I've seen this mentioned by a few others and I'd like to get an official statement on it. Hopefully I didn't overlook something or I'll feel really stupid

I can't find anything on monster manoeuvres. It says in another section that they do not suffer stress or fatigue, and if forced too take wounds instead. However, fatigue seems to be an important part of movement. If they are simply immune, then that leaves them wide open to over perform - you would have to rely on your GM to not exploit things (which shouldn't be a problem). If they are 'unable' to perform additional manoeuvres, that causes problems too, particularly with movement and things like swapping weapons, retreating, or interacting with the environment.

Without a little leeway for the beasties, I could see players walking into a house and shutting the door and thumbing their nose at monsters. It would be a total 'Big Bad Wolf' situation. He walks up one turn, opens the door the next, walks in the next. In the mean time, the players go into the next room and shut the door again. Repeat raspberries and monster taunting.

With too much leeway, a GM could get excited and over perform, for cinematic effect, and draw some ire from the players.

I understand the loose rule system for creativity and freedom, but I need something solid on this one

Monsters take a wound in place of taking a fatigue or stress. Works fine... except for henchmen. One of several issues I have with henchmen, but that;s for another thread.

Man... That just doesn't work well for me. In the example I listed, if the Big Bad Wolf walked up and opened the door, he would take a wound. If he were already wounded, it might kill him. I don't want to see my Wolf go out like that...

NezziR said:

I'm not really sure why. Just walk him up for a free manoeuvre, and then open the door for a free manoeuvre next round.

Or define walk up and open door as a single manoeuvre.

Or make an Action 'Open Door.'

You could just give them a {B} misfortune die on their action for each additional maneuver beyond the first they make.

dvang said:

Awe, now see? That's cooking with gas right there. dvang steps up with the money shot!

Edit: Oh, and it's misfortune. {B} is a bane.

Dice shapes are [ ], < >, and ( ) - square, round, and octo-something or other

Faces are { } Bad and * * Good

The rest is just color and face abbreviations.

Oh right, sorry. I try to keep on top of the NezNotation, but I was really tired last night/this morning. Yes, I meant .

If there was some sort of weird oversight and this rule was actually left out, I vote we make dvang's suggestion the law and publish it in the errata. The more I think about it, the more I think it's the right way to do it. It works without changing the other rules. It establishes a penalty so GMs don't get all manoeuvre happy, but it leaves them the option to take a penalty if they have to do something complicated (like walk up and open a door).

Thanks. The only issue I see is this breaks down if monsters "perform" a maneuver after their action. Do you record it and apply it to the next round actions? Honestly, I think for most monsters the maneuvers are pretty much only going to be movements to be able to use an action, so only pre-action. You could also limit monsters to *only* being able to perform maneuvers pre-action.

NezziR said:

Octahedron

Loswaith said:

Hahaha... *blush*, Thank you.

dvang said:

Would only allowing pre-action manoeuvres prevent the close, attack, disengage tactic that has been mentioned in a couple of other places? Depending on your viewpoint of that idea, this could be a good or a bad thing...

wouldn't prevent it for PCS, obviously, again, a good or bad thing depending on perspective

Unless I hear otherwise and someone makes a ruling, I'm going to play it loose and not sweat it.

I'll add if I perform extra manoeuvres before hand, or if I know I'm going to afterwards, and I'll just try and remember to carry over the penalty if something unexpected happens. I'm totally satisfied with this solution.

I think what it boils down to is being fair to your players. So long as there are some constraints in place, and your GM is fair, there should be no problem.

Yes, it would prevent it for opponents. For the most part, I forsee most opponents not executing those sorts of multiple maneuvers.

Of course, I plan on any "named" NPCs to run them more like PCs and give them fatigue and stress.

Although, since the GM pretty much knows what an NPC's tactic is going to be ... if the GM knows the NPC wants to make a maneuver after his action, he can apply the to the action roll ahead of time, so there is no need to keep track between rounds.

A few other options:

1) Additional manuevers cost initiative slots (ie, reduce the active NPC's initiative slot by 1 for every maneuver performed after the first. once at 0 init, no further maneuvers can be done. they still can't act again in this round).

