I know it's bit long, sorry!

@DeathFromAbove

1. This isn't necessary a good point. That depends on how the system use this "critical". BTW locations are gone, it seems.

When you take a wound you get a random wound card, which has a critical on one side. I expect, when you take a critical wound instead of placing it wound side up you place it critical side up. Criticals apparently have different effects and different degrees. Sounds good to me.

2. This is, I hope, based on the type of action. Even in v1 or v2 a fail isn't tied to dare results

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, I'm sorry. I do believe the nature of the boons (primarly) is indeed dependant on the action, as the few action cards I've seen have notations for Boons and Banes.

4. And? Sure I must look at the dice longer, since I must decrypt verious symbols.

So you look at it slightly longer? It doesn't seem that complicated to me. Separate out the different symbols, remove canceling symbols, see what the final results are. My point is that rather than the GM saying "you've got a -20% to your roll" and the player looks at their 40% stat and just says they've got a final 20% chance ... now the player sees he's got 2 characteristic dice and 1 skill die against 3 challenge dice and 2 misfortune dice. He can easily see how challenging the task is separate from circumstance modifiers, as well as seeing how much skill/characteristic dice apply in his favor. It's more information that the player can use to adjust his stance dice or spend Fortune dice, etc, or decide the task is too difficult, and so on.

5. Not true. That depends how you "read" the d100 roll. A near miss, a near success, etc

Actually, I don't think there is a rule in v1 nor v2 for a near miss or near success. Personally, I don't think any of my groups ever had it. I'm sure people have house ruled it without too much problem, though, like degrees of success in DH. Still, see points 2, 3, and 4 for examples on all the different things a v3 roll can provide compared to a straight d100.

6. Yes. In fact you have fewer races, fewer careers fewer stats. Also, if I wanted a point-buy system Hero System is much better.

Actually, it's the same number of races to start (4), with an additional one coming soon. So, you'll actually have more choices for race in v3. As for fewer careers ... perhaps there are less from core-book to core set. It's hard to know for certain at this point. Admit, though, that a fair number of the v2 careers were pretty humdrum and could easily have been left out without anyone noticing. There were a lot of careers that I never saw people play (for whatever reason).

7 & 8. This isn't necessarly a good thing. Perhaps this approach slow down game or is an unwanted/unused addition. Good old roleplay is there. No party ... sheet is needed.
Well, this is more a MMORPG/Board game mechanics. Why it's a good thing for an RPG? At will, At encounter, At Day... many of us strive to re-create a Warhammer reality. Suspension of disbilief with this types of mechanics is thrown out of the window. Not a good thing.

Well, I just expressed my opinion. Too often I have seen a group come together to start a campaign (or even just a session), but they have no focus or goal. Why are these people working together? The party sheet, decided on by all the players, gives them a focus/guide for how their characters interact. In addition, it allows PCs to help each other by playing actions on the party sheet instead of their individual sheet. You might not think it's that big a deal, but I find both those points very useful both as a player and a GM.

9. Even here. With/without miniatures isn't a issue for me. What I can't perceive as a good thing is battling tens of monsters that act (and feel) like one.

I can certainly see your point. It is up to the GM to decide when and if to use the henchmen rules, though. I like the fact that the rules are there, so as a GM I can use them if I want to send a swarm of rats/snotlings/etc at my players without needing to roll for each and every one of the 50+ of them, for example. Especially combined with the rules given for not using miniatures, the GM *can* still make the horde feel like separate individuals attacking and working together, rather than as a single entity.

10. As point above. In addition, If I wanted to portray large scale battles I can use other system.
The worst thing is that wading thorugh hordes of mutants, demons and the like isn't very Warhammer. Don't you think?

Not necesarily. The Warhammer Fantasy world is filled with large-scale battles. It's not inconceivable that the PCs could get involved in some, for whatever reasons. I recall from a published adventure one of my GMs ran where the city was beseiged by Skaven. We had quite a few rather pitched battles. The GM can also use henchmen representing both sides of a battle, for story purposes, to simulate the fate of the battle, while the PCs scuttle around trying to avoid it. Perhaps they need to do something before the battle ends, and rolling the sides as henchmen (or a couple groups) against each other could provide for a nice dynamic and random battle. Because these rules exist and can be used (whether or not they are), they provide good flexibility to the GM, and that is why I said I believe are an improvement over previous editions that didn't provide a GM with any way to deal with larger numbers.

(Broken into a second section so it doesn't run on with the previous response)

@Peacekeeper_b

1. Well, in my view Ulric's Fury is a form of critical, so yeah, you can do that in 2E as well.

Umm ... but Ulric's Fury is not really a critical. Criticals affect the PC in a way other than just Wounds. They do things like stun, or impair abilities such as movement, make them drop what they're holding, etc. That is what criticals in v1 and v2 are, and those could only happen when a PC went to 0 wounds, which always seemed kind of strange (despite or possibly because of the critical tables being much fun!).

2 & 3. Covered in various WFRP games (which IMNSHO includes 1E, 2E, DH and RT) by the notion of degrees of success and failure as well as your +/-30 or +/-60 test modifiers from situations and what not.

