Folks, can the game be played by four people or four plus the GM?

By the way I found a review at www.strike-to-stun.net/wfrp/2009/12/warhammer-fantasy-roleplay-3rd-edition-review

that seemed informative.

Both.

It can be played with 4 people out of the box with no sharing of the components, or if you want to photocopy the basic action cards, you can do more than 4 (so 5 in your example)

Technically it can be played by as many players as you want if you share cards. There are three sets of cards so three players plus a GM is the recommended number.

With regards to that reveiw I would suggest checking out this thread on StS forum.strike-to-stun.net/viewtopic.php in particular post number 6 before reading the reveiw as it is somewhat enlightening.

By enlightening, he means that the post in question is calling out the reviewer for not being impartial at all, but in fact an employee of FFG.

I don't know whether that is true or not, but whatev.

This V3 war is becoming epic. It's like... people's LIVES are at stake.

EDIT: Schoon is a playtester and freelance writer for Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy. He has no involvement with WFRP v3.

Necrozius said:

I will only point you to this flowchart. Please feel free to substitute appropriate names for ease of reference.

Honestly, it's a game - the point of which is to have fun. Nobody is stopping the wfrp2e players from playing their game and nobody is forcing them to play wfrp3e.

The proverbial backlash by a vocal minority is astonishing to say the least (a simple look at one of the polls on RPG.net show that the "boardgame" thing is a straw-man argument)

I think the linked review in the OP is excellently written (except for calling Fatigue, "Strain", heh) He has some good points, and in depth discussion and analysis, and even a breakdown of information in the books. There are things he doesn't like so much (or thinks could be better) but explains why. It's a well rounded and well-written article for anyone interested or looking for information regarding WFRP3e.

froo said:

Perfect! Showing this to my players tonight (Did that sound gangster to you?) Now, all I need is to get hold of a copy of this boardgame...

Bad Birch said:

Har har har

Well I read through the StS thread suggested above and concluded, based on all the posts there the review is reasonably objective. The writer admits that he worked as a freelancer for FFG but not as a perm employee. I believe him/her.

I especially enjoyed the you tube videos.

Thorien said:

Therefore his employment is less than secure and you cannot tell me that when writing that review he wasn't thinking 'I shouldn't be too critical or i might not get that next juicy free lance contract from FFG'.

I like 4th edition, just pointing out that by being free lance it probably makes him just as bias as a perma employee.

No, you can't assume bias just because the guy worked for them briefly. He's employed full time as a manager somewhere else, so his income isn't derived from his writing.

I see your point though, but let me ask, will any reviewer who doesn't give a DNA sample and an FBI background check be believable?

If I can put together the money to get a copy of WHFRP I'll try it out and write a review. I have no affiliation with any company or organization in the gaming industry. I'm just a player, and a thorough one at that, so I should pass muster.

My writing skills are reasonable, too.