So I am a little unsure about how the combat works in this rpg.

I assumed that it would fall under the Opposed Test rules on pg 20. The PC would roll Dex the zombie would roll Vit (and visa versa) and who ever got the most success would win.

My questions comes from the Attacking section on pg 36. In the example is dosn't seem that the zombie rolls his Vit for defense and is "auto hit" because of the successful roll of the PC.

There is no example (that I can find) of a Zombie attacking a PC.

I thought that maybe the zombies don't actualy roll, you just have the PC roll Vit to see if they "defend" (kinda like the old Dragon Lance SAGA system), but the Zombies have +Positive features and Weapons that seem to require them to roll their attacks.

If I had to guess I would say it is just an over sight in the book and you should use the Opposed Test rules and have both parties roll their Dex and Vit respectivly.

Thanks!

There is an example of combat on page 36.

You you apply positive and negative dice as circumstances determine as per a normal test. It is not an opposed test.

There is an example of combat on page 36.

You you apply positive and negative dice as circumstances determine as per a normal test. It is not an opposed test.

I didn't say there was no example of combat, I said there was not example of combat where a zombie attacks a PC.

I can't imagin a rpg where you are attacked and there is no defensive stat and/or roll. A PC is not just gonna stand there and see if the zombie mangages to hit him or not.

on pg 20 it says "Opposed tests occur when the task you are trying to perform is directly opposed by another character -" that seems to describe combat to me lol.

If combat is not sappose to be an opposed test than I think I will have my players roll their Vit to see if they avoid the Zombie attack and I will just add the zombies +postive features as neg dice to the players roll. At least than there is a roll and the action is focused on the player.

How has combat been working for you guys?

Thanks!

Ah I see.

Your defense are your features, equipment, surroundings and such. For instance, maybe your character is a brawler swinging a chair while dodging behind a table. There's four negative dice on the zombie's roll. Maybe it is a shambling zombie and that adds another negative die.

Keeping it simple and to one roll is the intent. You could run it as opposed rolls if you want. You could also put all the rolling in the player's laps too as you suggested. Some players enjoy doing all the rolling with the gm doing only some.

Ah I see.

Your defense are your features, equipment, surroundings and such. For instance, maybe your character is a brawler swinging a chair while dodging behind a table. There's four negative dice on the zombie's roll. Maybe it is a shambling zombie and that adds another negative die.

Keeping it simple and to one roll is the intent. You could run it as opposed rolls if you want. You could also put all the rolling in the player's laps too as you suggested. Some players enjoy doing all the rolling with the gm doing only some.

I can see that working, but I wouldn't have come up with that on my own. Under Setp 2: Assemle the dice pool it list four sources of negitive dice.

Task Danger and Difficulty

Negative Featrues

Traumans, and

Situational Hindrances

If they intended for us to use the positive features of a character to add negitive dice to a pool I would think that they would have said that, but as I said I am a bit confused as to how it is sappose to work lol.

Also having one stat in each colum specfificaly for offense and one for defense makes me think you are sappose to roll your defesive stat when defending. When else would you use Vit defensivly?

I would realy like to know how different people have interpreted this and how it is working out in your games!

Thanks for the replys!

When attacking, You assemble your dice pool, roll and resolve it. any successes equal to or lower than your stat you used add one damage (Stress) to your weapon.

Any damage (Stress) you do to the zombie counts as damage. You can edit the HP of the zombies as you see fit but the book specifies that Non important NPC's should only have 1 bar of stress for health, without the option for cheating death. And All creatures, monsters and humans are considered NPC's

Same thing goes for Zombies. For example, the Zombie on Page 81 . I use it's 2 positive features (Horrifying) and (Unyielding) as it's base, then add negative dice if the circumstance call for it. One scenario I used was a zombie goes to bite a survivor on some stair higher than it. it gets a negative dice due to the disadvantage.

So when it's the zombies turn (if he is still alive) he gathers his dice pool, rolls and resolves it.

