Ok, there has been some debate about Double Strike vs. Troll-Feller Strike. Several people have expressed the thought that they think Double Strike is by far batter than Troll-Feller Strike. I thought I would compare them a bit, so people (including myself) can crunch some numbers are see the differences.

Ahem, gentle-actions, get into your respective corners.

[ The numbers assume the Trollslayer Kurgi from the demo, who has a 5 Str and wielding a pair of Axes that have a 5 DR. Also, ror the purposes of this comparison, I'm only going to discuss and assume a RED - Reckless stance. ]

(special) TFS prevents the use of an Active Defense. vs DS gains a misfortune die.
TFS means the Trollslayer is more likely to get hit (assuming they could use an Active Defense card). DS means that it is less likely to hit, or if it does hit, is less likely to generate multiple successes or boons. I'd personally give this a slight edge to TFS.

(1 success *S*) TFS gains +1 damage. DS does normal damage. Kurgi does 11 with TFS and only 10 with DS. Slight favor to TFS
(2 successes *SS*) TFS gets nothing new, DS gets adding the off-hand weapon damage. TFS would still do 11, DS would do 15. Significant advantage to DS, although slightly lessened by the 1x gained from the DS action.
(3 successes *SSS*) TFS gains +3 damage, DS gains nothing. TFS does 13, DS does 15. Edge to DS, since it still does slightly more damage, as well as requiring 1 less success (although, again, the on the DS has a 33% chance to negate a success).

(1 boon *B*) TFS gains +1 damage and ignores your target's armor soak. DS has no single-boon line. Even though the damage boost is only a +1, the soak ignore itself will typically count as +1 to +3 more damage, making a single boon give anywhere from +2 to +4 more damage. With only a single boon. Significant edge to TFS.

(2 boons *BB*) +3 damage, +1 critical for TFS. +2 damage for DS. One more damage for TFS, plus the important critical. Significant edge to TFS.

(3 boons *BBB*) There is no 3-boon line for either. However, at 3 boons the TFS can use both the single-boon effect and the double-boon effect. In essence, +4 damage, +1 critical, and ignoring armor soak. DS is stuck with +2 damage. Significant edge to TFS.

(Comet *C*) TFS inflicts a critical, then inflicts additional wounds equal to the Critical's severity. That would be a range from 0-4.. although I think there's only a single 0 and only 2x 4s. The majority seem to be 2's and 3's. So that would be +2 damage or so. With a comet and at least 2 boons, the TFS is doing 2 criticals and +5 damage( or more). DS comet allows the Trollslayer to attack a second target in the same engagement with their primary weapon, so that's 10 damage to a different target (Assuming there is one). Significant edge to TFS (if facing a single opponent), slight edge to TFS if facing multiple opponents (IMO. making sure one goes down is slightly more important than putting wounds on another enemy).

(1 bane {B}) TFS gives 1 fatigue. DS nothing. slight edge to DS, but only slight. Remember that DS gives a misfortune die that increases the likelihood of getting a bane.
(2 banes {BB}) TFS nothing, DS 1 fatigue. slight edge to TFS. Basically, the bane lines are a wash.

(Chaos {C}) TFS causes a wound. Ouch. DS chaos has no line, which means it counts as a bane, which means it increases the likelihood to getting 2 banes and therefore 1 fatigue. I'll still say it's an edge to DS, though, because a Wound is pretty rough.

So, if we max the positives, without comets, here's what we get:
TFS does 17 Wounds, +1 critical, and ignores all armor soak (@ 1-3 wounds).
DS does 17 Wounds.
- Edge to TFS

Add in a Comet:
TFS does 18-21 Wounds, 2 criticals, and ignores all armor soak (@ 1-3 wounds)
DS does 17 Wounds to one enemy, and 10 wounds to another
- Edge to TFS

Lastly, TFS has a recharge of 2. DS has a recharge of 0. Slight edge to DS. (It's a matter of every round or every other round).

So, if we look at them, the TFS comes out on top with every positive roll, except one that is two-successes and no boons. Now, if facing multiple weaker enemies, where 10 Wounds will kill an enemy (or thereabouts) then the DS becomes more favorable, because of the chance of the comet allowing him to take out a second enemy and the extra damage of the TFS is wasted. The criticals, though, can be crucial when gotten on a boss or big enemy to weaken him, plus for TFS. The banes are pretty much a wash, and the Chaos is a detriment to the TFS obviously. Yet, keep in mind that the majority of attacks are only a single <P> challenge die, which is a 1/8 chance of rolling a chaos symbol. Recharge is slightly against TFS, but the extra misfortune die of the DS can be crucial for even getting a single success, let alone multiple success or boon lines.

In conclusion (whew!) Although DS is a decent attack, I don't think it is nearly as powerful as people believe it to be, at least compared to the Troll-Feller Strike. I personally wouldn't call it "better" or "even as good as", TFS.

I hope this helps. Please keep comments constructive, and I realize some of the evaluations are personal preferences and beliefs.

How do the action requirements compare?

From the action card Designer diary preview PDF (Anatomy of an Action Card) the Troll Feller Strike requires the troll slayer (presumably the group) to be outnumbered or facing a physically larger foe.

Including having a melee weapon and being in close range, which I would presume Double Strike has as well.

