This is the second in a series of designer diaries that will provide an in-depth look at how combat is resolved in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. This installment takes a closer look at an individual player turn, and the steps a character goes through to make an attack. The previous installment in this series, Combat Training 101, discusses initiative, rounds, and player turns in the game.

The combat sequence occurs as part of the active player’s turn, in a specific order. Each step in the sequence has a specific purpose. A character can perform manoeuvres before or after this sequence, but not in the middle of this sequence unless a specific effect says otherwise. The Combat Training 102 diary walks through the combat sequence, and describes how characters defend against incoming attacks.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=859

Very interesting, very interesting indeed

I think I'm gonna do some dice rolling in weekend with the few things we have been given to this point.

Still being more and more optimistic, one thing doesn't stop to bother me -> the amount of dice to roll at a time... awwwww... (I'm no sharing type, remember, think how many dice I will have to buy to be able to play it comfortably...)

Interesting that's true. I can't wait to try it home, please release the game as soon as You can FFG.

So ynnen mentioned that the number in the upper right hand corner of an action card represents the duration of "re-charge".

Based on the fact that rolling two skulls with "Backstab" means that one has to add two more recharge tokens, then I'm guessing that re-charging works something like this:

1. After doing an Action, you place a number of tokens onto the card (or next to or whatever).

2. Every round/turn, you get to discard a re-charge token. You can't use the action until all tokens have been removed.

I think that this could work. I mean, certain actions are only used once per combat encounter ANYWAY, so I'm guessing that it isn't a big deal.

But I noticed that the "Parry" action has a recharge number of 2. That means that the character can't use it every round! Um... uh oh. What can you do to get around THAT? Perhaps a special skill or ability reduces the recharge time of certain skills?

Parry has a 2, which means you can parry every three rounds...

Either rounds now last 3 seconds, or that's a long time to wait...

Ynnen says that talents will reduce that for skilled characters, but hey, isn't that a lot of bookeeping for an Action that only removes one black die from the pool ? And why would a person need to wait 5 rounds before backstabbing again ? Depends on the circumstances more than on some rule, no ? IE. Two guards, come up from behind, clobber one over the head, catch him so he falls softly, then clobber the other. 2 rounds. Why not ?

Jericho said:

That's true.

Perhaps certain in game actions, like performing a some kind agile tumbling Action on his turn that lines him up perfectly for a second backstab, which could prompt the GM to reward him by removing some extra re-charge tokens?

Or maybe you can spend a Fortune point to discard some or all tokens?

If there isn't a set rule in the game to allow faster re-charging due to reasonable circumstance, then I'll use my GM god powers to make it so!

To me, it looks like the backstab skill card is more like an 'in combat' action, so the 5 represents that you don't always have the opening, not that you are hanging around waiting.

Some thoughts/notes/questions regarding the article...

1) Example card of Backstab. It says Stealth (Ag) vs Target Observation (Int).
1a) Is this a check that must be made before using, or the attack itself?
1b) If before using, if it fails, can the user another action?
1c) Is the Target's Observation (Int) the number of challenge dice for the test?
It seems like it is the attack itself ... so the attacker rolls Agi and the challenge dice equal to the target's Int (or obersvation skill?). With basic melee attacks a measly 1, that makes this action pretty tough to pull off comparatively.

2) There is no option on converting characteristic dice to stance dice. You *must* do so to your full stance if possible. This makes ensuring you use the correct stance, and amount of stance, very important.

3) Defense adds misfortune dice. Hmm, interesting. Included in this are options to parry, dodge, and block which add misfortune dice too.

4) Are there any effects if you score above the number of successes listed? For example, the Backstab card shows an entry for 2 hammers. What if a character getes 3, 4, or more hammers on a roll? Is there an added benefit? (I hope so ... perhaps those turn into criticals?)

5) Agility adds to ranged weapon damage, just as Strength adds to melee weapon damage

6) Mimimum wounds of 1 inflicted as long as you got a successful hit.

7) Is the only way to inflict a critical to use a card with a critical effect listed? (I hope not, since I haven't seen too many cards with critical effects listed).

8) Dodge, parry, block. I like this mechanic, including the recharge timers and being able to use multiple on a single attack.