2) NPC have a maneuver pool, like they do for A/C/E (or just use A/C/E). Use those points for any maneuvers beyond the first.

Ooo, I kinda like that 2nd one. What about foes using A/C/E points to gain additional maneuvers during a combat?

You are a very creative GM dvang, I'd hazard to say you have a fun play group. I like both of those suggestions. Now I'm confused again

If you made it where you could use ANY ACE stat for this, then that would give you something to do with, for example, Cunning on combat monsters, or Aggression on social monsters. Sure, there are situations were you could use them, but you'd have more options.

Couldnt you use just Toughness aditional manoeuvers per enounter, since if I recall right a player can accumilate double toughness before issues arise.

Ahhhhhh! I can't decide!

Loswaith said:

Well, yeah. But it's something else the GM has to keep track of. The GM already needs to track the A/C/E pools. Probably not a big deal, it's basically my suggestion of a "maneuver pool", with the defined state of starting at a value of T. Using A/C/E is simpler, but it could use up the A/C/E pool faster than designed. Using a separate M pool, that equals value T is slightly more work, but doesn't affect the original use of A/C/E. <shrug> I'm not sure which one is better, if either. We could always go back to adding for additional maneuvers performed.

Hmm further thought, that having a separate Maneuver Pool (equaling T) is basically the same as tracking Fatigue. <sigh>. So, I don't know. Too tired to think about it any more. Heh

Unless a rule clarification or errata states something specific in the future I plan on doing the following;

Building on the "single roll during a turn" concept, I'm just simply going to state everything the NPC is going to do. If it seems like a lot then I'll add some appropriate Misfortune dice. One of the big things I want to avoid as GM is "breaking-up" all the minutia of what the NPC is doing: (i.e. 1st he moves toward you, 2nd he attacks you, 3rd he pulls out another weapon, and so on). Instead I simply want to describe the whole thing and utilize a single roll that accounts for everything that happened during the creature's turn. For me personally I'm trying to get away from the 1st action, 2nd action, 3rd action etc. mentality.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I guess you could also go with a combination, sort of an array of options:

An NPC may perform additional manoeuvres beyond the first by:

1. Taking a 1 penalty to rolls for any subsequent actions
2. Expending points from its A/C/E pool

NezziR said:

I think if they had the new manoeuvre pool added to option 2, which equals toughness (and therefore mimics the PCs fatigue concept) then you could just use options 2 and 3...

so they get to use manoeuvres until their "M" runs out, then they start taking wounds for any subsequent manoeuvres, as they begin to tire...

I think I might go with that, without any formal clarification; one extra thing to track for monsters ain't that difficult.

Not saying option one isn't a good idea, it's just the one that isn't as clear cut (because of the issue with using manoeuvres post action in a round..)

Here is an official response from Fantasy Flight Games. My thanks to the Warhammer dev team for taking the time to resolve this issue.

Going by the rules as written, additional manouevres would cost fatigue. Since standard creatures do not accrue fatigue, instead they must suffer wounds if an effect would inflict/cost fatigue. Performing an additional manoeuvre beyond the one free manouevre on a turn would therefore inflict one wound rather than one fatigue. A group of henchmen working together would only suffer one wound collectively.

Alternatively, here is an official variant GMs may wish to use to add even more versatility to the A/C/E budgets that creatures have. A creature's Aggression budget can be spent in a similar way to the use of fatigue to perform additional manoeuvres. Likewise, a creature's Cunning budget can be spent in a similar way to stress to adjust a creature's stance. While a creature's stance is fixed, spending 1 point from the Cunning budget allows the creature to adjust his stance +/-1 for a single check. So a creature that normally has a stance of R1 could spend 1 cunning from its budget to roll R2 for a single check.

NezziR said:

Am I good, or what?

Wait ... don't answer that! (hehe)

The 'official variant' was probably added based on your suggestion. So, thanks for that because I much prefer it. Anyway, it's good to put this to bed. It was a real problem for me

I wasn't as vocal, but it was for me too. It almost looks like something they overlooked. I mean did the monsters and NPC's only perform one maneuver per turn? Seems kinda odd if so.

NPC's: Look those are the ones were looking for *draws weapons, but can't advance toward PC's*

or *advances toward enemies, but can't draw their weapons*.