I'd also likely put more weight on the factor of being able to use something every round, but for this instance given that in the interium of Troll Feller you can use double strike it realy doesnt matter too much.

Excellent analysis.

I haven't had the pleasure of playing the demo, but I gather by all posts on the subject that you are right, DS appears to be superior, but isn't as much as we'd like to think. Dishing out criticals makes for a faster win. And as you pointed out, the difference between a recharge of 0 and of 2 is only one round, not two (as the math seems to imply).

This said, a character with DS will use it all the time and never use the melee attack basic action. Question: do you need to have weapon skill trained to buy such action cards ?

Also, is the block action superior to the parry action ? Is there a defensive drawback when comparing two weapon fighting vs weapon and shield ?

I guess that where I'm getting at is: is the game rigged for "cinematic" LotR style movie fencing (that I personnally don't like in a rpg), or does it support mechanics that feel like real combat, even if they are abstract ? In RL, very few warriors would use DS, because in a battle, the shield is your best friend unless you are armed with a pike, halberd or sweihander (that the elite Dopplesoldner would use, not the regular trooper). DS is fun for movies, but it isn't "realistic".

I know, this is fantasy. And I'm all for a certain dose of exaggeration and spectacular. But the relative power of different modes of attack should mimic RL, IMO. ie. Stabbing with a fork should do less damage than stabbing with a dagger. So my take would be that DS is credible as a mode of attack for a highly proficient combatant (WS trained at minimum), not for an untrained thug.

How are unskilled skill tests resolved in v3 ?

Roll against the stat and that's it ?

I think I might houserule that an unskilled attempt automatically gives a misfortune die to the roll.

I like to really give a clear edge to skilled characters. (Like the value/2 of V2 really nerfed unskilled attempts.)

Players need to like and want skills !

What things can you really achieve without proper training and practice ? Not much. That should also be the case in the game.

That would nerf unskilled warriors a little.

Requirements:
TFS - "melee weapon equipped, engaged with target, you must be outnumbered or facing a phsyically larger opponent". (Lots of stuff are larger than a dwarf. Most adult humans, for example, are larger than an adult dwarf).
DS - "melee weapon in each hand, engaged with target"

This said, a character with DS will use it all the time and never use the melee attack basic action.

Well, DS could cause fatigue on a pair of banes, plus it gives an additional die to the roll. A Melee Strike's only negative, on 2 banes, is that it allows the opponent to disengage for free. On 2 boons, it gives you a free maneuver. So, a basic melee strike has its uses, and no significant negative result. Granted, DS will usually be better, but I could see situations where it could be used instead.

Question: do you need to have weapon skill trained to buy such action cards ?

No.

Also, is the block action superior to the parry action ? Is there a defensive drawback when comparing two weapon fighting vs weapon and shield ?

Blocked is based on the skill Resilience, Parry is WS, so if Resilience is resilience is trained and WS is not, block adds an additional . Otherwise, functionally, they are the same. Improved block adds additional Soak for the combat round, with improved parry removes a recharge if the attack misses. Of course, also keep in mind that a shield iteslf adds Defense and/or Soak to the wielder too.

How are unskilled skill tests resolved in v3 ?

If it is a Basic skill, anyone can use it but don't get a [Y] Expertise dice if it isn't Trained. If it is an Advanced skill, you can't use it if it isn't Trained. Remember, the [Y] Expertise dice have 5/6 sides with good results, one of which is the Comet and another which is the Righteous Success, which adds another [Y] die to the roll. So, yeah, being Trained is already way better than not.

TFS has a pool modifier of . I don't recall if there is one for DS, but I don't see where you have that factored in.

From someone's demo write up that had Jay Little as GM, he allowed the DS hits to be on different targets since the card doesn't specify that both hits have to be on the same target. If this is true, it might make DS more applicable when you are surrounded whereas TFS is more applicable when you want to put the hurt on a single foe with high T and/or a lot of wounds.

I think you may be discounting the Active Defense penalty for TFS a bit much. Even f you used all of or AD last turn so that none are available to use this turn and you use TFS, you will not only be able to not use an AD this turn (which you wouldn't have been able to do anyway due to the AD's recharging), but you will also not be able to use any AD on the following turn. If you don't put the big bad down with TFS, you (potentially) have to weather two rounds of return attacks.

You can't activate both boon effects on a card I believe, if I remember the write-up correctly. Please feel free to correct!

You're oddly discounting that you need 3 successes and 2 boons to do equal damage to a single target, versus 2 successes on double strike. That is non-discountable.

You're oddly giving the comet result of "Deal 0-4 to a single enemy" vs. "Deal 10 to another engaged enemy" weight to troll-feller, this is only valid given very high soak values, such as those of the Wargor in the demo. If the troll-slayer was striking, say, himself, he would deal 4 damage every time with that extra strike bonus to double strike.

In brief, once there is a probability analysis tool available for the dice, I imagine the difference will be far more clear. I don't really want to write it, I'm slow and not very good at programming! (I'd say FFG should simply release their own probability tool that they wrote.)

The main time troll-feller will be better is when the opponent's defense is so high that you're struggling to get a single success. At this point the misfortune die on double strike will be relevant, as will the effect of getting a single success.

