I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly.

A player and a monster are in “engaged range” but they are not in engaged so I can not play the melee action card because the player and monster need to be engaged.

In this case the monster will need to perform engage manoeuvre and loose a wound to play a melee action?

Think of Engaged as another distance category. It's extremely close quarters. Non-combat, it means you are close enough to whisper. For combat, it means close enough to hit with a melee weapon.

So you move from Close distance to Engaged distance essentially. You're never in "engaged distance" and not engaged.

Good.

That's what I throught but I don't think it specifically says that in the rulebook. Also the Engaged Action threw me.

Thanks

If he's not doing anything else the monster can engage for free as his free manoeuvre and still get his melee action.

Remember, monsters can also take a wound and perform additional manoeuvres if they need to get somewhere fast. Jay also put up an optional rule that says they can spend A/C/E to manoeuvre.

Action cards aren't manoeuvres. That's a separate part of the phase. No matter if they use up their manoeuvre allotment or not, they can still attack if they are engaged.

O.K, just to recap;

1. Being in the Engaged range means that you are Engaged with the target
2. Get one free manoeuvre
3. There is an optional rule to use A/C/E to perform an extra manoeuvres (sounds good)
4. Action's are not manoeuvres

Are you allowed just one action? (I think I need to read this section again and understand it)

NezziR said:

I don't think so, the rules state they dont have any fatigue but that if they are forced to spend either stress or fatigue (say from a critical or special ability) they take wounds instead. It doesnt say they can choose to take a wound to activate something that usually requires a fatigue/stress.

Unless it does say it somewhere and I missed that rule, in which case I take it back =P

Kaptain O said:

Here is a post from Jay. I can't find the exact link, but it's in this sub-forum somewhere:

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.
Jay Little

You're right though. It doesn't say that. It's just a little extrapolation based on what it does say.

I think the idea extends logically from the rules.

• Monsters/NPCs have access to the same basic actions as PCs
• Monsters/NPCs have access to the same maneuvers as PCs
• In situates where a Monster/NPC would take Fatigue or Stress, they instead take 1 Wound.
• Jay offered the optional rule that GMs can spend Aggression to add maneuvers.

This would suggest by inference that they *can* take additional maneuvers, but at a cost of either Aggression or taking a Wound.

fair enough, if it's been errata'd to work like that it's cool.

I think I will play using the ACE points, otherwise for just a few measly wounds your critters can be running around like crazy.

Also considering putting a cap on how many movement manouevres you can take in a single turn, I don't care how tired you get you shouldnt be able to get from extreme to engaged on one turn.

Kaptain O said:

That might be an interesting Agility based cap.

Kaptain O said:

Engaging from Extreme Range would cost 6 wounds. That's a lot. The monster would be exhausted by the time he got there and picked off easily. With most minion groups, it would even mean one of them drops dead before they get there.

It's likely I wouldn't take that option anyway. That sounds like the GM exploiting the system. I try to keep my monsters fair. As I've said, I've killed of two demo characters already, playing the RAW, so exploiting the rules for further advantage would just be mean

I'm planning a long term campaign. Our test games leading up to that are setting the precedence on how that campaign will be adjudicated. Because of this, I'm leaning a little toward 'cutting the players some slack' till I figure out just how easy it is to kill one of them off. I want them to have a fighting chance at a long term campaign. So, things like 'not over taxing them on caster rolls', 'me not exploiting the rules', and other things that give me an unfair advantage are being evaluated so we can get the most out of the system. We're still getting our feet under us, so to speak.

NezziR said:

Actually I intended putting the cap on more to limit my players from running around like speedy gonzalez all cracked out on fatigue points. i like the idea of capping it based upon agility.

Yeah, I like the agil cap idea too. I'll adopt that as well.

Edit: Though on 2nd thought, I might use Toughness instead. Seems more related to 'fatigue' than agility.

TOU already kinda caps out how much fatigue you can have total, I would be just using AGI to determine how fast you can spend it (or how fast you can move)

Someone with high TOU would win the marathon, but high AGI would win the sprint.

I would probably allow AGI/2 additional move manouevres to be bought per turn - not sure if I would round up or down, probably up but I need to think it over and do the math.

Kaptain O said:

Good point. Remember that it takes a lot of fatigue to close long distances:

Engage or disengage = 1 Manoeuvre
Move close to medium range = 1 Manoeuvre
Move medium to long range = 2 Manoeuvres
Move long to extreme range = 3 Manoeuvres

You may not need to divide it at all. They are still paying for it with fatigue.

Yeah, I just dont like the idea of them zipping around

The slight issue I would have with AGL is that there is still a lot of manoeuvres in a player turn and the turn limitation is time not AGL.