9) What do the 3x misfortune dice in the upper-left of the Backstab card mean/do?

Other replies:

1) I believe that recharge tokens get Removed, and when there are no recharge tokens on the card to can use it again. For instsance, if you see the Backstab card shows 2x Banes adds 2 recharge tokens, thus recharges tokens are BAD. So, my impression is, once the action is used put the number of recharge tokens indicated on the card. At the end of each round of combat, remove a recharge token from all cards with tokens.
2) See #1. This means that the Parry card, for example, when used, gets 2 tokens placed on it. At the end of the same round it is used, remove a token in the End phase. At the end of the next round, remove another token. Thus, parry can be used every other round. Now, don't forget most PCs probably also get a dodge reaction action too (as long as Agi 3+), *and* if wielding a shield can also Block. Also, remember that you *can* use mutliple of these defense actions in a round. The counterpoint of doing so, however, is that the next round you will have fewer (or none) that you can use.
3) See #1 and #2. Backstab, therefore, requires 3 rounds of waiting (so used every fourth round, not 5th as was mentioned). 4 tokens added when used, remove one at the End phase of the same round, means 3 more rounds to remove tokens, and the 4th round it won't have a token on it and it can be used.
4) As for the scenario with the guards, I would question whether that was actually combat. If the second guard remains blithely unaware of you when you backstab the first one, I would suggest either it isn't combat, or is a different/separate combat from the attack with the first guard. Therefore, the GM is quite able to reconcile removing the recharge tokens from the card. Besides, the GM always has the power in an RPG.

dvang said:

I think these add to the difficulty of the action, hence the note "reduce the difficulty modifier by one misfortune dice for each of your allies engaged with he target" This makes the backstab difficult unless the target is distracted by others. It is pretty difficult to backstab someone only looking at you.

dvang said:

I reckon, although it is pure guess work, that once a target has suffered a number of wounds equal to their wound buffer then any additional wounds scored will cause an existing wound card of the target to be converted (turned face up) into a critical.

i like the concept being delivered here and in an earlier post i commented on hoping for player centric rolls, which with the defence rolls adding misfortune dice to an attack roll, rather than being a seperate roll, I almost get and i like this idea a lot...i like the way the skills are given difficulties (number of fortune dice to add) and also ways of reducing them, which all seem to make thematic sense and looks like combat could be quite tactical, without being slowed (once the pooling of dice becomes 2nd nature), with the gm able to hurry things along with stress tokens if too much tactical talk goes on...

I'm not sure how the classic GM tool of fudging dice rolls in combat is going to work with this concept though... presumably attacks on pcs will still be rolled behind the gm screen, so all is good, but attack rolls by pc's all occur on their side of the screen, as the gm isn't rolling any dice in response, no fudging can occur... how can those rolls be fudged to prevent a lucky strike that takes out a major NPC ahead of time!!? ....well have to wait and see about that!

Aha! Excellent point. I knew about the reduction in dice, but thought it was just for misfortune dice from blocking, parry, difficulty, etc. Makes sense, though, to have some innate misfortune dice for an action because it's difficult to pull off.

@pumpkin

I hope so about the criticals. It would make sense to do that, but the diary didn't say ... so I posed the question.

As for the DM tool of fudging ... that's easy. The GM gets to roll all the challenge and misfortune dice (i.e negative dice) and the player rolls 'positive dice'. The GM then says what totals for swords/banes he rolled.

Oh and one more thing..

Jay, I think you are doing a pretty brave but interesting thing here with WFRP 3rd edition. It's certainly a big step away from 2nd edition, but so far all the stuff I have seen has really piqued my interest (admittedly, some of the basic gm tools you are offering as a selling point are just shiny ways of doing the stuff any experienced gm worth his salt has been doing for the last 20+ years, but I think the way you are presenting these ideas for new GMs is again innovative and clever.)

I had some reservations at first (really just due to so little information being released, early on) but now I'm really looking forward to having a go at 3rd edition, and seeing how this game progresses.

Two things I hope for is that a similar level of detail and innovative new design has been put into non-combat skills and ideas, to that which seems to have been put into combat and also that the fluff and background and adventures don't lose the wit and humour that the previous (particularly the 1st) editions were known for...