Terwox said:

You can provided you have enough boons to cover both (all).

It does seem to me that DS has a slight edge in "every day" combat but that TFS is vastly superior against a tough single opponent. This is surely the point of a signature move for a troll slayer, not something to kill multiple weaker opponents but a single blow capable of bringing down, well troll sized monsters.

TFS has a pool modifier of . I don't recall if there is one for DS, but I don't see where you have that factored in.

TFS has a in Conservative stance, but in Reckless stance there is no penalty. DS has a penalty on both sides.

From someone's demo write up that had Jay Little as GM, he allowed the DS hits to be on different targets since the card doesn't specify that both hits have to be on the same target. If this is true, it might make DS more applicable when you are surrounded whereas TFS is more applicable when you want to put the hurt on a single foe with high T and/or a lot of wounds.

DS can only strike multiple targets if a Comet is rolled. With 2 successes, it says to also add your off-hand weapon damage to the hit.

I think you may be discounting the Active Defense penalty for TFS a bit much. Even f you used all of or AD last turn so that none are available to use this turn and you use TFS, you will not only be able to not use an AD this turn (which you wouldn't have been able to do anyway due to the AD's recharging), but you will also not be able to use any AD on the following turn. If you don't put the big bad down with TFS, you (potentially) have to weather two rounds of return attacks.

Well, my basis is small, of course, but it was hit or miss whether my players used Active Defenses. The Trollslayers in my two sessions didn't seem to miss them a whole lot. Granted, they did take a lot of damage overall (that's kind of expected from Trollslayers anyway). I also 'picked' on the Trollslayers a bit, since I figured he was also the flashiest "enemy" and the one that usually was the first to engage. So, yeah, I don't see a huge problem not using an Active Defense. Is it a detriment? Yes. But especially since the Trollslayer can "Shrug It Off" every few rounds too, I don't think it's that bad.

You can't activate both boon effects on a card I believe, if I remember the write-up correctly. Please feel free to correct!

You can't use multiple success lines, but you can use multiple boon lines as long as you have enough boons. You also cannot repeat a boon line. So, with 3 boons, you can get the effects of both a 1-boon and 2-boon success lines.

You're oddly discounting that you need 3 successes and 2 boons to do equal damage to a single target, versus 2 successes on double strike. That is non-discountable.

I'd argue that against most opponents (that you'd use TFS on), 1 success+1 boon on TFS is just as good as 2 successes on DS. As well, IMO, 1 success and 2 boons on TFS is better than 2 success and 2 boons on DS. Yes, ignoring Soak is that good, and criticals have the potential to really hamper your opponent. Especially since fatigue and stress cause wounds on monsters.

You're oddly giving the comet result of "Deal 0-4 to a single enemy" vs. "Deal 10 to another engaged enemy" weight to troll-feller, this is only valid given very high soak values, such as those of the Wargor in the demo.

10 damage isn't enough to kill any but the weakest enemies, after T and soak are removed. Ungors, for example, Have a T of 4 and 1 soak and 8 wounds. That means the 10-damage extra strike did only 5 Wounds, not enough to kill him. It's usually better to make sure you put your opponent DOWN, than sprinkle bits of damage over multiple foes. By taking an enemy out, they can't attack back. Doing 5 wounds doesn't impair an Ungor ability in any way, whereas making him dead does.
A better example is fighting a Gor. T5, Soak of 2, 12 wounds. The main hit of the DS does 15 (on 2 successes), beefed to 17 with 2 boons. 15-7 = 8 wounds done, leaving 4 wounds left (or 2 wounds ledt with the 2 boons). Too bad that extra attack from the comet must be used against another enemy (should there even be one). Now the extra 0-4 from the TFS comet, plus ignoring the soak, make it *much* more likely that the Trollslayer can do the required 12 Wounds (after T and soak) and kill it in one blow. That is what I am talking about. Sure, if a 15 (or especially 10) Wound blow will kill the enemy, DS is going to be better because you get the bonus to hit and kill a second enemy. However, if you really need to do damage to a single target, TFS overall will do more damage, and easier.

The main time troll-feller will be better is when the opponent's defense is so high that you're struggling to get a single success. At this point the misfortune die on double strike will be relevant, as will the effect of getting a single success.

I disagree. DS is good against unarmored foes with low wounds. TFS is good against single high-wounds and/or high armor foes. This is irregardless of "struggling to get a single success". Keep in mind that with just a single success the TFS beats DS by 1 Wound. A single boon on a die greatly beefs up the TFS, whereas you need a second success or second boon to beef up DS. In essence, keep in mind that getting more than 1 of a symbol tends to be more difficult, and DS hampers itself by gaining a die that has a 50% chance of removing one or the other of the good symbols. It makes it that much tougher to get > 1 successes or > 1 boons.

It does seem to me that DS has a slight edge in "every day" combat but that TFS is vastly superior against a tough single opponent. This is surely the point of a signature move for a troll slayer, not something to kill multiple weaker opponents but a single blow capable of bringing down, well troll sized monsters.

Pretty much. Against low wounds and low armor foes, especially in numbers, DS is more effective. If there is an enmy with high armor, high wounds, or (worse) both, TFS will be a better action to use as it will do more damage to that one target more consistently.

