I have a question about how you read the action check line on the action cards. I assume that whenever it is a Characteristic vs. Characteristic check then it counts as an opposed check, as it states on p.49 "To perform this action, a character must attempt the check shown here. This indicates if the check is a standard or opposed check.". So for example Ranged Shot reads "Ballistic Skill (Ag) vs Target Defence." Keeping in mind that the default difficulty for a melee/ranged attack option is Easy (1d) you would then compare the Agility Characteristic of the character against the Target's Defence and determine if any extra dice need to be added. So, lets say the character is firing at an enemy with a Defence of 1 and the character has a Agility of 4. The target's Defence is less than half of the acting characteristic and no challenge dice are added. This leaves us with a difficulty of Easy (1d) as that is the default. If the enemy had Defence 2 then it would only be less than the acting characteristic and add +1 challenge die to the difficulty making it an Average (2d) check.

Before when I was reading examples of combat people made it sound like a melee/ranged attack is always a Easy check and I don't believe this is the case. I also believe this would answer the question of how to figure out difficulty values for spells that has been such a big topic. For this example let us look at two Bright Wizard spells, one containing a standard check and the other a opposed check in the action check line.

The first card is Flameblast which states "Spellcraft (Int)" in the action check line. This is not an opposed check, so there is no modifiers to the challenge dice. However, the spell has an inherent challenge of Easy (1d) as listed on the top left corner of the card. So, as this is NOT a melee/ranged attack there is no default difficulty and you would just add the 1 challenge die. This is of course if you are not engaged with an enemy as the card's Requirements state that you add an additional challenge die in that case bringing it up to an Average (2d) check.

The second card is Great Fires of U'Zhul which states "Spellcraft (Int) vs. Target Defence" in the action check line. This is an opposed check so we must consult the table for opposed checks to see the challenge of casting. For this spell we will assume an Int of 4 for the character. This card, like Flameblast, has a difficulty of one challenge die listed on the top left of the card. So, if our Target had a Defence of 1 zero challenge dice would be added (1 is less than half of 4) and the total challenge would be Easy (1d). If the Target had Defence 2 than +1 challenge die would have to be added according to the table and the total challenge would be Average (2d).

So we can see that Flameblast is relatively easy to cast as no matter what the Target's characteristics are the difficulty will not raise. Great Fires on the other hand will become more difficult as the Target's Defence increases.

To give one final example look at Magic Dart, a petty spell. Magic Dart is a Spellcraft (Int) check with an difficulty of one misfortune die. As this is not an opposed check challenge dice only enter the equation when the Requirement of "If you are engaged with an enemy, add <P> to your dice pool" is met.

I am pretty sure this is how the cards were intended to be read and I hope someone can either confirm or deny if this is correct. Like I said, if this is the correct way to read the Action Check lines then I think a lot of people's questions about spellcasting difficulty would be answered.

This is also what I was wondering. I wanted to hear from someone who ran their combats with "X v. Defence" cards as opposed checks to know how it went.

Well I imagine it is not too different than people just running it as an Easy (1d) check all the time as Defence values tend to be on the low side. However, it would make a difference if someone like a wizard apprentice was trying to hit a Chaos Warrior with a sword, which would most definitely not be an Easy check. I think this gives the system a little more scalability and seems to be more like how it is intended. The only thing is that it doesn't explicitly state this in the combat example given in the book. However, that example does not disprove my thinking as a Elf with Agility 5 vs. a Beastman of Defence 1 would add 0 challenge dice to the pool and the check would remain Easy (1d) since that is the default for a ranged attack.

That does make sense if you consider a caster trying to melee someone and you want the rules to support it.

The confusion was from the description of a combat turn and when the rules say the GM may feel the action is better represented by an opposed or unopposed check. It seemed to imply that the attack was its own type of action and the GM could change it to one of 'opposed or unopposed.'

Maybe, though, the attack cards are opposed as they appear to be ('X v. Defence' sounds opposed to me) and the rules were just saying that regardless of whether the action card is opposed or unopposed, the GM can change it to the other type if she feels it's fitting.

Mordenthral said:

Oh, I agree, the line about representing an action as an opposed or unopposed check confused me as well. Personally I think I am going to interpret that as something that basically says that depending on the situation the GM may wish to make a call on way or another. For example, you may be making a Melee attack (opposed check according to the card) against a door and the GM decides that it would be better represented as a standard check with X success needed to break the door (dependant on material of door and hinges, thickness, etc) or by just adding challenge dice and require one success. What makes me believe that the actions with the action check line "X characteristic vs. Y characteristic" are opposed checks is the line on p.49 "To perform this action, a character must attempt the check shown here. This indicates if the check is a standard or opposed check." with standard checks just listing the characteristic you make the check with and opposed checks being X vs. Y.