Don't let the negativity of some of the comments on the board get you down, there will always be people who aren't keen on the changes and they are entitled to that opinion, and maybe further down the line they may change that opinion and perhaps they won't, but there seems a least an equal number of people (if not more) who think positively about the game, even some of the old time WFRP players, like me, playing since v1, who apparently aren't even your target audience anymore!

here's to the first step on a hopefully long and pleasant journey that is WFRPV3...!

Alright, so after reviewing this here are my thoughts

To reply to Dvang's post:

I believe the roll on the Backstab is the roll made for the attack roll. It sounds like it's a contested check though, however those are resolved. Observation is a skill I believe so that's why I'm assuming its a roll. I don't know how base Characteristic (which use characteristics) + a skill (which uses skill dice) would easily transfer to a flat difficulty number (since the dice aren't the same, it would be a bit confusing on how many of x die types become challenge dice of what type, make sense?

(As a side note on that, I wish they would have told us how contested checks are made and I wish they would level with us what symbols are on what dice. How many axes are on the standard dice for instance? Is a fortune die/misfortune die better than skill dice, challenge dice, characteristic dice, etc.. It would really help us how these two factors (the dice and the mechanics of skill checks actually play out.)

The three black boxes are how many misfortune dice are added to the check when making the roll. For each additional ally engaged with the opponent, you remove one misfortune die from the attack, meaning you normally roll 1 challenge die and three misfortune die as the difficulty for the check. Lets say you've got two allies fighting the same opponent. Well, you'd only roll 1 challenge die and one misfortune die. I actually like that mechanic alot. It's clean and easy to use and pushes the notion of teamwork in the system.

As for the stance thing, remember in 101 it states you can move a stance 1 step in either direction. You can go more, but it takes fatigue and stress. While it is important, it is savable. I don't know how I feel about the stance meter. It's something I need to see in action before I can clearly say one way or another. Right now, my opinion is it's alright, but I don't know why it's completely necessary and may simply slow down the speed and simplicity/elegance of the system. Again, I have to wait and see.

I agree that the Critical system is vague right now and I truly hope they're not simply attached to cards. That will make it annoying and obviously, since Criticals are so good (at least they were before) I can see all Critical Causing abilities chosen first since they wound effects on major NPC's and the severity is a bunch of bonus wounds against antagonists. God I hope its on the roll.

I also hope the effects listed on the card aren't the only effects allowed, more of guidelines for the action itself. You're right, what happens if three or four successes are rolled. Are the rest ignored? What happens if you roll two banes or 3 banes, do you only get one +2 damage. I fear though, since they mention basic action cards and advanced action cards, the effects may be limited only to those expressed on the action cards. If that's the case, I feel it goes a little against the spirit of the game (at least as advertised) since we as players and GM's are supposed to be able to interpret a roll how we wish. Sure, as a GM or as players we can, but will we really be able to? For example, using Backstab as a basic action, you deliver +1 Damage for two successes on a Backstab attack. Then lets say the advanced backstab offers a +2 damage on 3 successes and a +3 damage on 4 successes. Well, since the advanced backstab will obviously cost advancement points, can you really push the value of the damage how you wish it without breaking the integrity of the system itself? Furthermore, if other players bought the advanced versions of their action cards, can you rule a basic action card as an advanced action card and still be fair to those other players. I don't know, I just see issues coming.

In General:

My number one concern was and still is, the recharge system. I know MMORPG'S are huge right now, but it works in a video game universe or with things that aren't natural, but people can backstab until the cows come home. You can say it's an awareness factor of the opponent, but fact is, his awareness contests the ability to pull off the backstab, so it's really not a good explination. It makes absolutely no sense you can't parry every turn, none what so ever because people are always parrying attacks coming at them. It also won't make sense with Super Smash powers where you can swing your sword as hard as you want time and time again, but it'll just tire you out probably a bit quicker than always super smashing. Also, saying the opportunity doesn't present itself is a roleplay call, not an arbitrary gaming mechanism that has the illusion of "balancing powers" where it really doesn't. I'm sure advanced versions will probably allows these cards to recharge faster. For instance a Parry you can use every turn instead of every other turn. Other cards may allow you to recharge your cards faster, but that is ALOT of book keeping and deals way to heavily with the minusha of the system rather than focusing on the narrative elements (which this game supposedly focuses on more than most games).