Again, I'm not saying that TFS is all-powerful and compeltely superior to DS, or that DS is a bad action. What I am saying is that DS is not the "no-brainer" to take over TFS all the time, which has been mentioned a few times on the boards. TFS is better in some situations than DS, just as DS is better in other situations.

dvang said:

dvang said:

Absolutely I will keep it constructive as I'm one of the contenders for double strike. I do think you've missed some vital points in your analysis.

Double Strike has a grossly smaller penalty than Troll Feller? Oh, I think not.

Lets first look at all those wonderful boon effects listed on the card operate only under the assumption that the character has the maximum number of dice to achieve that number of successes. At the minimum without any form of cancellations, the Troll Feller strike needs to get three success, three boons and a comet to activate all of its potential which means you must roll, at the minimum, 7 characteristic dice (3 for the success damage boost, 3 for the boon boosts, and 1 for the comet). These of course, must all roll perfectly in their favor otherwise their damage margin decreases. Double Strike needs...five that roll perfectly in their favor to their max effect. You could easily the extra black die in here and be kind to Troll-Feller by saying well, you need another die to be sure you cancel out that additional black die penalty, but that's still only 6 dice required for Double Strike to achieve it's maximum result compared to Troll Feller's 7.

While we look at that, we also have to remember that boons and successes actually subtract from one another (since they seperetely) which again is a penalty against Troll-Feller since it is so dependent on both successes and boons to deliver its damage total where as double strike only relies on number of successes (with boons only adding two more damage rather a base 15). Then add in the difficulty and cancellations and you'll quickly find, that even though the one black is there for double strike, it is still consistently easier for double strike to deliver the full package than Troll Feller to deliver a package even nominally close to the same effect. This further inflates the number of actual dice (which means actual stats) that Troll Feller needs to generate the number of required successes consistently to get up to their 21 damage and + two critical effect compared to the net 14 damage Double Strike can deliver.

One black die is not as big as a curve when you only need 2 successes to pull off a great deal of damage, when you need to pull off so many successes, boons, and comets in order to deliver damage even close to the damage that Double Strike delivers. The 33% subtraction of the additional black die does not come even close to the required chances that all the dice from a troll feller strike will fall even close to its total, high end net damage and it needs it to come even close to Double Strike's consistent damage. Therefore, the innate chances of rolling Double Strike's 15 damage (even it's 17) taking into the number of dice available + the type of dice + the required number of successes in each category to deliver the effect equates to the fact that the probability to pull off 17 damage (and especially 15 damage) is much much, much higher with Double Strike compared to Troll-Feller. Additionally Troll Feller must roll its high end more consistently where double strike does not need to. Since the difference between double strike's high end and low end is only a difference of 2 where Troll Feller's high end and low end is 15.

So what does that mean ultimately? Sure I admit Troll Feller has a chance (a very small chance based on probability) of doing a massively awesome feat, but Double Strike has not only a greater chance chance of success from a single roll to net massive damage, but it also has a superior level of consistency for its attack compared to Troll Feller. Especially when looking at how the two will play out from round to round. After a series of successive rounds it will be much easier to score 2 successes (for 14) rather than the damage Troll Feller would add over those successive rounds.

Lets start with the low end for both instances. 1 Boon and 1 Success for Troll Feller nets a total of +2 damage, and ignores armor. The dwarf has a net damage of 6 damage where as with double strike nets 14. Over two rounds that's a net of 12 compared to 28. Grant it the armor may boost the damage by a generous 3 points each round bringing Troll Feller up to 18 compared to 28, but it is still way less damage. Also, you have to look at the factor that after Troll Feller activates every other round because of its two recharge rate means it must back to a basic attack the next round netting a possible 6 damage compared to the 14 that double strike nets that second round. So the Troll Slayer, at equal success rate delivers a 9 for the first (or 6 if the opponent is un-armored) round then the next round 6 more damage against an unarmored opponent. That means over two rounds the total is 15 against an armored (or 12 for unarmored) compared to the consistent 28 delivered by the by Double Strike.

Now we'll play you're high end game for a moment. Add in a Comet: TFS does 18-21 Wounds, 2 criticals, and ignores all armor soak (@ 1-3 wounds).

So I'll give you 24 damage with the armor (or 21 unarmored). Double strike does 17 wounds to one enemy. The next round Double Strike drops another 17 wounds where the slayer's basic attack drops 6. The Net for TFS over two rounds would be 24 + 6 = 30 damage (armored) or 27 for two rounds. Double Strike over two rounds at maximum effect adds 34. Go two more rounds and you'll see that Double Strike will continue to rise always at a higher rate of damage than Troll Feller. This is of course not mentioning the fact that double strike at maximum effect against multiple opponents has dropped an additional 20 points on another enemy while Troll Feller has dropped zero.

Just in case that's not enough, then lets look at the average the damage assuming high end and low end will be achieved at an equal rate (but still pulling off an effect on the card). 15 on the low for double strike and 17 on the high yields an average of 16 points of damage where as Troll Feller yields 13.5 on average. Add 1 for the armor and you are still looking at 16 Double Strike to Troll Slayer's 14.5. It's still a point and a half less (the armor is averaged on the basis it's 2, for 3 it would be 1.5).