Sort of, but not exactly. Degrees of success/failure tell you how well you succeeded by, or how poorly you failed by. You get additional bonuses or penalties for more degrees. It doesn't allow for succeeding, but having some negative consequences...or for failing, but having some positive consequences.

4. And? Sure I must look at the dice longer, since I must decrypt verious symbols. Imagine having to roll 6 dice each time a action is taken, by anyone, and having to stop and interpret each dice and each roll. Yeah thats so much faster then saying "hmmm I needed a 40, I rolled a 20, thats 2 degrees of success!"

No doubt it will take a little longer to look at the dice, at least in the beginning. So you look at it slightly longer? It doesn't seem that complicated to me. Separate out the different symbols, remove canceling symbols, see what the final results are. My point is that rather than the GM saying "you've got a -20% to your roll" and the player looks at their 40% stat and just says they've got a final 20% chance ... now the player sees he's got 2 characteristic dice and 1 skill die against 3 challenge dice and 2 misfortune dice. He can easily see how challenging the task is separate from circumstance modifiers, as well as seeing how much skill/characteristic dice apply in his favor. It's more information that the player can use to adjust his stance dice or spend Fortune dice, etc, or decide the task is too difficult, and so on.

5. Not true. That depends how you "read" the d100 roll. A near miss, a near success, etc. (I concur)

See my answers to 2/3 and 4. At least to me, the roll provides a lot more information to both player and GM than the simple percentile dice, which is basically just Succeed (how much) and Fail (how much). A percentile roll doesn't give you successes with penalties or failures with bonuses, for example.

6. Something we have seen being capable of being added to WFRP game systems in DH and RT and with simple modifiers to the game (heck, RT includes a points buy optional system in it). Didnt need a complete rules rewrite (or ****).

Whether or not the rules should have been rewritten or not wasn't the topic. The topic/question was what was in the new rules that is better than v1/v2. This point buy system, IMO, is better than the random method from v1 and v2 for the reasons I stated.

7. Too meta gaming for me. Party cohesion should be a aspect of role playing and player intent, not sheers and charts and graphs.

Then don't use it. However, IMO it is a useful tool for groups of players to come to a common ground on how the party is intended to interact and what the party's general goals are. The fact that the rules have a tool to help with this is a plus and an advantage over v1 and v2. I have seen several parties thrown together, without a good reason for why the PCs are or continue to work together.

8. Elf needs food badly! Like this even worse then in card games, board games and video games. Again this is something that can be played out through role playing and standard actions instead of a card toss.

Possibly, but we don't have the full scoop on how this mechanism works. I think it could be a good thing, and its yet another tool provided.

9. Most RPGs include rules for running the game without miniatures.

No, not really. I've got a whole library of RPGs. Yes, they can be played without miniatures, but almost none have any formalized rules for handling combat without miniatures. Most merely have the GM stay in a 'storyteller' type mode and describe the combat, and calculate or make up in their head distances and ranges, etc. v3 offers rules for a happy medium between trying to do everything in your head, and having a table full of miniatures on a grid.

10. Actually, by the definitioin of WFRP versions (as stated before, DH, RT, 1E and 2E are all "versions" of WFRP) Henchmen rules do exist for DH. SO again, didnt need a complete rules rewrite.

First, I must disagree that WFRP versions include DH/RT. They share a similar ruleset, sure, but you can't play WFRP using the DH rulebook. We are talking v1 and v2 only as far as I am concerned, since it a discussion of playing an earlier version or getting the new version. And again, the question I answered was not whether the rules should have been rewritten. The question I responded to was what was in these new rules, compared to the older WFRP versions (v1 and v2) that was better/worth getting the new game.
Do I think the v3 rules needed to have been rewritten so completely? No, I think they could have made a good upgraded version rewriting only portions of the v2 rules. Still, I've kept an open mind and after seeing what they have done, I think v3 will be a good and enjoyable game to play. I think that all the physical tools and rules options/flexibility they give the GM & players are ultimately worth the $100, and I pointed out the material components plus a series of rules improvements (IMO) that support the response to the question. These are my opinions, certainly, and not everyone will like (obviously) all the changes to the game, nor agree with me.

macd21 said:

On groups:
I can run groups of 10-12 enemies and not have it turn into a grind fest, I guess the system works for me. I then have to ask why havnt you changed it to work for you, rather than battling with it? (curiosity rather than an allegation). A simple +5% or +10% per added member of a group could of worked in 2nd ed as a henchman rule if it was wanted.

I can see 3rd ed having a similare issue with a standard roll being about 7 dice, a group of 4 henchmen then becomes 11 dice, a group of 6 13 dice when is the dice pool too big? IF the group is only 2-3 individuals is it realy worth it making them henchmen?

On Swarms:
Actually goblins and bandits work as groups not swarms, there is a big difference, skaven I can see arguments for both sides, but typically id think they are groups not swarms.

On dice mechanics:
I'm like you I dont think the dice mechanics are difficuilt to work out, however I have been in games where players ask about the basics of the dice mechanics every session and sometimes multiple times a session, even in a simple compare system like 2nd ed.

