Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ynnen

Core Set Card Errata / Revision 5/7/10

54 posts in this topic

Fresnel said:

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fresnel said:

Good for you - and your house rules :)

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gruntl said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The desciption of Beastmen in ToA p50 states:

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

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

Wargor: A massive and terrible creature.

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

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

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gruntl said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gruntl said:

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

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bindlespin said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ffgfan said:

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mcv said:

Fresnel said:

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuntie said:

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

Yes you can. There are two ways.

1) Use a fast weapon. A single boon can be used to reduce the recharge by one (to one).

2) Using the optional rule from the GM Toolkit to use a manoeuvre to prepare . This reduces the recharge by one (to one).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuntie said:

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

Also, there has been an errata card / a correction for the Double Strike action: it now also has a 2 recharge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ValiantOne said:

ffgfan said:

 

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

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

 

 

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

Ok, so when will we get them? This is a good question to Jay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or the modifications for Double Strike could have been worded more simply without difference where it says : "Determine normal damage and apply the target’s Toughness and Soak separately for each weapon."

What's the point of having Soak and Tou applied separatly?

Example :

 

I have a two weapons, one has DR 5 and the other DR 4. I have Str of 4. I attack an ennemy with Soak 3 and Tou 4.

 - The way the card is worded : I do 5+4 (9) and 4+4 (8) with both weapon respectively. Now, I apply soak and Tou separatly. My 8 damage against Tou 4 does 4 damage. My 9 damage against Soak 3 does 6. Total : 10 damage.

- More simply : I do 5+4 with primary weapon and 4+4 with second for a total of 17 damage. The ennemy has Soak 3 an Tou 4, so soak a total of 7 damage.
17 - 7 = 10. Same fringgin' thing.

Am I not getting something here?

 

EDIT : I do know the only way it could make a difference is when opposing soak/tou who are higher than your damage since you do minimum 1 damage. So instead of doing 17 -17 soak = 1 minimum damage, you do : 9-9=1 + 8-8=1, minimum 2 damage. Still, i could have been worded : you do minimum 2 damage if the ennemy soaks all your damage. or smething like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Applying Toughness and Soak separately means you apply (Toughness + Soak) to the first weapon (DR + St) and then apply (Toughness + Soak) to the second weapon (DR + St). I guess it's worded like that to make a clear distinction from the old card where the first and second weapons were added together before subtracting a single (Toughness + Soak).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silverwave said:

Example :

 

I have a two weapons, one has DR 5 and the other DR 4. I have Str of 4. I attack an ennemy with Soak 3 and Tou 4.

 - The way the card is worded : I do 5+4 (9) and 4+4 (8) with both weapon respectively. Now, I apply soak and Tou separatly. My 8 damage against Tou 4 does 4 damage. My 9 damage against Soak 3 does 6. Total : 10 damage.

- More simply : I do 5+4 with primary weapon and 4+4 with second for a total of 17 damage. The ennemy has Soak 3 an Tou 4, so soak a total of 7 damage.
17 - 7 = 10. Same fringgin' thing.

First Weapon Damage Potential: 4 +5 = 9

Second Weapon Damage Potential: 4 + 4 = 8

Damage Reduction: 3 + 4 = 7

First Weapon Damage: 9 - 7 = 2

Second Weapon Damage: 8 - 7 = 1

Total Wounds Caused: 3

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As monkey and fresnel said ...  more specific example

Old way (together):

Weapon 1: 5+4 = 9

Weapon 2: 4+4 = 8

Total 17 Wounds

To + Soak = 7

17 - 7 = 10 Wounds.

10 Wounds Total

 

New Way (separate):

Weapon 1: 5+4 = 9.

To + Soak = 7

9 - 7 = 2 wounds from weapon 1

Weapon 2: 4+4 = 8

To + soak = 7

8 - 7 = 1 wound from weapon 1

2+1 = 3 Wounds Total

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fresnel said:

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

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

 

Doesn't fast only help if you miss? This seems unlikely for someone using Trollfeller Strike, since only one person can have this card using RAW. Most groups would give it to someone that isn't going to miss very often. Of course perhaps you are playing with a house rule that allows fast to work for all attacks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

youper said:

Doesn't fast only help if you miss? This seems unlikely for someone using Trollfeller Strike, since only one person can have this card using RAW. Most groups would give it to someone that isn't going to miss very often. Of course perhaps you are playing with a house rule that allows fast to work for all attacks.

 

No. From the FAQ:

"The Fast item quality printed in the rulebook is incorrect. No recharge tokens are acquired if the action misses. The following is the correct description:

These weapons are generally easy to wield and agile. Attacks made with weapons with the fast quality gain: 
<boon> Place one fewer recharge token on this action"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0