Seems like characters all engaged together could just keep assisting each other so that they all continiously got +1 fortune die. Is this right? Would kinda be like flanking in D&D or the multiple attackers bonus in WPRG 2.0.

Can monsters use fatigue for extra manuevers like characters can? The demo has Beastmen that have a charge attack they can use when they dont start engaged. Seems like they could spend a fatigue every turn to Disengage and Engage/Charge every turn.

Wak

Wakrob said:

Anytime a monster would get a fatigue or stress, it's a wound instead. None of the monster actions have stress or fatigue. 'Headlong Charge' has a recharge of 3.

So monsters can take extra manuevers at the cost of a wound?

Wow... Good question. I can't find that anywhere. I would assume... yes? By the way it reads.

Luckily, they don't have to do all the things a player does. Stance track is fixed, no talents to exchange, I doubt any skills require prep.

But, that means they can't run, or walk (move) over and open a door (interact with environment) without taking a wound?

I dunno. That can't be right. I'm probably just missing it.

It's probably more like, "Monsters can take any number of reasonable manoeuvres, usually 2-3'.

NezziR said:

They get free manoeuvres, so they can do one thing. Because they're not heroes, they don't get to do loads of stuff, I guess.

Assisting is a manoeuvre, too (p 44), so PCs can do so, but if they're doing anything else, they'll take a fatigue.

monkeylite said:

It say in the ToA, p.46, under 'Wound Threshold' that they never take fatigue or stress and that any 'effect' that forces them to suffer a fatigue or stress causes a wound instead.

The words 'effect' and 'force' make me think that doesn't apply to manoeuvres, but I'm not sure. I can't find anything else on it at the moment.

I was wondering this too. I had a skeleton rise up from a grave and wanted it to engage an player, but couldn't figure out HOW that was supposed to work.

Could he stand (maneuver), move to engage (maneuver) thereby taking a wound and then attack? Seems like a reasonable action, but taking a wound for moving is kinda dumb and makes the monsters easier to kill.

Vegabond said:

I guess it depends on how you want it to go. Does the skeleton erupt from the ground and stand there for a bit looking all scary like in many horror movies. And then advance on the PC, giving the PC a chance to react. This seems to me a sensible enough way to do it.

Or do you want it to erupt from the ground and immediately grab the PC. If you want this, and you think it was close enough, then you could rule that it was engaged as soon as it emerged.

If you want it to erupt from the ground and engage the PC from a distance then you have to ask why are you not giving the PC a chance to react or getaway. And the monster should pay for that advantage somehow.

You can do what you said anyway, but giving a wound isn't necessarily wrong. It depends on how you think of wounds. They're not necessarily all about the physical integrity of the monster; they can be about a number of factors, constitution, stomach for a fight, inclination, and for undead, animation, etc. If you think of a skeleton's wounds as partly the magical power behind its creation and animation, etc, then it makes total sense to lose a wound if it were to push the bounds of what it would normally be able to physically achieve.