So now that the net damage of Double Strike has been proven better than Troll Feller and is more likely to occur and requires less die to achieve its effect, lets look at the other factors.

Troll Feller eliminates defensive modification as a variable making it more likely the slayer will be wounded. It is more prohibitive than Double Strike as Double Strike can be used on any size target and gains additional benefits when fighting multiple opponents where as Troll Feller only effects larger targets and gives no additional benefits to being outnumbered like double strike does. Where as Double Strike allows for greater defense against the guy attacking you (via active defense) giving a higher rate of survival against an opponent who is beating on them so they continue to more and more frequent damage. Additionally, there is no chance that you will ever gain a wound from Double Strike while Troll Feller may be beating the crap out of you just for using it. Troll Feller also has a greater chance to increase fatigue. Fatigue is a fighter's bane as it facilitates a faster exhaust and a growing rate of penalties on attack rolls.

You see, when looking at the damage of a weapon or maneuver you can't simply look at one action, but how it will play out over consecutive turns, because rarely does anything go down from one hit so it will take multiple rounds to make a single kill. Then you also have to weigh in the actual probability for the amount of damage to know how often it will occur over turns. Yes, you can roll more damage in a single turn with Troll-Feller, but the probability is extremely lower that it will compared to the probability that Double Strike yields a consistent 15 damage (as outlined above). Then you must look at the rate of fatigue, the rate you'll be able to use that action card (recharge rate), as well as the rate you'll take actual damage from the card. When taking all that into account, Double Strike is clearly and definitively better.

And to finish the point, if you're still not convinced, the Damage delivered is important, more so than the criticals, because 0 wounds left puts something down does it not? Maybe not dead, but down? Then its a matter of a finishing move and combat is over. Sure, the Criticals may slow it down from killing you, but it doesn't mean it won't succeed in doing so. Down is the first objective, death is the second. Besides, the penalties to the opponent are less important because Double Strike allows more defense options, as outlined above.

Now you could go from Troll Feller to Double-Strike, but that is an even longer explanation on why that isn't a great idea either. In a nutshell, you are still more likely to deal more damage by consistent use of Double-Strike than interrupting it with attacks that have a higher potential damage, but at a lower chance to actually deliver that damage and for the same chance that Double Strike delivers big, big damage, other strikes deliver less damage.

That is why Troll Feller is worse than Double Strike and why, ultimately, as far as I've seen, Double Strike is the best card in the game. To think anything else is simply silly (lol...totally joking, seriously, I am).

So if Double Strike is so much better than a Basic Melee attack, and can be used every single round INSTEAD of it, why on earth does it have zero recharge?

That DOES seem a bit over powered.

Necrozius said:

It would be ok for a card to be better than basic melee strike w/ zero recharge due to requirements on the card you can use a shield with basic melee attack. I still have no idea what a shield actually does though, so it's hard to say.

It does appear like this thread is going to require probability analysis, before we arrive at "nuh uh" and "yes huh!" FFG, please release the tool you developed for doing so for general use.

Commoner, I think you're discounting a couple things:
1) TFS does slightly more damage with a single success than DS
2) The odds are better, due to cancellation effects, of getting only a single success and single boon, than compared to 2 successes and/or 2 boons. Both a single success result and a single boon result favor TFS. I'd say it's more probable to roll 1 success+ 1 boon than it is to roll 2 successes. A 1x success + 1x boon result favors TFS by having slightly more base damage, plus ignoring armor soak.
3) You match maxing of 7 dice for TFS vs 5 for DS. A TFS with 5 (3 successes + 2 boons) still matches DS, with 16 wounds and a critical vs 17 wounds...or TFS (w/only 1 success and 3 boons for 4 dice) does 14 with a critical and ignoring soak comes really close too. So, they are on par at 5 dice, TFS running a close second with only 4 dice, with the added bonus that TFS still has the potential to do more should the player roll well.
4) I see your point about boons and successes sort of "subtracting" from each other. It's going to happen regardless whether it's TFS or DS. See my points #1 and #2. DS is liekly to roll a single boon... which is useless. A single boon has an advantage for TFS. Similarly, a single Success is better for TFS than DS. So, for example, rolling 1 success and 2 boons is WAY better using TFS (for a total of 14 wounds +1 critical) than DS which is normal 12 wounds of damage. Pretty much, all it takes is rolling at least a single boon to make TFS at least slightly better than DS. And chances are better for rolling some of each, than multiples of a single type.
5) See previous points, to explain that I disagree that DS is more consistant damage. I don't see needing 2 successes is any easier or more consistent than needing 1 success and 1 boon.

Lets start with the low end for both instances. 1 Boon and 1 Success for Troll Feller nets a total of +2 damage, and ignores armor. The dwarf has a net damage of 6 damage where as with double strike nets 14.