On Opponents:
Small enemies always have a chance to hurt or even kill a character if the individual got lucky. They also chew through the active defences of a character, leaving them at the mercy of the GMs roll for futher attacks. While if a character is advanced enough to have plate and a TB of 4 they usualy have decent parry ability and dodge to avoid attacks of stronger foes. The dodge and parry may yet do the same to groups of henchman as we arent sure on the way combat fully works.

Mal Reynolds said:

And ONLY...in my book Fate points are a big difference, the one that clearly separate Adventurers from the average Joe. No I didn`t miss the point, but maybe he I quoted in the first place missed something important from his argument. Everyone can make vallid arguments if they choose to let important things out, and I thought he did let out something important called FATE. But maybe you react more to the tone of my post.
I admit I could have been nicer.

"I am no different from you Joe, its just that I can survive death 2-3 times more than you, no biggie, let`s hunt go hunting the skaven in the sewer"

The bolded comment does realy say how you see fate points, no offence but do your character's also say they have 45% strength?

A few simple questions to help clear it up (maybe):
1. Does the character (not player) see that they have more than one life?
2. Does the character see a "killing hit" result as they died and come back to life or a lucky break that they didnt get killed by that blow?
3. Does the character see the fortune point roll as: I failed but get a new attempt or I succeeded with my skill or I got lucky this time and succeeded in my atempt?

For me the answer to all 3 is the later, though all of them involve the use of the fortune/fate point mechanic of behalf of the character, the character is oblivious to the fate/fortune mechanic the player used.

While the player should be aware of the fortune point mechanic the character never should, because it is a function of the game to give the player some control over the mitigation of the bad luck occuring due to dice rolling.

I am also not forgetting FATE at all, any character in the game world may or may not believe they have some kind of fate, be it to be a lowly peasant or a rat catcher that becomes a great Knight, Champion, Explorer or whatever.

... Again I only mentioned that his argument where flawed since, the whole equation involving Fate points / fortune points where left out. Your whole argument about Fate points being " purely out of character mechanical reason.." Doesn`t mean anything in this context. Yes it has no logical way of explaining why some have fate points and others don`t. But as long as you have them for any reason, you are set apart from Average Joe. His argument would only be vallid if Fate points didn`t exist in the first place.

I fear that this discussion is slowly drifting over in realism vs storytelling. Real life is different from stories. And as such the game mechanics involving Fate points have no place in Realism. But in a good story I think Fate points is essential. Otherwise we would REALLY be Joe Average.

How does it being out of character make it any less reasonable an argument other than it conflicts with your own views. Just because a game gives the player a way to alter the situation for their character, doesnt make the character any different from the character's point of view .

Likewise the GM telling one player something their character knows and another player using that information as known by their character even though the original character never told the other player's character is seen as out of character knowledge and in general consensus for most RPG players is bad role-playing. Along with alot of discouraged GM comments over the course of my time reading warhammer forums when players use the fate points as a rationale for a character to do ridicliously stupid or deadly things.

On the henchmen bit:
This is directded at a number of comments on this factor.
I dont see the henchmen rule as being out of scope for a role-playing game, I see it as being out of scope for WFRP. Which is why I asked, why the designers of 3ed ed feel it was in the scope of WFRP, because with it means that they feel the scope of mass battles is also in the scope of WFRP.

Likewise for me the Why a rule was added or changed is far more important than it was and equally important as to what it does. This is also a big reason why I still follow the 3rd ed information even though at this stage I'm fairly sure I wont get into it.

Loswaith said:

I got around it by not putting my PCs up against mobs of pointless mooks. Adding modifiers doesn't get past the problem that you have to spend an hour hacking your way through them.

Loswaith said:

I don't see the dice pool as ever being too big, though over 15 dice can be slightly annoying. Still much more user friendly than rolling for each individual combatant repeatedly, especially since most of those rolls will be completely pointless. Miss-miss-hit-dodged-miss-miss-hit-not dodged-fail to penetrate armour+toughness...

Loswaith said:

Yes, but treating them as swarms mechanically (which is essentially what the henchmen rules do) may work better from a gameplay point of view.

Loswaith said:

Small enemies have a chance, but it's much smaller than you'd imagine. A group of goblins is far less likely to hurt a PC than a single opponent with two attacks, decent WS and S, especially because the PCs will probably be able to use terrain and positioning to limit the number of goblins than can attack them in one round.

dvang said:

But you can not deny that DH or RT is derived from WFRP 2E. And yes you can more or less run a session of WFRP with the Dark Heresy game rules, the basis is still there. You have tests based on characteristics, skills based on characteristics, the same overall T+AP soak and damage rules, similar crit systems. However most secondary attributes in WFRP have been turned into traits, talents and skills in DH/RT and many of the talents/skills have different names, but it is not impossible or even a stretch to run one or the other system with the others core mechanics.

And while I understand what you were responding to, the issue is still the same. How the new system handles rules compared to the old system and how it could have been written differently.

The driving argument I have heard about 3E is how it does things 1E or 2E were incapable of doing, and as I have showed many times, that is a personal opinion and on of more personal hopefulness then truth. Such as Criticals.