There is just a million other ways to handle these mechanics without having to go the MMO route. For instance when playing DnD you should be able to Whirlwind (attack all foes engaged with you once) until the cows come home. The only limitation is, if you're going that fast, your attacks would be overall less accurate and it would wear you out faster. So logic would state doing it over and over again, in a system sense, would give you fatigue. It would be easy to say you gain fatigue everytime you use it (after the first time) or you gain fatigue everytime you use it until the card refreshes. I don't know, but its better than you can never use it again until x amount of turns pass. What if you are about to die fighting a dragon. You bet your a** you're going to power attack as many times as you can just to stay alive. So why on earth would you be like, ope, I did that last round and I can't do that again until I recharge. Just makes no sense.

All I'm saying is video games don't have to be concerned with simulationist elements because they are in no way an attempt to simulate reality (except a few, but those are normally called simulations). Roleplaying is stuck between a sim game and a game game. A good mechanic, visualizes and finds way to get access to that midground. Recharging isn't even close, it's a game thing designed to keep "balance" or limit the super-awesome-smash powers. That limitation, to me, is easy. Just don't print them so the entire system isn't forced into an arbitrary recharge mechanic. Because, afterall, why does parry take less time to recharge than Backstab? Really, they are about as equally difficult. Oh, his back is open: Stab. Oh, a sword is coming at my face: Parry. You see? No sense.

I just don't like it. There will be changes at my house when it comes to recharge. Of course I'll try it a few times first, but I'm almost 90% positive, I'm taking the recharge rule out back and I'm going to put it down like a lame horse.

I like the system alot as well and though GM'S have been doing this for years, it gives them new tools to do it and do it more regularly. I do think its great, and I do like the person's abilities adding difficulty dice. With that being said, there are only two strikes for me against the system:

1) Card recharge.

2) Stance meter. Again I have to see it in action, but it seems a little hokey to me and I'm not entirely sure it's necessary except how to make certain cards do better or worse things. If players could just choose where they want to be is one thing, but having to spend to adjust it is a little crazy. Honestly, lets say someone sets their slider at 2 aggressive at the beginning of the night because he's been in an arguement with a bartender and challenged him to an arm wrestling duel. He wins. Then he leaves, goes to the king, gets drunk with him, talks to his friends around a camp fire, sits down for a sausage or two and doesn't roll another dice until a horde of bandits charge the kings keep. Well, it's like eight hours later in the actual gaming night, after breaks, and he never moved his chippy because it wasn't really important to the story. Now he wants to use a bow. Well, sorry, you're on the crap side of the card because you didn't move your slider. just doesn't make so much sense to me, simple player is all. I also don't see why if you're surrounded by three orcs hack them down with your axe (very aggressive and you're pumped up to all red), why you can't simply go completely passive as you switch to your bow and take calm time to aim and shoot the new coming enemies. Again, slider has to move so there's a while where shots are crappy before you're at peak performance. I understand strress of switching, but is this really necessary, especially since you get to choose how passive/active your character is in the first place. I don't know, I'll have to see it in action, but its a little too gamey and not intuitive enough and lacks in basic simulationist gaming.

Why is simulationist important? Well in a story, without models or digital blips, the story takes place in your head. Those key points of reality create a universal language set of what a character can and cannot do. Once those basic elements are disrupted in an illogical manner, the very nature of the universal language is disrupted, which leads to disputes such as, "why can't I do that." I don't like recharge because it doesn't make sense, etc. Now a great game isn't 100% simulationist, but what a person can do, within their confined limits (such as actions per turn) really helps gaming happen more intuitively rather than rules checking and rules lawyering and minor rules interfering with the story. Recharge and stance meters can and will directly interfere with the narrative since players will have to flex and bend as they hotkey through their special maneuvers.

commoner said:

I agree with Commoner here, and I also think I'll houserule the recharge system in combat cards... I think adding fatiguing results to the cards would have worked much better, so that all out attacks do more damage if they hit but fatigue the attacker quicker... the recharge mechanic seems an artificial attempt to balance actions, because in real life these actions are implicitly balanced by their difficulty or the energy they require... or maybe you could explain the recharge mechanic as a way to abstract all these factors to simplify rules...