Target's Defense is not one of the six Characteristics, so combat is not normally an opposed check. If you were trying to wrestle an opponent to the ground rather than make a standard Melee attack, the GM could decide that was better represented by an opposed check, Str vs. Str or Str vs. Agility.

mac40k said:

Combat might be more interesting if it IS an opposed check. And you can interpret the rules as such. I just want to hear from a group that tries it that way. Then it would make sense that, for example, a Dodge Specialisation adds an extra Misfortune to a dodged attack, since that kind of thing is in the rules for opposed checks.

As for wrestling someone to the ground, I think the Grapple action card may cover that.

I understand that Defence is not one of the 6 characteristics, but I fail to see why they would bother putting "Weapon Skill (Str) vs. Defence" on the card then. Just make it a standard "Weapon Skill (Str)" check with standard difficulty of Easy (1d). Honestly I think we are going to have to wait until the FAQ to see what was intended, but I do think making them opposed checks allows them to scale better as stated before.

I believe the combat action that are BS/WS vs Defense are there to remind the Active Player to account X many of Misfortune Dice for the opponent's Defense into his dice pool.

-ashe-

szlachcic said:

Personally, i think they added the Vs defence line to remind the person performing the act to add 1 die per point of defence the target has. This is clearly stated in the rules that you do this on page 58.

So i think you could choose to make combat checks opposed, if you so wish, but i don't think the intent of the RAW is to make them opposed, otherwise you could end up adding <P> dice for a high defence value and then adding in dice too, making the target highly unlikely to be hit.

It should only be one or the other really, and by the rules defence adds .

I think I support Mordenthral and Szlachcic's interpetation of the rules. Its what our GM used in our Emperor's Decree demo and it seemed to work fine.

But, to play devil's advocate, page 58 does say that "The default difficulty for melee and ranged attacks is Easy (1d)", followed in the next paragraph with the explanation of how to use your targets defence value, i.e. by adding a misfortune die for each point of the target's defence.

That, unfortunately does seem unequivocal. Combat attacks are normally opposed by 1 challenge die plus a number of misfortune dice equal to your opponent's defence. In almost all cases that will be 0-2 misfortune dice. I didn't see any creatures in the Tome of Adventure that had more than a 2 defence.

Using the RAW, most things aren't going to be very hard to hit, but the same is true if we go with combat attacks as opposed tests. If you're comparing your Str (WS) (lets say you're just an average commoner with a 3 Str and no WS training) vs. the target's defence of 0-2, you are going to end up with either 0 challenge dice if they have a defence of 0 or 1 if their defence is 1 or 2. This way seems too easy.

Therefore, perhaps the way its explained on pg. 58 is better, and a little more challenging. I still think its unintuitive to say that attacking in melee combat is an unopposed check, but I think its just a matter of definitions that are getting in the way.

Ok, I see the reasoning behind the wording now, and agree that maybe just sticking to the misfortune dice for Defence works. I do still think that spells have their difficulty on their card and if it is X vs. Y (where X and Y are some characteristic and not defence) then it would be an opposed check and challenge dice may have to be added.

szlachcic said:

absolutely. Any card that has two skills listed in the Vs statement is opposed and therefore may add <P> dice to the pool.

I don't understand why defence value relies solely upon armor and shield. For me that's a problem because a character who wants to dodge with a chainmail and a shield will be far more effective than a character equipped with a leather jacket. That's why I think that it would be more logic if Dodge will use as Ag vs Strength and not strength vs defence plus one or two misfortune die if the player has the dodge specialisation.

Just a question, We can parry or block a giant for the moment, am I right ?

Double post because I don't think I am very clear :

Defence value can be very helpful if used with parry or block specialisations (without mentioning the soak bonus) but I find it weird that it can actually help a player who wants to dodge. ^^

Edit : Sorry, a friend explained to me that you can't have the dodge specialisations with a chainmail armor. But still, It would be more logic if the strength or the agility of an attacked character will be used to modify the default difficulty for melee of the attacker which is Easy (1d)"

Hauer Glaeken said:

On p58 it says: The GM may decide the action in question is better served as an unopposed or opposed check.

I use opposed checks in combat all the time, as long as the target is aware of the attacker and is actively doing something about the attack (like fighting with him or trying to get out of the way).

monkeylite said:

Is there a lot of failing to hit by the combatants when you do this? How does it on average effect the pool? are people regularly rolling <PP> or <PPP> in their pools?

I am glad that it is written in the core set !