Ulric's Fury, no matter what someone else has stated, is a critical hit rule system for WFRP. By its very nature (and the nature of most RPGS) a critical hit is one that does more damage, and in WFRP 2E crits are done in two ways. First, extra damage via Ulric's Fury and second damage sustained once reduced to below or in excess of 0 wounds, which I must say Ulric's Fury will definately assists in. In fact, take the example of a standard PC hitting another standard PC and getting Ulrics Fury. For the sake of argument we will say "standard PC" is SB 3, TB 3, Wounds 10. Ulric's Fury happens on a roll of "10" so at that point the victim is already at 0 Wounds (for the math needed or impaired, 10+SB3=13 -TB3=10, 10 wounds - 10 damage is 0 wounds left), and result on the second Ulric's Fury damage roll (provided the WS roll hits) is treated as a critical of equal value, so if you roll a 5 it is a 5 crit.

Thus, by its very nature, Ulric's Fury is a dice mechanic to help gain criticals and thus, is itself a critical system.

Or Henchmen, which exist in the WFRP spin off system Dark Heresy, and since the systems are similar enough (TB, SB, Armour AP, WS et al) using this with WFRP is no problem.

Then there are the skills, talents, careers and spells on cards as well as actions. Well, there is no reason that WFRP 2E information couldnt have been released as such.

So, taking this to the enemies and adversaries of the OP, nothing presented here is new to WFRP. Specific traits, rules and attacks for monsters? Check. Quick use profiles? Check. Memorable artwork? Check.

So for me 3E becomes more of a departure from the system for departure sake and not for the games sake. 3E WFRP should have gone down a path more related to DH/RT then a hybrid of WEG DC Universe and Descent.

Now, to patch things up abit here, Im not saying the game system and mechanics for 3E wont work or are silly. They just are not what was needed. God bless FFG for using the capitalit society we live in and trying to turn a profit by selling a new system instead of trying to make money off a game we all already had, but you have to admit the truth to why we have a completely alien system for 3E.

Money.

macd21 said:

Ok I'll tell that to my group next time their characters get a fatal blow by the little guys but bearly break a swet on the big ones. Typically I'd say the groups of weaker creatures dealing lethal blows over the larger ones is quite significant, usualy because the player cant dodge/parry that attack because they were already used.

Ohh.. another thing your comment pointed out:
Now because they are treated as one creature in 3rd ed the player no longer gets the choice to use that terrain to keep numbers low and use tactics to gain the advantage. (though the rules may go into more detail that we arent aware of reguarding that)

Peacekeeper_b said:

The driving argument about 3E over 1E or 2E is that yes, there are some things that it can do that the earlier editions were incapable of doing, but also (and far more importantly) 3E does everything that 1 or 2 did except better. Or at least that is the intention. You may believe that they failed in doing it better, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't worth trying.

Peacekeeper_b said:

No, it is not. When someone speaks of a critical hit in WFRP he isn't talking about a hit that does unusually large amounts of damage, but about the mechanics by which a character takes injuries that actually impact his performance in play - like broken bones, blood in the eyes, head flying off 2D6 feet in a random direction... When someone compares critical hits in v2 and v3, Ulric's fury should not be brought into the conversation.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Correct. The various changes brought about in v3 could simply have been applied to v2. And what would the result have been? WFRP v3. What we are being given. You may dislike some of the changes, but that is a subjective preference.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Why? Because you want to keep your D100? Why should the game designers limit their options by insisting on keeping elements of the old system, when they can accomplish more otherwise?

Sorry, kind of long again!

@Loswaith:

On groups:
I can run groups of 10-12 enemies and not have it turn into a grind fest, I guess the system works for me. I then have to ask why havnt you changed it to work for you, rather than battling with it? (curiosity rather than an allegation). A simple +5% or +10% per added member of a group could of worked in 2nd ed as a henchman rule if it was wanted.

Umm, I doubt just adding a +% would have reasonably approximated the additional enemies. I also think we're talking, typically, about more than 10-12. We're probably talking situations where 20+ generic enemies are participating. Personally, I've got 2 responses to this. 1) It doesn't happen often enough to be game breaking, but it is enough to bog down that combat longer than it need to. 2) It's not my job to make rules. A few simple house rules for what we perceive as game-breaking is no big deal. If I have to sit down and work out a new system to handle multiple enemies (and no, just adding a percentage is not acceptable, since it doesnt deal with things like Wounds, etc) then it gets into the realm of why even use anything in the rulebook, I should just make my own. Not to mention needing to playtest the method to make sure it works properly, etc. See my first point, this wasn't a game breaker so didn't require writing up a house rule, it was just annoying. We'd just grit our teeth and plod through it when it happened. Thus, v3, which provides rules to cover this, is superior because I don't have to write something and balance it.

I can see 3rd ed having a similare issue with a standard roll being about 7 dice, a group of 4 henchmen then becomes 11 dice, a group of 6 13 dice when is the dice pool too big? IF the group is only 2-3 individuals is it realy worth it making them henchmen?