I would cap the manoeuvres to a number, like a total of three manoeuvres. The reasoning would be a players turn is roughly so long and you could fit so many manoeuvres into the turn. Yes, having a higher AGL would allow you to do a manoeuvre quicker but relatively it is nothing to the overall time. However, AGL does become a factor because it acts like a fatigue cap.

Although, I only have one real problem with leaving the rules as they are is that it seems to be a unfair for the monsters because they loose wounds (using the standard rules). Should a player exhaust themselves in one turn then so be it, they will be an easy target. However, a monster can potentially kill themselves by running a few yards and then draw a sword!!!

I don't see the problem of characters zipping around. Charging from Extreme Range to Engaged is going to use up so much Fatigue that even if they don't pass out on the way, they will more than likely be taking Misfortune dice on subsequent actions. Also, a lone character that charges while the rest of the party makes a more reasonable advance is going to be stuck in without backup for a round or two. Not exactly the smartest tactics. Secondly, how many of your encounters are going to start out at extreme range? Only on open fields will this range commonly come into play. In towns or forests, it's likely that Long range may be the furthest out once at close range to enemies, and many may start out at medium or even close range. Third, once at close range or engaged, they probably aren't going to be spending much more than a single maneuver on movement to either move to engaged or possibly move to medium range. They may disengage one foe and engage a different one (two maneuvers) to come to the aid of an ally, or disengage and move to medium range (two maneuvers) if they prefer using a ranged weapon. They aren't going to disengage and run back out to Long or Extreme range.

I think people are trying to address a problem that doesn't exist. It's what happens when we are discussing rules based on reading them and speculating on what is hypothetically possible. I'd recommend waiting to see if this is an issue that keeps coming up in actual play experience before house ruling it.

Also keep in mind that the length of a round is undefined. Read the sidebar pg. 16 in the ToA.

Examples from play?

ok during the demo adventure the players started at long range and were on the old road (long-medium is only 1 manouevre). The Troll slayer moved from long->med, med->close, close->engaged, double strike.

Now Imagine the encounter was against a ranged foe, some bandits with bows or xbows. The ability to go first and run from the longest range of a bow into engaged and swing seems a little silly.

It also causes a problem when chasing someone or trying to get away.

Just saying, I will try doing it that way, you don't have to

In the combat example in the rulebook Mellerion stumbles across a beastman. They are at close range. Mellerion wins initiative and..

Moves to conservative.

Moves to conservative again.

Readies his bow.

Prepares for the Accurate Shot.

Shoots and scores.

Draws his longsword.

All before the beastman gets a chance to do anything.

The Troll slayer moved from long->med, med->close, close->engaged, double strike.

Which adds 2 fatigue to the Trollslayer. 4 more and he starts getting to attacks. It also leaves the Trollslayer surrounded by enemies who have a much easier time engaging him, meaning he'll take the brunt of all their attacks. A 'normal' person with S3 only needs 2 more fatigue to start getting negatives. If they are in Reckless stance, that's a good chance for extra right there. Yes, sometimes extra fatigue is good and worthwhile to perform additional maneuvers. The benefits need to be compared tot he costs, though.

Im not talking about cost/benefit here, Im talking about it being stupid and not making sense to be able to run from the longest range of a bow to engaging the archer before he gets to shoot - I don't really care if it's tactically sound, it's dumb and won't happen in my game.

As I said, if you want it to happen in your game thats cool, I'm not judging - now can you please stop trying to persuade me!!

To mordenthral:

ok so the elf spent 1 stress and 1 fatigue for 1 additional manouevre (he drew his bow as free man, the prepare was an error, not actually required by the card then spent a fatigue for the sword drawn)

Im ok with that... In general Im ok with extra manouevres being spent to draw items etc, its the moving that bothers me - hence why my rule was going to limit the number of "move manouevres" not the incidental drawing of weapons etc. If you don't like that then that's cool

On the subject of chasing:

Imagine this, the players have been in a fight and the bad guy is at extreme range wounded trying to get away, the archer with the longbow takes one last shot at him and misses - the party feels sad, they let their nemesis get away...

but wait...

The dwarf says "Dont worry lads" and spends 5 fatigue to catch up to the bad guy and trollfeller strike him in the back of the head.

Would you let that happen in your game? Does it make any sense? It doesn't to me so I'll be laying down some common sense restrictions to the RAW. This game more than any other i have played relies on common sense to be used in conjunction with the RAW to create the best game environment.

Kaptain O said:

As far as I remember Jay has previously mentioned the use of the stance meter as a progress tracker during chases.