The recharge mechanic seems to work better for casting spells, although that could have been solved also by adding fatigue or mental stress rules to the magic actions...

Also, I would have preferred an opposed check for combat, where both attacker and defender rolled pools of dice and successes of each are cancelled. Banes for attacker would account for extra fatigue, mental stress or weapon damage, whereas banes for defense would also account for extra fatigue, mental stress or armour damage... I will create a table, similar to Tzeentch's Curse of WFRP2, for banes in combat... the more Banes you get, the nastier the result could be.

Finally, after playing D&D3.5 and D&D4 for the last year, I am a bit tired of too tactical combats, as I think each round takes ages for everyone to decide what to do. Also, the players end up focusing too much on combat and feel ashamed when they make tactical errors... So I plan on houseruling the initiative system so that at the beginning of each round each player will have 1 minute to decide, without consulting with the others, which action they want to use and on whom... I'll do the same with the monsters, then the actions to be used are revealed and everyone rolls initiative... I'm pretty sure doing it this way will make combat faster and a bit more dramatic.

Still, I'm very curious on how the game will turn out... I hope I'll get my hands on the box soon.

Yes, you're able to change stance a bit during combat. I had just been under the impression the number of stance dice you could substitute was optional. This made the stance meter useful, but not necessarily something the player needed to always worry about unless they wanted some extra 'oomph'. Now that it has been clarified and non-optional, players *must* keep a good track of what stance level they are in because it will significantly affect accruation of delay or fatigue and the effects of their available actions

As for recharge, I don't see it being as bad as you think. I like the idea that you can't just spam/the same action over and over again. First, I must make the obligatory 'this is an RPG, not a simulation' comment . Now, with that out of the way, I understand what you're saying, and yes there is a basis of reality in most RPGs. Recharging parries/blocks/etc, though, is really no different than v2 where you can only parry (or dodge) once per round. "realistically" you should be able to attempt to parry every single attack against you, yet you can't. I would guess it is still a matter of time. Despite actions being taken and resolved in order, in some sense actions in a single round are simultaneous. That is why, without a Talent, you can only dodge a single attack. Two attacks are coming at you simultaneously, from different angles, so unless you're trained/experienced you can only concentrate on dodging one of them. This concept still applies, although perhaps they have adjusted the timeframe. Sometimes rules have to bend realism for playability. This alsos make Parry and Block more useful, by the way. Dodge was the ultimate reaction, since it could be applied to any attack against you. Now, with a recharge, it makes more sense to use a parry or block in melee, and save up your dodge for a ranged attack, since if you use your dodge against melee you have no reaction to use against ranged. Indeed, you can use multiple reactions in a round, or even against the same attack. Doing so, however, puts you out of position from doing the same in the next round. A nice tactical choice for the player in my book. I'm not arguing that this is completely realistic, but it's just as plausible as the v2 version of reactions. It's similar to attacks. You take a big wind-up swing, at the end of the swing you are not in a position to execute another big wind-up swing. You need to recover and wind back up to do it again, hence the recharge. The point is, most stuff in RPGs is only loosely realistic. This v3 version appears to give players a lot more options on actions to choose, other than 'standard attack' or 'swift attack'. The recharge helps prevent players from selecting that 'uber' talent/action and spamming it over and over again, and steers players to gain multiple useful actions with their advances, rather than relying solely on a single powerful combat action.

I think it will work fine. It is possible that FFG has a method of reducing recharge time, by suffering fatigue/stress. If not, it might be a useful house rule instead of scrapping the recharge altogether.