Where are you getting these numbers? Net of 6 damage? For TFS, 1 Boon + 1 Success does: 10(S+DR)+1(boon)+1(success)=12 and ignores armor soak. DS does 15(S+DR+DR). So... slight edge to DS for 3 Wounds, depending on enemy's armor soak. Hardly the big gap of 12 wounds you are suggesting in your example. An enemy with an armor soak of 3 makes the two damage exactly equal. (BTW, the Wargor has a 3 soak! Certainly an appropriate target for TFS). Also, your premise of going back to the Basic Melee Strike is somewhat extraneous. There is nothing to say the Trollslayer doesn't have an alterative action to use in the "off" rounds, besides the option to spend fortune points to remove a single recharge allowing him to use it every round for a limited amount of time, (or get a talent or someone, like a priest, that can occasionally reduce recharge timers). Throwing in the damage output assuming a Basic Melee strike action is erroneous. He could easily have DS, for example, and use that in his alternate attack while waiting for TFS to recharge.

This is of course not mentioning the fact that double strike at maximum effect against multiple opponents has dropped an additional 20 points on another enemy while Troll Feller has dropped zero.

True, but as I explained, each round that you don't kill an enemy they have the chance to damage you. TFS gives you a better chance to kill high-wound and/or armored foes. I admitted against multiple opponents that DS is usually better. If you're only against a single guy, the special from the comet is mostly useless, or is at least much less than the effect that TFS provides.

Just in case that's not enough, then lets look at the average the damage assuming high end and low end will be achieved at an equal rate (but still pulling off an effect on the card). 15 on the low for double strike and 17 on the high yields an average of 16 points of damage where as Troll Feller yields 13.5 on average. Add 1 for the armor and you are still looking at 16 Double Strike to Troll Slayer's 14.5. It's still a point and a half less (the armor is averaged on the basis it's 2, for 3 it would be 1.5).

Ok, it wasn't enough, as I've so convincingly rebutted earlier. First.. your low end is wrong. Low end is 1 success and no boons ... so 11 wounds for TFS and 10 wounds for DS. High end for DS is 17, so the average is 13.5 for DS. TFS is 11 on low end, and TFS on high end is .. well I'm not sure what effect lines you were using for the high end. I guess it was 2-success+2-boons for each (since you said "equal rate")? In that case, TFS high is 14, plus a critical. That's 12.5 average, but also with a critical. Pretty close to the DS average. Alternately, TFS with 1 success and 3 boons has a high of 15, ignoring armor, plus a critical, which would put the average to 13, 14 with 1 point of armor, plus a critical, and thus surpassing DS.

So now that the net damage of Double Strike has been proven better than Troll Feller and is more likely to occur and requires less die to achieve its effect, lets look at the other factors.

Only slightly better (sometimes). Not proven more likely to occur. TFS can achieve a similar effect for just as many dice, as I said above.

- Yes, TFS makes it more likely for the Trollslayer to be Wounded due to no Active Defenses.
- DS is also prohibitive because it requires a wepaon in each hand. Get disarmed, or don't have enough maneuvers to draw both weapons, and you can't do it, for example.
- Yes, I think TFS is slightly more prohibitive in its restrictions. However, I wouldn't discount DS's need to have a weapon in each hand. There are a lot of things you can't do with your hands holding weapons.
- Yes, TFS can wound you with a Chaos. Strike against it for sure.
- DS also adds a which increases the chance of a Bane, which increases the chance to gain fatigue (or cancel that +2 dam), so the fatigue seems a wash to me.

And to finish the point, if you're still not convinced, the Damage delivered is important, more so than the criticals, because 0 wounds left puts something down does it not? Maybe not dead, but down? Then its a matter of a finishing move and combat is over. Sure, the Criticals may slow it down from killing you, but it doesn't mean it won't succeed in doing so. Down is the first objective, death is the second. Besides, the penalties to the opponent are less important because Double Strike allows more defense options, as outlined above.

Sure, Damage is important. You do know there are criticals that cause the target to suffer <P> or on physical actions? There are ones that cause fatigue (which for monsters turns into a Wound). And so on. Do not underestimate criticals, and do not underestimate Soak. I think I've proven that TFS is slightly better at the low-end, and much better at the high end. DS shines in the middle, if it can get the 2 successes and nothing else. Add in any boons, or get high/low on successes (anything other than 2) and TFS at least equals DS, if not exceeds it.

I do agree, though, that I think that to be fair, DS should have a 2 recharge. However, honestly, I personally think pretty much every action other than basic ones should have a recharge > 0 anyway. That's the point of the basic actions. They aren't the best, but they can be used whenever needed.

DS is not, IMO, much better than TFS. Certainly, I feel I've proven it is not hands down better.

I'll look through the other action cards and see if I find something even better, though. Then we can argue about how overpowered it is compared to DS/TFS.

No one has proven a thing. There's been no math done yet. I suppose I'll get to it... eventually...

Most pressing: Saying "2 successes" is equally as likely as "1 success and 1 boon" is nonsense you have about twice as good a chance of netting a success as you do netting a boon on everything but a yellow die.

And both the <P> and are as likely to remove 1 or 2 of them, and DS gives an extra . But, I'm pretty much done. I've tried to show that DS isn't the hands-down winner compared to TFS, and I personally think I've made a good case. I'm not saying DS isn't good, and I'm not saying that DS isn't better than TFS is some situations.

The interesting thing to see, is that at 1 and 3 successes, TFS is about as good as DS (either slightly better or slightly worse), and TFS is definitely better if at least a single boon is rolled too. DS only significantly outperforms TFS if you get 2 successes and nothing else. I think that's an interesting, and important, thing to identify. TFS is better on the poor and great rolls, while DS is better with the middle rolls. It's an interesting dynamic between them.