I will say that more examples of combat tests would have been appreciated by many people for sure. It is a rather simple system of creating dice pools. It has similarities to the Cortex system that the Marvel game and the latest Firefly game uses.

I just thought of something, because having opposed test on both attack and defense can cause damage on both sides regardless of who actually gets more success zombies rolling for auto-hits that still damage them and vice versa is viable but somehow weird to me because of auto-hits.

How about this: a PC rolls on attack with melee or range with standard 2 Negative dices or so depending on the situation, he might take stress as his baseball bat returns part of the strength of the swing, then defends from the zombie with a Vitality test, the negative dices being his potential damage, say up to 3 dices for the 1 dex and 2 + features of the "no room in hell" zombie, if he succeed he takes the uncancelled -D6 with one less damage for each success, granting the player the feeling his defense is in his hands and he can reduce damage with good rolls and if he fails, even if he cancels all the -D6, you can narrate him falling prone or being shoved by the zombie, meaning he'll have to defend against more -D6 next round if he can't get away or a friend helps him free.

This would create a sort of "wrestling" with zombies, encourage teamwork and give sense to damage being deal on both attack and defense.

What do you guys think?

I just thought of something, because having opposed test on both attack and defense can cause damage on both sides regardless of who actually gets more success zombies rolling for auto-hits that still damage them and vice versa is viable but somehow weird to me because of auto-hits.

How about this: a PC rolls on attack with melee or range with standard 2 Negative dices or so depending on the situation, he might take stress as his baseball bat returns part of the strength of the swing, then defends from the zombie with a Vitality test, the negative dices being his potential damage, say up to 3 dices for the 1 dex and 2 + features of the "no room in hell" zombie, if he succeed he takes the uncancelled -D6 with one less damage for each success, granting the player the feeling his defense is in his hands and he can reduce damage with good rolls and if he fails, even if he cancels all the -D6, you can narrate him falling prone or being shoved by the zombie, meaning he'll have to defend against more -D6 next round if he can't get away or a friend helps him free.

This would create a sort of "wrestling" with zombies, encourage teamwork and give sense to damage being deal on both attack and defense.

What do you guys think?

^^ I like this idea, but depending on the group it could work better or be worse. It also sounds that it would keep a better flow than turn by turn, however might get confusing and hard to keep track of.

I can give you an example of something I have done. If it's the PC's turn He can run up to the zombie and strike him. Remember each initiative round happens simultaneously even if it takes a great duration to complete. if you are unable to kill the zombie and your friend is next, he could help finish the zombie off for you.

However when it's the zombies turn, if he moves next to you and goes for a bite (weather it hits or fails) you now are now trying to hold the zombie back. when it's your next turn you have to use a move action to try to push him off of you. if you succeed you can follow up with an attack, with or without penalty. Also if your turn is not for a while you can shout to your fellow survivors to try to pull the zombie away from you on their turn.

I'll have to keep this idea in mind for my group and see what they think, but it would totally be up to them. And thank you for the idea.

I haven't gotten to the scenario part of the book yet, so my question may be moot. However, in most zombie lore, being bitten/scratch means you are contaminated. How do you deal with this? Is a zombie succeeding a combat check and giving stress to a player a bite.scratch?

Thus, what I am getting at is that I really like the idea of a player rolling defense when being attacked (thus the GM would never rolls any combat check), adding all the positive/negative feature of the PC vs. positive/negative features of the zombie. Defense wouldnt have to be vitality always. If a PC is defending using logic (ex: side stepping near a fell power line to fry the zombie) it could work too.

My goal would be to make gaining stress from a zombie attack rare. It's not the zombies that kill you, it's making an environmental mistake that then let the zombie get you.

Depends on the type of zombie. Some can infect you while others can not. There are special abilities which detail how when it happens.

Any damage (Stress) you do to the zombie counts as damage. You can edit the HP of the zombies as you see fit but the book specifies that Non important NPC's should only have 1 bar of stress for health, without the option for cheating death. And All creatures, monsters and humans are considered NPC's

I can't seem to find where it says they only have 1 bar of health? I see they follow a Stress track (9 boxes)