As for the stance meter ... I think you can set it wherever you want at the beginning of combat (possibly before initiative, although it doesn't say). We know that each combat round/turn you can adjust by 1, but I'm pretty sure you can start combat at any value (it would make sense). You wouldn't be stuck in a stance you were hours/days ago. As for completely switching your stance, it is part attitude. I don't think "realistically" you can go from an angry raging dynamo (3-4 reckless) to a calm-cool-cenetered sniper (3-4 conservative) in a matter of seconds. That doesn't make sense. You need to hype yourself up (increase reckless) or calm yourself down and focus (increase conservative). It isn't an immediate process. Also keep in mind that a high value in a stance is not required. The advantage of stance dice, as far as we can determine, is that they have a greater chance to provide successes (between more sides, and a few sides that have double hammers). They also have some negatives (delay/fatigue). So, you *can* do just as well as a sniper in a single conservative stance as you could with 4 conservative. The bigger difference in action effects is between conservative and reckless. Swings, ranged shots, etc aren't necessarily "crappy" either. We don't really know yet, but you could possibly still do well as a reckless archer, or a conservative swordsman. The point is that they provide different effects. Perhaps the reckless archer gets chances for more damage, but the conservative archer has better chances of getting criticals (more aiming at vulnerable points), or maybe the reckless archer has reduced recharge, etc. Perhaps, if the single change is frustrating you and/or your players, you change the amount they can adjust. Let them get 2 moves of the stance track at the start of each turn, for instance.

Necrozius said:

I assume that you parce out your defenses over the combat. Assumeing you have more then 1 defense available to you. Dodge, next round parry, and if you have block and a shield ,block on the following round. If the melee is still going by this time yer set to dodge again...

Not a bad system, but it is pretty rote, in more challangeing melees it might force PC's to be a little more tactically aware. When faceing multiple or a single major threat , do you waste all your defenses in a round or hold off on them and for the best?

And those with 1 defense (is it possible to start with zero?) are pretty screwed....

Looks nice and fairly straightforward to me.

I'm willing to give the cooldown system a chance as I think it has the potential to make the players (and the GM) think a bit more about strategy in combat rather than just whacking away (or constantly using the most damaging power they have).

And example roll of an average attack vs. an average foe would be nice though - to give an idea of how easy it is to hit and how much damage it will do so we can gauge how long potential fights may last (if using only standard attacks ofcourse).

42!

42! said:

I've got a hunch that folks may be seeing something like this in Combat Training 103 or 104...

ynnen said:

Hehe - very nice.

ynnen said:

Oooo, teaser!

I am against game talk.
In RPGs that is.
It ruins the storytelling.

In V1, we had: charge, winning/losing, attack, parry, dodge, grapple, wrestle, jump, leap, strike to stun, as basic physical actions in combat.

In V2, it got worse: guarded attack, all-out attack, swift attack, defensive stance, parrying stance, standard attack, charge, feint, manœuvre, dodge...

But at least, the labels for different actions were pretty much plain english an simple, as to be used in a normal sentence. "I take a defensive stance and side-step to the door."

In V3, we'll get things like Hard Glare, or Reaping Cleave, or Jumping Nervous Hiccupy Slash or whatnot.

Now that is not good for RPGs. What kind of description can survive the ridicule of such labels ! It also limits the imagination to these prefab special actions instead of prompting player inventiveness.

I liked all diaries up to now... This one really gets me down. Not sure I'll be buying this game. I'll need to get a full copy of available actions first. If that is the future of gaming, imagination wise, I'm really vexed.

The main problem with computer games is just that, they crush imagination and creativity. They stress the capacity to understand and optimise systems and reward precision of execution.

RPGs, on the other hand, is the only hobby that is entirely devoted to the imagination, creativity and inventiveness of players. Just as make believe is a great social development tool for kids, RPGs can act as a mind boost for people who are lacking opportunities to express their imagination in their jobs and day to day life.

This V3 is more more looking like a no-brainer rulesfest to me.

wow!! very cool system so far...really like the recharge thing.....very cool!!! its a a great idea because in DnD once you use an "ecounter" power....you gata wait for the encounter to finish....so you could be stuck with just basic if your better attacks fail.....in this..if the combat drags on you could get that devistating attack back and take a second wack at it.....i really really like this system!!!!

dvang said:

Some good points here Dvang, but let me explain a little more in depth. I absolutely agree that this is gaming and not simulation. However, RPG'S employ reality to limit the times when system influences a game. Conversely, they use reality as the basis of when also to use system (those moments when it isn't clear if a character can do something or how its done, the system exists to arbitrate those moments.