Or ... a standard roll could be split into 2 consecutive rolls. Player rolls his positive (characteristics/stance+skill+fortune) while the GM rolls the negative (challenge+misfortune), or even just the player/GM dividing it into two rolls and rolling both, which can make individual rolls more manageable if they seem overly large. Using your mention of a standard roll being about 7 dice ... Consider a henchmen group of 6 enemies. Instead of 6x7=42 dice being rolled (individually attacking) the henchmen group rolls 7+5=12 dice. Quite a difference in the amount of rolling that needs to be done.

On Swarms:
Actually goblins and bandits work as groups not swarms, there is a big difference, skaven I can see arguments for both sides, but typically id think they are groups not swarms.

Henchmen are not limited to swarms, they can apply to groups of humanoid enemies, such as bandits perhaps. There is nothing wrong with having a group of fresh-faced recruit bandits simulated by the henchmen rules. Of course, there is nothing wrong if the GM wants to run them all separately. The fact is, the GM has the option do to either, depending on how long he wants the combat to last and how important those enemies are (and how much of a threat they should pose to the party).

About Fate. Read the rules and the explanation about Fate points. I'm pretty sure you'll see that the rulebook actually says something similar to what Mal is saying. Fate points are given to the PCs *because they are special*. The PCs, whether they know it or not, have a Destiny or Fate. The PCs are more than the average joe, even if they don't look it or know it yet. They are the protagonists of the story, and thus FATE will keep them (relatively) safe until their appointed time is at hand.

On the henchmen bit:
This is directded at a number of comments on this factor.
I dont see the henchmen rule as being out of scope for a role-playing game, I see it as being out of scope for WFRP. Which is why I asked, why the designers of 3ed ed feel it was in the scope of WFRP, because with it means that they feel the scope of mass battles is also in the scope of WFRP.

Well, I've seen, overall, a fair number of larger-scale engagements in my years playing (and occasionally running) WFRP. It doesn't seem out of scope to me. Many of the published adventures have a relatively large encounter somewhere in them, if the PCs run into it. For example, I played in a campaign where the party was pirates out of Sartosa. Several times we boarded ships to capture them. Both ships had crews. In this situation, representing both ship crews as a group of henchmen (or a couple groups) would probably make things easier for the GM to roll out how the battle played without rolling excess number of dice. In v2 we couldn't do this, so the fact that v3 provides the GM this tool is an improvment.

@ Peacekeeper_b

But you can not deny that DH or RT is derived from WFRP 2E. And yes you can more or less run a session of WFRP with the Dark Heresy game rules, the basis is still there. You have tests based on characteristics, skills based on characteristics, the same overall T+AP soak and damage rules, similar crit systems. However most secondary attributes in WFRP have been turned into traits, talents and skills in DH/RT and many of the talents/skills have different names, but it is not impossible or even a stretch to run one or the other system with the others core mechanics.

Sure, although if you don't have a copy of the WFRP v2 rulebook, you cannot play a WFRP game with just the DH book, which is what I was talking about.

And while I understand what you were responding to, the issue is still the same. How the new system handles rules compared to the old system and how it could have been written differently.

Then I heartily suggest that you start a thread on the subject if that's what you want to discuss, as it in and of itself will probably be a long discussion (although I think I'm on your side in that one). I responded to a different issue (what is in the new game that is worthwhile), and you're response to me was that they could have done it modifying the v2 rules. Completely different from the topic I responded to. I wasn't talking about whether they could have done it just as well by modifying the v2 rules (I believe they could have). I was replying and giving examples of the new rules that I believe are better than the current v2 rules. The fact is that FFG didn't just update the v2 rules to make v3. That doesn't necessarily make the v3 rules worse, just different.

Ulric's Fury ...

<sigh> You won't find Ulrich's Fury under Critical Hits in the rulebook. It is a different function than the Critical table in the WFRP rulebooks, which is what I am referring to when I say Critical. I can see your point on why you want to call it a critical hit. Unfortunately, that is not what the rules say. WFRP (and DH, I might add), say that once a character reaches 0 wounds, they start suffering Critical damage...not before. You get Critical levels from 1 to 10, and depending on the location hit, you roll on the Critical Hit tables to find out what the effect of the critical hit is. It has absolutely nothing to do with Ulrich's Fury (other than the fact that Ulrich's Fury provides more damage to faster reduce Wounds and increase the Critical level). Your example means any attack that hits is technically a critical hit, since even a normal attack can add to a character's critical level once their wounds go below 0. The point is that instead of only getting the Critical Results/effects when the opponent is nearly dead (wounds = 0), critical effects such as broken hands/legs/etc can occur any time during combat. Could this have been done by house ruling (or modifying) the v2 rules, perhaps by linking it to Ulrich's fury? Sure, but it wasn't and if you did it was a house rule (and probably made Ulrich's fury a bit too powerful adding both extra damage and a critical effect).

So for me 3E becomes more of a departure from the system for departure sake and not for the games sake. 3E WFRP should have gone down a path more related to DH/RT then a hybrid of WEG DC Universe and Descent.
Now, to patch things up abit here, Im not saying the game system and mechanics for 3E wont work or are silly. They just are not what was needed. God bless FFG for using the capitalit society we live in and trying to turn a profit by selling a new system instead of trying to make money off a game we all already had, but you have to admit the truth to why we have a completely alien system for 3E.