Yes it allows a character to have at least a chance to dodge, pary or block an attack. Without the opposed checks, a wood elf will a have a little chance to be able to dodge a Chaos Warrior's attack for instance (6 characteristics dices and 3 who are transformed to 3 reckless stances). So I agree with monkeylite, as long as the character is aware of the attack, I will adopt opposed checks in combat situation.

pumpkin said:

Yeah, lots of purple dice are common, and I guess there's bound to be more missing. But I've been very happy with the balance of the fights we've had, and never thought there was too much missing. Otoh, all my main PCs are combat competent.

So I'd say if you're concerned with the way the various stats contribute to the fights, then try it both ways and see which way feels better. It certainly feels, to me, to be the most natural way to do things.

There are two types of check: standard and opposed.

The action card check line written as "X v. Y" is obviously an opposed check, by definition.

An Easy check has a difficulty of 0; default difficulty for Melee and Ranged attacks (it says nothing about spells) is 1d.

I don't want to assume that this means attacks are Simple. It's just a default Challenge dice that is always added to Ranged and Melee attacks. Then you add more Challenge dice based on 'WS or BS v. Defence'

In addition, anything that in other versions would be -20 or -30 adds another Challenge dice (like attacking with your off-hand). Anything that would be -10 adds a Misfortune; anything that would be +10 adds a Fortune; and anything that would be +20 would remove a Challenge dice.

This gives a rough rules-ish feel for adding and removing dice. In reality I would do it ad-hoc without thinking of it in terms of percentage adjustments.

So a standard Ranged attack against an opponent at Close range, wearing clothes, in broad daylight on a dirt road would have a single Challenge dice and no Misfortune.

A Range attack against an opponent at Extreme range, wearing plate armor and using a shield, at night in the rain in the forest would be more like 4 Challenge dice and 5 Misfortune.

Perhaps this may be an option?

Any Action card which targets Defence is an opposed Action if the opponent choses an Active Defence, or has a Defence Action in play.

In which case, use the Characteristic the Defence is based on.

(The best characteristic if multiple Defences are used.)

(Any Action card which has the "Defence" trait applies.)

Example: Player makes a Melee Strike against a player who choses to react with both Parry & Dodge.

They would suffer additional Black dice as appropriate for Parry & Dodge, (and 1/per point of defence value of armor)

also, the attack would be treated as an opposed check between the attackers; Str vs opponents Str or Agi.

(Use the chart on page 58 of the roleplay rulebook to determine how many Challenge and/or misfortune dice are added.)

Otherwise treat the attack as unopposed. (default difficulty 1 challenge die for Melee or Ranged attacks.)

I recently purchased WFRP and have a run a few sessions. This thread highlights one of my biggest questions about the combat rules. I see differeng viewpoints here, several of which make sense. Did we ever get a firm answer for this?

Thanks!

colonelclick said:

According to the rules as written, it's simply this:

Actions that are listed as "characteristic/skill VS characteristic/skill" are opposed checks.

Actions listed as "characteristic/skill VS defense" are normal attacks and default to 1 challange dice with 1 misfortune dice added for every point of defense.

The GM is of course free to judge that the situation warrants deviating from this.

Thank you for your super simple reply, that pretty much clears it up!

Ralzar said:

Really ? I hadn't thought that the 1 Challenge would be counted as Defense in all circumstances, (i.e. spells). I was under the impression that ranged and melee had a default vs Defense difficulty of 1 Challenge plus defenders misfortune if any. But for spell, that difficulty was by default Simple (0d) and add misfortune.

I really think this whole "default Difficulty" is a pain. Why not just put the default difficulty on the card itself ??? And of course allow GM fiat to modify according to circumstance... Now we always need to look at the card, then think of the default, which the GM may change, then look at Defense, then look at circumstance... Clunky. Weird. Not intuitive.

-

My "solution" right now is to use the RAW for melee situations (engagements of 4 or more combatants) and use the RAW opposed roll option for "duels" (engagements of less than 4 combatants). The idea being that melee is a slugfest and hitting is easier, and combat in melee is bloodier. Duels involve more tactic, art and individual prowess.

As per RAW, the "scalability" of Defense comes through active defense cards that can be improved. We now have Improved Dodge and such and I would suspect that Omens of War will bring us "Superior Dodge" or something like it.

Using my houserule, the way to improve Defense in a melee situation is to stay in formation (using Improved Guarded Position for example) and thus delivering an extra Challenge die for allies Defense. In a Duel, Improved Dodge and such are the only way to safeguard yourself. The Wardancer would benefit from his high Agility (used to oppose enemy WS) and Improved Active Defense cards and Wardancer action cards confering defense bonuses...