So lets take a step back from WFRP 3e and say somebody writes a roleplaying game where you have to make a check to open doors and climb stairs. Just try that on, maybe actually run it one night and tell your players, "tonight, you guys have to make strength checks to open normal, unlocked, unbarred doors and Agility checks to climb stairs." I'm sure it will be aggravating as people botch door openings so they can't get into the inn, as they slip and fall down stairs constantly, etc.

Why this example is so important is because this is a time when the system has not only over-shadowed roleplaying (and the narrative) it has directly violated the "reality" of actions, of how simple opening doors can be. So you take actions such as Parry that can only be used every other turn or backstab that you have to wait four turns before you can use it again, and here, reality falls apart.

What great RPG design does, in my opinion, is give you a "simulated reality" feel, using the contract of agreeable circumstances and then applying a mechanic to execute that "reality." The Parry from 2e is a good example of that, you can parry once per round. You can use swift attack every round as long as you meet the requirements. They give a feel of reality, but not reality itself. When I was last running 2e I ran it this way: everybody gets a free parry per turn. If you have an additional hand weapon, this gives you another free parry (be it at a -20% unless they had a Talent to remove offhand penalties). This made for really dynamic combats where players really felt the impact of self defense and they even, intuitively, started defending each other with their parry actions. They loved it. It also increased the notion (especially when fighting hordes) of being overrun, and still enforced the notion of conserving parries or using parries to get where they wanted to be or do what they wanted to do without having to increase the number of arbitrary mechanics that forces limitations, which recharge does.

So yes, card recharge will add some cinematic elements, such as this turn I parry, next I dodge, the following I block, okay parry is recharged so now I start the cycle over again, parry, dodge, block. Honestly, even though they will operate with minor differences (parry gives 1 misfortune while block may give 2) ultimately, they are the same ability: My ability to defend myself against attacks. So instead of the elegant simplicity of 1 parry per round, you are dealing with a clunkier 3 phase dodge parry block mechanism that requires keeping track of recharges, etc.

The same will be applied to combat attacks as well. You will have super smash, moderate smash, and light smash. Well, again, the cycle will occur over and over again.

Don't get me wrong, I love the cards. I do. But I think what would have been more ingenious is rewarding certain maneuvers with additional benefits. Light smash does less direct damage, but may ignore armor soak. Super Smash drops behemouth amounts of damage, but risks causing fatigue. Moderate Damage does strong damage, but gives your opponents a fortune die to hit you back. You see? So player choices instead of waiting for a card to recharge has to make choices based on circumstances (which is what real tactics are all about). Using my examples above: Fighting an armored guy, hit him with light attacks. Oh, he's really tough too, so I'll give him a super smash, but I can only due that three or four times before I fatigue out), so this had better work. Oh, that didn't so now I'm going to my moderate smashy cards at him, because I'm tired and light smash is not enough to get around him. With each card having its own unique functions and making sure they are distinct enough gives the player more control and more choices during a combat turn, without having to resort to an arbitrary recharge system.

What excites me about the Warhammer system is all the ways this sort of system could be expressed in their mechanic. Wanna super-smash, better be at 3 reckless, but drains a fatigue. Wanna moderate smash, well it lowers stance meter by x. You see? Their is so many ways they could have used the details they have already created without having to result to new ones. Grant it, these examples might not be the best, but I haven't played the system to be clear on how they could have worked.

As another way it could have worked there could have been a system where instead of actions exhausting the character becomes exhausted from using their actions would have been better. Here's an example. You can lose x amount of fatigue before you start feeling ill effects. Each action causes fatigue equal to a number (parry 2 and backstab 4 for example). So you use parry take 2 fatigue. Each time you do take another 2 fatigue. Once you reach your fatigue threshold, you become fatigued and take a penalty. It's a quick glance and I don't have time to detail it any further than that, but it would have been a great system that utilizes the same notion of limited numbers of uses without banning powers while they arbitrarily recharge.