I don't disagree with you on this. I'm sure they could have consolidated newer rules from DH/RT and improved other ones, yet kept the basic mechanics of the v2 rules and made a good v3. The point I am trying to make, is that in and of itself, the current v3 with the new system does not appear to be a bad game and in fact has several rules that are an improvment over the current edition (v2). Certainly they did not have to make a radical departure. Look at D&D 3.0 when it came out. That was a pretty radical change in the mechanics compared to the prior 2e. There were still some issues with 3.0, of course, but despite the uproar caused by people who hated to see D&D so significantly changed in 3.0, it was actually a pretty good game (despite its issues). I haven't played 4e yet, but it too made some large changes to how D&D plays, yet the majority of people that I know that play D&D like it a lot more than both 2e and 3.0. Similarly (and I hope better, as I have more confidence in FFG than WoTC) 3e of WFRP is a departure from many of the mechanics of v2. However, I would ask people look at it a bit more objectively. Maybe you need to not think of it as WFRP v3, but as another RPG set in the Warhammer Fantasy universe. Look at the game itself and how it will play, and all the tools it gives the GM/players, etc. Don't focus on "well, they could have changed this v2 rule to do the same thing", but look at this new WFRP as a stand alone RPG. Try this, and then see if you think it will be a decent game and worth the investment. I did, and I think I do. I didn't at first, but the more I read the better it sounds.

Thanks for the heads up on why you didnt fix the issue, its something that you didnt think was worth the effort, which is quite a valid reason.

Given the way the systems work a +% works as well as adding just one die for another enemy, it actually makes the added enemy rather insignificant as well on the whole. What results can one die do that would simulate the 6-7 dice of an individual attacker? (I understand they are meant to be weaker)

Sure I can see the benefit of this for group vs group.

I understand that Henchman are not only for swarms, I was mentioning they would make good rules for them.

Loswaith said:

Lets go back to your first statement that started it, (or some may that my rude remarks started it all).

As you mentioned " the thing I really liked about warhamer was as a PC you are an average joe, now you aren`t" . As you say in the latest incarnation of you defence, It IS from a character point of view, the PC clearly doesn`t know about fate points other than being lucky, surviving a 200 fot fall for instance.

But then you pound on with the Henchman, being way past the boundaries of the game being about average people. Now from who`s perspective is that comment meant to be from? from a player`s point of view or a player-character? CONFUSED?

well I am, you say on the one hand that Fate points isn`t something a PC can now about, but somehow he should now of the Henchmen mechanism?

you can of course say (or parry) that the comments are from BOTH point of views, But if so my arguments concerning FATe points will be vallid.
I think that what fired you up on this subject is not that I mentioned it but how I mentioned it, but I have said in a separate post that I am sorry for my rude approach. MY arguments however are more solid than ever.

It was nice arguing with you, but I think we both need to regain our senses and end this debacle. its gone too far...

Actually the perception of the character changes because they can take on and defeat groups of creatures with ease, because they are greatly inferrior to them on an individual scale and hardly a threat.

Though for the most part it also changes the perception of the player in that with 2nd ed they previously had to be wary (on behalf of the character) of even an individual goblin or peasant could get lucky and land a killing blow on their character, while in 3rd ed they dont have to worry about the henchmen individually only larger groups of them.

Fate points realy have little effect to the attitude of the character, just because the character has them doesnt mean an individual goblin is any less of a threat (even though it may still be inferior), sure they may live through the encounter but only by lucky circumstances (the spending of the fate point), and not actually by defeating them.

The game scope is however changed, the henchman effect makes the player see that the character is able to do larger heroic deeds by reasonably expecting to survive a battle against mechanically rated henchmen.

Fate points are finite and players try not to even loose one in most cases, henchman they realy dont need to worry about loosing anything.

Ultimatly in both cases its the players feeling of how mortal the character is and what their character is likely to find threatening.

The fate point discussion is more a side and off track discussion we got into than the henchman one, and your tone of post never actually annoyed me in the slightest, it did show you have some passion for the game. I just offered counter arguments and tried to further explain my point.

Henchmen in the system indicate that there are creatures weaker than the average PC enough so that they can be treated as an insignificant threat individually (making the PCs actually more powerful by the declaration), while not having it leads to no such premiss. This is where the change of scope lies.

I havent disputed the fact that the henchman rules can make combat faster, that is obviously the case. I was discussing the change of scope and what to understand why the designers feel that the change was needed, and got into the fate point discussion.

dvang said:

Well, I don't know of a RPG system that can handle with semplicity/quickness a so large group of foes, retaining some believability.

You are entering the real of skirmish/battle.
20+ adversaries are a recon force from an army, not the average group on monsters that PC should encounter.

Though for the most part it also changes the perception of the player in that with 2nd ed they previously had to be wary (on behalf of the character) of even an individual goblin or peasant could get lucky and land a killing blow on their character, while in 3rd ed they dont have to worry about the henchmen individually only larger groups of them.