Ok so. It occurs to me that in the demo, the GM may well have been assigning challenge dice incorrectly. Somewhat regardless. Anyway, I don't have probability distribution, but here's the info to get an average result:

blue:
.5 successes
.25 boons
.25 blanks

purple:
.75 challenges
.375 banes
.125 chaos stars
.125 blanks

white:
.5 blanks
.333 successes
.166 boons

black dice:
.5 blanks
.166 banes
.333 challenges

red
.2 blanks
.7 successes
.2 exertions
.3 boons
.2 banes

green
.1 blank
.7 successes
.2 boons
.2 delays

yellow
.388 boons
.193 successes
.193 comets
.193 blanks
.193 righteous successes

(My calc is poor, so I just did the net of two rerolls, but those are correct within about a hundreth?)

Anyway, you can do simple addition to get the average and median result. Which is nearly useless, but it's a beginning.

So. Troll-slayer Kurgi whacks something w/ 2 defense. (I don't recall the stats exactly.)

So, the pool is: 3 reckless, 2 characteristic, 1 skill, 1 challenge, 2 black, 0 fortune 0 conservative.

so reds are:

.6 blanks, 2.1 successes, .6 exertions, .6 banes, .9 boons

characteristics are:

1 success, .5 boons, .5 blanks

blacks are:

1 blanks, .66 challenges, .33 banes

skills is .388 boons, .193 successes/comets/blanks/righteous successes,

challenge is .75 challenges .375 banes .125 chaos stars .125 blanks

so total of all the above:

3.49 successes, 1.788 boons, 1.41 challenges, 1.305 banes, .125 chaos stars.

Net of: 2.08 successes, .483 boons, .125 chaos stars. (Obviously, double strike will have an additional .33 challenges and .166 banes, meaning that most of the time you won't hit 2 successes. Interesting.)

So, that's the 50th percentile of results. Note that the amount of boons you have at the halfway point is a quarter of the successes you have. That won't necessarily curve out similarly, it is hard to say.

Anyway, this doesn't determine "average damage" or anything of the like, and Dvang already said that double-strike is best with middling results. The thing is, is that most results are going to be middling results due to regression to the mean .

Anyway, again, I dare someone to figure out average damage, because I'm not a great programmer and I don't want to do it myself.

And PLEASE correct my numbers if you see a flaw, I'd like to work towards a shared understanding, and I'd be flat out thrilled to be wrong about this!

dvang said:

Actually I'd beg to differ that a Dwarf is physically smaller than a human, because if they were they wouldnt get +1 strength and toughness over that of a human (typically the baseline in RPGs), implying they are physically superior to a human. While a typical dwarf is shorter they are physically larger in breath, mass, muscle and density to that of a typical human. Though we could discuss it all day long and both have some valid arguments as to how the term physical is applied in this situation.

As for the topic:
Looking at the results shown I'd say TFS comes into its own when the Troll Slayer is employing a 2 handed weapon, and the division between the two would be greater.

Loswaith said:

Good contention. What's the damage on a 2hander anyway?

Thanks Terwox for running the math I didn't want to go anywhere near. Yes it would be great if FFG gave us some form of calculation issue or someone home brews one. These dice make curves, well, curvy I guess.

Speaking of the math, I have this hunch (based on the rolls I've seen) it will actually be harder to get 1 success or a flat out no success and most rolls will either occur with Successes, Banes, and Boons. Furthermore, looking at the above success margin system, it seems like it is also easier to get more successes then banes, but I also think it will be largely dependent on Passive, Aggressive, and Neutral stance as well as how many dice you can chuck at it. That kind of math has to suck.

The two handed weapon is a great point, and honestly, one that didn't occur to me. What does that look like? Can anyone elaborate. Even if it's a +2 higher than typical hand weapon it may even out the equation, assuming one success is scored. Hard to say.

@ Dvang:

Yeah, oops, I forgot to add the weapon damage to the Troll Feller 2 success attack line, bringing the Total to 11, so yeah, a lot of the math in my previous post is off, but Double Strike does yield a larger damage margin over successive turns compared to Troll Slayer, basic attack. It also isn't fair for the argument to presume that Troll Feller has another form of attack in the middle since you're initial response was to put only Double Strike and Troll-Feller in two separate corners. Why basic attack is relevant to the argument is it highlights the recharge rate of the card being a flaw against it (if it's the only card you have) compared to Double strike (as the only card you have).

What you're post has proven is the margin between the two isn't huge and now, it's a matter of math (to actually prove which is better) and of course preference. I'm not trying to turn you to the dark side of Double Strike, I'm simply using it as a frame to express that, in my opinion, the cards are not nearly as balanced as they should be, which brings me back to why I think Double Strike is a no-brainer.