One final point on this, the cards also make this notion a reality SOOO much easier to have happen than rulebooks because the card can quickly and effectively explain all the system function of that one ability without having to write it down or reference books. Every system since the mid-90's have included some form of tactical attacks in combat. (Heck, white wolf published a whole book of them). Why they were rarely used is no-one really knew how all of them worked or that most of them even existed. So they got ignored. Cards make them a quick and easy reality and can be limited very effectively by the numbers of cards known.

This is why it's sort of disappointing to me, because I can easily come up with two, great alternate systems. Warhammer has broken ground in a number of ways with this new system, I guess I just wanted something more for combat mechanics rather than an MMO emulator. Don't get me wrong, the game still sounds great, I'm just disappointed in this one aspect of it.

Definitely some interesting ideas, commoner.

See, I have never thought about the Dodge/Parry reactions as being only those actions. Part of your attack respresented by your to-hit roll, is your opponent defending themselves (whether it is by dodging or parrying). Hence the reason it is easier to hit someone prone/held/stunned/etc. Those account for 'normal' defensives against every attack. Parry/Dodge reactions are an extra effort made by the defender to REALLY attempt to avoid a hit. They were not designed to realistically represent the only time you parry/dodge. I don't see giving extra free parries and dodges as doing anything but making combat slower and less deadly, since everyone gets extra defense actions that require no thought. The way the 2e system (and the system in 3e) the player has to make a choice of when to use their defensive reaction. Do they use their one reaction to avoid the blow from this underling, or do they save it in case the boss manages to hit. By giving extra defense, there is no choice. They'll just parry both of them because I can.

Parry can only be used with a melee weapon, and in melee. Block can only be used if you have a shield.I believe both will probably require 3+ Strength. Dodge can only be used if you have a 3+ Agi probably. Thus a) not everyone will necessarily be able to use all 3 defensive actions, depending on their wielded equipment and stats. Second, they run off of differnt skill (probably) for effects (like Parry gives an extra die with WS trained. Agi and block probably add a die for different skills, or give different effects). Third, you can use multiple defenses in a round, and even on the same attack. It requires much more thought on the player's part when to use these defenses, because they can't use them every round. If you let them use them every round, you make them brainless and dumbed down.

but I think what would have been more ingenious is rewarding certain maneuvers with additional benefits. Light smash does less direct damage, but may ignore armor soak. Super Smash drops behemouth amounts of damage, but risks causing fatigue. Moderate Damage does strong damage, but gives your opponents a fortune die to hit you back. You see?...

What makes you think that every action in WFRP 3e is the same? I'm betting that in 3e it works just like what you said here: light smash does less damage but ignores armor soak, super does lots of damage but can fatigue you, etc. I don't know why you think it's otherwise? Look at the backstab card. I bet there isn't another action that has those exact same effects. The only difference in 3e is that, if you see a heavily armored opponent you can't just use that ignore armor light smash over and over. You have to mix your attacks up because of recharge. Again, the player needs to tactically think about which action he/she uses and when. More thought, less mindlessness. Good in my book.

Now, some of your suggestions do look good. However, none of them appear to be any better than the current recharge (IMO, of course). I particularly like the idea that the recharge system forces players to think tactically and mix up their actions from round to round. I do think your fatigue suggestion is particularly interesting, but it doesn't seem to cause players to think as much as the recharge. Assuming a reasonable threshold, a player could still spam a low-fatigue cost attack over and over until combat ends. In WFRP 3e, that is limited with recharge, so maybe that "low-cost" attack can only be used every other round. It also seems to make a more realistic flow of combat. Rarely do swordsmen or martial artists use the same attack over and over. They test, they probe, they try different moves to catch their opponents off-guard and occasionally using a previous move again.

This is why it's sort of disappointing to me, because I can easily come up with two, great alternate systems.

Well, one (fatigue cost) is far better than the other, since the other one sounds practically like 3e without the recharge costs. And 3e's recharge, IMO is better than both of them. Regardless, though, the point is that the recharge system doesn't seem bad or unworkable. There will always be different system with different ways of doing things. Most of them are just as good as others. I can come up with a different and workable alternate combat system for any RPG I decide to play. Just because I can come up with these alternate ideas, doesn't mean that the one in the rules is poor or unworkable, or that it needs to be replaced.