I think you misunderstand how the henchmen rules work. An individual goblin is still an individual goblin, not a henchman. On his own he's still as dangerous as he was in v2 (ie not much, unless he gets a lucky blow). The henchmen rules only come into play when the GM wants to simplify combats with large numbers of goblins. Instead of rolling for each seperately, they combine their attack (normal attack roll + extra fortune dice). They may actually be more dangerous to the PCs than if the GM rolled for each one seperately, as they may be more likely to hurt the PCs. Depends on how the attack and defence systems work.

The game scope is however changed, the henchman effect makes the player see that the character is able to do larger heroic deeds by reasonably expecting to survive a battle against mechanically rated henchmen.

Not necessarily. Henchmen are still a threat.

Henchmen in the system indicate that there are creatures weaker than the average PC enough so that they can be treated as an insignificant threat individually (making the PCs actually more powerful by the declaration), while not having it leads to no such premiss. This is where the change of scope lies.

Again, not true. Individually the monsters are just as dangerous as they were before. You seem to think that henchmen are the same as minions from DnD, that isn't the case.

The way I see it, we already had Henchmen rules in v2. It was just always spelled out in the adventure: "when the attackers get low on health, they decide the fight isn't worth it and run". Now, when a group of henchmen run out of health, instead of just dropping dead, they turn and run.

We just seem to have different views of henchmen. How will the PCs know if they are facing henchmen or non-henchmen? Say there are 6 goblins advancing. The GM could have the 6 goblins all be non-henchmen. Or, he could make 1 single and a group of 5 henchmen, or 1 single and two groups of 3 henchmen, and so on. The PCs cant, even in metagame, just say "Oh look, goblins. They must be henchmen so we can beat them really easy" There is no need for a single monster to ever be a henchman (it defeats the purpose of the henchmen rules), and 3 is probably pushing the lower limit to how many should start in a henchmen group. Regardless, the offensive capability of henchmen, even a single-monster henchman, is no different from a non-henchman version (well, it's more powerful the more henchmen in the group). Only the Wounds are different, so a single henchman is just as dangerous a foe to hurting a PC as a non-henchmen. Therefore, still a worry for PCs. Again, though, a GM should never have a henchmen group start with only 1 or 2 individuals in it.

The game scope is however changed, the henchman effect makes the player see that the character is able to do larger heroic deeds by reasonably expecting to survive a battle against mechanically rated henchmen.

What in the world makes you think the player is able to expect to survive against a group of henchmen? (depending on PC experience and the type of mob, of course, but that goes for groups of non-henchmen as well). A group of henchmen is just as big a threat as a group of non-henchmen, although henchmen don't get used if it's small enough to have a group of non-henchmen. A group of 10 beastmen, whether a single henchman group, or 10 individuals, is dangerous to a single PC, let alone a group of PCs. Henchman status just makes it easier and faster for the GM to deal with them. The only difference is that a single henchman was fewer Wounds than a single non-henchman, and the only time a henchman should be by himself is if all his buddies have already been killed. A good rule of thumb is probably that a group of henchmen should start with at least as many total wounds as a single one would, otherwise you really don't have enough of them to worry about using henchmen.

Also, in regards to scope, in long-term campaigns you usually end up with the PCs relatively powerful, and indeed operating on a larger grander scale. They tend to want to take on bigger and badder enemies, overthrow kingdoms, claim their own kingdom, etc. The scope grows with the experience of the PCs. You won't see many (if any) henchmen in early adventures simply because, as you said, the scope of the game (and the PCs influence) is small and focused on the immediate area of the PCs. Once they start getting into 3rd and 4th careers, the PCs are leading mercenaries against nests of Chaos troops, or boarding enemy ships, or trying to take down a Vampire Count in his own castle, etc. The PCs by this time, by the way, tend to have the influence, money, and potential to hire or manage or lead their own array of henchmen mercenaries/guardsmen/followers. Nothing in v3 is changing the way the scope of the game worked from previous versions, it is just giving the GM tools to handle large numbers of enemies when the scope does (naturally) grow large enough to include larger numbers of enemies.

Loswaith said:

Thanks for an illuminating post. And I am glad we have NOT annoyed each other over a game we obviously both love (not talking about versions here).
Yes, and I think be both wandered off from the main topics a bit.

And I am sad that you think the scope of the game have changed everything for you. That in way you feel the game are moving in an unhealthy direction (DnD direction?) We all have different experiences when it comes to playing WFRP, and that may colour our view of the new version.

I for myself learned how to direct and play out large battles in WFRP when GMing TEW, so for me grand battles are a part of WFRP, wheter they are heroic or just gritty, like war is hell. Some battles where heroic, like joining the rebels to overthrow the evil Wittgensteins, others where bloody affairs (like in Empire in Flames) where my players where just glad they survived, and not taking too many chances.

If I could run these pivotal battles again, using the henchmen rules, they would not change anything for my players and their characters. They would still feel the exictment when climbing the walls in the dawn of day to infiltrate and open the gates to Castle Wittgenstein. And in the civil war of the empire, they would still feel the meaningless and frustration of not being in charge, firsthand they would experience all kind of random things happening around them. From canon-balls exploding in their midst, to horses running around screaming madly, deadly wounded young men graping their feet, begging for help. But using the Henchmen rules would make things simpler for me, and shouldn`t affect the PC outlook.