Why I view it as a no-brainer compared to Troll-Feller (and I have no idea how it really became about these two cards) is it is far superior to a Basic Attack at the same recharge rate. Double Strike also seems better than many, many other cards with a recharge rate (nimble strike? - the one that uses Agility instead of Strength. Obviously having Double Strike to go when Troll Feller is recharging is also heavily useful, especially if you can switch weapons from two handed to single handed. So why I view it as a no-brainer is the fact that the card is so good at what it does it should not only be a slayer's first pic, it should be everyone's first pic. Now admittedly, I haven't seen all the cards nor have I thrown all the math in the world at them, but from casual observation from the Demo and a solid browse through the cards, nothing came close to the "first pic" category, leaving many, many cards in the dust. So after a player takes double strike they should take whatever else they want and use them for fun/fluff reason. That was my point. I'd love to hear, honestly, you're analysis of the other cards and how they stack up. Of course, give us a week or so, and I guess I'll be browsing it myself! Yay!

I've browsed the other cards. A lot of the cards give conditions (good to player, or bad to target). Most damage bonuses are +1 or occasionally a +2. Some give additional maneuvers, or disengagements. Some allow you to remove recharge tokens. Some give the target additional stress/fatigue (which convert into wounds against most NPCs). Some give [W] to later attacks, or to the attacks of allies.

I haven't deeply crunched the numbers on any of the cards. There are a few that look like they might come close.

- Sniper Shot can give extra damage equal to weapon DR with a comet, plus up to +2 damage from effect lines. So possibly 5Agi+6+6+2 = 19 (plus a crit)

- Twin pistols can add DR of secondary weapon to damage on a comet roll, with up to +2 damage from effect lines. (or can hit a second target in engagement)

-Thunderous Blow can hit for DR of weapon on a comet roll (2-handed weapon only), with up to +2 criticals. Note: 2-handed weapons have DRs of 6 or 7, compared to 5 or less for 1-handed weapons.

- Reckless Cleave can hit for +3 damage, as well as extra damage equal to S merely with 3 successes and 1 boon, or +2 damage and add weapon DR for a mere 1 success and 2 boons. This looks to be the closest to TFS and DS in damage potential. With a Great Weapon you'd do 5(S)+7+3+5=20 wounds, or 21 Wounds in conservative stance (but easier to pull off).

- Mighty Blow can do +3 damage as well as get a second hit for the same damage ... but it's unarmed damage, and armor heavier than leather gets +1 soak.

Those seem to be the majority of the high-damage cards in the core set. Everything else is mostly effects. None of those seems to be as consistent in damage as TFS or DS, although Reckless Cleave is pretty good, and could actually be better (it does have its drawbacks, though, and a recharge of 3). So, really TFS and DS seem to be the "biggest" damage cards for the most part in the Core Set.

Also, as I browsed the action cards, I was looking at the recharge values. As I expected, 0 recharge are the minority. It really seems like DS should have more of a recharge than 0, or else have a second , or add fatigue/stress, which would make it more consistent with the other action cards. Cards with 0 recharge either don't do a lot of stuff, or they have some detriments like [bB], or <P> or +stress, etc.

dvang said:

You should check out Rapid Fire in the hands of a competent wood elf.

True, I forgot to mention rapid fire and it was in my stack of ones to talk about (not sure how I forogt it). It *could* be good, being able to keep attacking as long as you hit. However, adding a <P> to each attack makes it unlikely, even in the hands of a wood elf, of hitting more than 2 times. Their 3rd attack is rolling <PPP>, for example.

dvang said:

Thanks D'Vang for taking a look through all of those. I thought they were the two mega-smashers (Double Strike and Troll Feller) and Troll Feller actually seemed reasonably balanced comparatively as our session went on and I got a chance to look at more of the cards...Double Strike, However, did not. They are both great cards and I actually find them all to be really great conceptually. I don't know statistically, as I don't have them yet.

I guess the real indication for me that it was a no-brainer is how much better it is than all the zero action cards and how it sort of surpasses many of the other higher recharge cards. I don't know the name of it, but the one that allows you to do damage based on your insanities, great fluff, great idea, great for witch hunters, just great all around, but I do think it had a pretty high recharge rate and is nowhere near as good as Double Strike. So I see the no-brainer aspect that it is nearly leagues behind all the other cards it seems that they needed to put another drawback to it. Perhaps another black. The fatigue idea was great. I can't believe I, of all people, are about to type this, but a two recharge on it wouldn't have been bad either since you get one round double strike, one round whatever strike representing using the off handed weapon to defend the other turn or they block the second weapon, giving you an opportunity to get a good, clean hit in. It has a great fluff background. But if I had to choose, put some fatigue somewhere in there and it would probably balance. It just needs a good fix and hopefully, somebody on the design team will read this and realize it (if they haven't already). I'm sure a separate post will be started after everybody gets it about double strike though (lol) as if this post never even existed. Then the designers will call it a "miss print" and we'll move on just fine from FAQ land.

So no, I think Troll Feller is a great card, Double Strike is just...off the chart quite a bit and needs a repair job. That type of thing though may be best in the house rules section, but I won't really be able to participate until we get the cards (sorry, until I and anyone else who didn't get to keep the demo box, gets the cards - ya' bastard! ).

The thing about the elf power and troll feller, the more dice the character can throw, the better those cards will actually perform. They seem more tailored toward higher "levels" then low levels starting out. Maybe at high levels as well, Double Strike begins to even out with the rest of it (but not with its other zero recharge buddies).

Thanks a lot for providing info on some of the Action Cards to us, who haven't been able to experience the game yet!!