sounds really cool! Does make me worry that people won't make it past the learning curve, but we'll all find out from the demo soon enough. (And please, if I'm wrong about resource management increasing with allies, please correct me, there are only so many examples and such, I am not a playtester.) I think this game, just like any other RPG (or video game for that matter) will have players starting with a small number of skills and abilities. As they level they will get more. This gives them time to learn to use each one. There may be a learning curve, but it appears to be assisted. ...and I just stated the obvious didn't I?

Erik Bauer said: Reguarding diary 103... I'm concerned about one thing: in the diary some the attention is attracted by the text on the fact that some die result showed how the arrow hit the beastmen due to the PC being heavily trained. While it seems at first a nice touch it raises a question in my mind: does a GM really need a die roll to tell the story for him? I'm glad you brought this up. I've been thinking about it a lot, particularly after this latest diary. I'm a pretty creative GM. I'm a firm believer that the 'devil is in the details'. It's my description of minutia that brings my players back to the table every week. Smells, sounds, perceptions, all these things help you paint a picture that pulls your players in. Now, interpreting the dice in WFRP3 is, I think, a helpful tool and not a hardened rule. Think of it as a 'reminder' in case you need one. In my campaigns that I've run for my current group over the last decade, I've amazed my players that I've been able to come up with a new and visceral description for each crit that results in a kill. It's different every time. Coming up with a new description thousands of times over the years... Well, let's just say I know how Matt Groening feels creating a new intro for the Simpsons each week. With the new symbolic dice I have some additional inspiration if I decide to elaborate on a particular combat or social roll. It's not something I need, but it's something I'll use. I must sound like an advertisement for WFRP3. I'm sorry, I'm just really inspired. I love new things.

"Looking at the requirements of his Accurate Shot action card, this ranged attack requires preparation, which is a different type of manoeuvre." I don't see this on the Accurate Shot card. Is it represented by a symbol?

dvang said: 1) Possibly, but we don't know how many Wound cards there are or exactly how or when criticals occur. It might be possible to just record wounds on paper and re-use wound cards should the occasion occur where you run out. This was the one argument he had that I thought was concerning, but you've come with a valid idea for it. If you had a large number of players and feared running out of wound cards, you could record them on a sheet of paper and then just pull wound cards as 'crits'. In other words, only pull a wound card if it is a crit, otherwise record it on paper. For that matter, you could check the crit, write it down, and return the card to the deck. I think the best way to look at card decks is that they are analogous to 'random charts'.