So I think it is more how you use the Henchmen rules, -than the fact they exist for 3v, - that will affect how the player-characters sees their own mortality and accessing threats.

The Hencmen system and its implications:
What Loswaith said about it:

Henchmen in the system indicate that there are creatures weaker than the average PC enough so that they can be treated as an insignificant threat individually (making the PCs actually more powerful by the declaration), while not having it leads to no such premiss. This is where the change of scope lies.

Yes I grand you that, it does make a PC more powerful. But It should NOT affect the players view and threat assesment. Their view of their own mortality cannot be changed by this rule. They have no way of telling that their opponents are henchmen or not, and why shouldn`t they expect to survive a large or even heroic batte?
When Players make risk assesments on the behalf of their character they use all manners of techniques. I would assume that having FATE points available is of far more valuable information, than speculating that their opponents are HENCHMEN. Only after or during a battle with henchmen the players can draw that particulary conclussion. But before that it cannot have been inserted into the threat and risk assessment. Only when the dice is cast the players will know for sure.

Players can ofcourse assume that everyone they attack are hencmen, if so I hope they soon will learn a valuable lession...and its called don`t do meta-gaming.

No, I disagree with you, the Henchmen system will not change the scope of this game.

Mal Reynolds said:

jadrax said:

I think it's quite clear that the point is to make it easier to run larger combat situations.

jadrax said:

scope
/sko?p/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skohp] Show IPA noun, verb, scoped, scop⋅ing.
Use scope in a Sentence
–noun
1. extent or range of view, outlook, application, operation, effectiveness, etc.: an investigation of wide scope.
2. space for movement or activity; opportunity for operation: to give one's fancy full scope.
3. extent in space; a tract or area.
4. length: a scope of cable.
5. aim or purpose.
6. Linguistics, Logic. the range of words or elements of an expression over which a modifier or operator has control: In “old men and women,” “old” may either take “men and women” or just “men” in its scope.
7. (used as a short form of microscope, oscilloscope, periscope, radarscope, riflescope, telescopic sight, etc.)

The word scope in this connection, is meant as a aim or purpose (5). The underlying message I am trying to tell, is that the rule will no change how we look at the game. So it will mean something like this:

No I disagree with you, the Henchmen system will not change [replace scope] the view or purpose of this game .

Poe said:

There are far to many people that keep ending up arguing that Jay's hard work was pointless and changed nothing just so they can win a pointless edition war thread.

Still at least no on has resorted tto the ultimate lameness of quoting a dictionary....

jadrax said:

Large combats pitting the PCs against weak opponents is nothing new to Warhammer - it is already within the 'scope' of the game. The henchmen rules simply provide a faster, more enjoyable way of dealing with those combats so you don't spend an entire session hacking through a dozen goblins.

Oh I felt that one, biting sarcasm.

But the fact remain: a changing of rules will not neccesarily change the purpose of the game. will it? It was that me and Loswaith discussed. Everyone can take a sentence out the context, than make a witty remark, or write a clever question to appear smart, instead of trying to understand what we are really writting/arguing about. If you had done so you wouldn`t have asked such a silly question. I think Loswaith will agree with me here. its kinda low to do so.

just to sum it up in a few words: Loswaith is of the opinion that Henchmen rule will change the scope of the game or the purpose of it. Sending wrong signals to players.
But I don`t think it will. that is again change the purpose of the game. It will however change HOW we play the game. Loswaith raise many interesting points and views concerning the Henchmen rule.

You on the other hand don`t. you`re just trying to score some cheap semantic points, by deliberately misunderstanding what I say.

Mal Reynolds said:

If the purpse of the game is not changed, then those rule changes are pointless because there wole aim is the change the scope of the game.

The whole reason for making a new edition, is that it has a new scope more in line with the Warhammer Universe at large.

People who do not like that change in scope are right in the fact that they will not like the game, argusing that they should like the game because nothing has changed is disingenuous at best or insulting to the game designer at worst. There is nothing wrong with people not liking the game for what it is, and there is something wrong with trying to tell people the game is not what it is. The only outcome of telling people that nothing has changed will be to harm sales.

Honestly, it is not the same game and nor is it meant to be.

jadrax said:

*sigh* you`re so off-scope

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Yes the rules, game-design and artwork has changed. But not the world its still a dark, grim world of perilous adventure. At least that what FFG say. And the world of warhammer is the essence of what we are talking about. not the rules.

IT IS IF THE NEW RULES WILL CHANGE HOW WE VIEW OR INTERACT WITH THE WORLD OF WARHAMMER!!!!!!

Will the rules make the world less grim for people? or altering their view of the world? I think in the case of Henchmen rules it will not change the WORLD OF WARHAMMER.

Your allegations are blatant lies. I have NEVER said the game is unchanged, nor neither am I trying to convince people its so. You should be careful with placing words in others mouths based on poor assumptions. The tone in the rest of your post is also spiteful. You assume too much!

Discussions is not about winning, but to express its views and opinons, and maybe be influenced by the opponent.