After reading threw the game I have come across a few rules I just don't totaly understand or need some help clairfying how they should work. Any help with these would be great.

- For the Monster stat line it says the number in parentheses after each entry's three physical caracteristics are Damage, Soak and Defence values. So for the Chaos Warrior it has a ST: 6(6), To: 6(3), Ag 3(2). For the damage value would you take the 6 then add the hand weapon damage of 5 to give you 11 before any other bonus if the Chaos Warrior hit? For Soak should the value be more then 3 if all Chaos Warriors have Chaos Full Plate and Tower Sheilds, 5 from Plate and 1 from Sheild? And should the value for Defence be more if they have the Full Plate and a tower shield, 1 from Plate and 2 from Sheild?

- For the Movement manoeuvre is there any rule about the maxium number of manoeuvers you take in a single turn? Say could you spend 4 manouvres to go from long to engaged ranged in one turn so long as you could take the fatigue? I ask as it seem a bit odd to thing of a person covering that amound of distance in such a quick time.

- I read that if you want to move your token on the stance bar after you have already taken your free manoeuver you suffer one fatique, as you suffer one fatigue for every manoeuvre you take after the first free one. But in the combat example in the book on page 60 he suffers one stress for moving another space along the track. I just want to know how this works, is it stress if you go conservative and fatigue if you go agressive or am I missing something on how this works?

- It says on page 52 that once engaged with an opponent a character must perform a disengage manoeuvre to safely disengage from a target, otherwise the may be attacked. Does this just mean the enemy would get to use any one of its attack actions not on cool down if the player moved away without disengageing first? Would that attack cost any fatique for the enemy or would it be free?

Ryath said:

No, not 6+5. Damage is 6 (for Strength) + 6 (for Damage) -> the damage being the equivalent of the warrior's weapon.

Damage resistence is 6 (for Toughness) + 3 (for Soak) -> the soak being the equivalent of the warrior's armour.

Their defence is whatever is listed -> in this case 2.

Of course you can use the values for specific weapons and armour if you want to modify the chaos warrior from what's printed. You would do this instead of using the default values from the bestiary (which is basically what you've done in your example).

Ryath said:

There doesn't seem to be any rule against this (and this is what's mentioned in the errata). The fatigue hit is a pretty big penalty.

Ryath said:

Sorry, not sure about this. I couldn't find where it said it costs a fatigue to move the stance after you've taken a manoeuver. I'm sure someone will know.

Ryath said:

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be any more info about this.

Above post answered the first two questions, regarding the third:

Ryath said:

From p 57, Roleplay Rulebook (Beginning of Turn Phase):

"At the beginning of a player's turn, the active player may adjust his character's stance one space in any direction, for free. The active player then has the option to adjust his character's stance additional spaces. For each additional space moved, the character suffers one stress."

The "Free" adjustment of the stance bar can only be done in the beginning of a player's turn. This "Free" adjustment has nothing to do with the free maneuver you have each turn.

If you check the list on p 52 you'll notice that the list of what you can do with standard maneuvers does NOT include adjusting the stance bar. You can adjust your stance bar as often as you like (and whenever you like) during your turn as long as you pay one STRESS each time. The only exception to this rule is at the beginning of your turn when you may adjust it once for free.

In summary:

• You get 1 free maneuver each turn. Each extra maneuver costs 1 FATIGUE.

• You get 1 free adjustment of your stance bar at the BEGINNING of your turn. Each extra adjustment of the stance bar costs 1 STRESS.

You can only change your stance at the beginning of your turn. If you do more than the free adjustment, it's also at the beginning and you suffer the stress at that point too. This is all on page 57 under Beginning of Turn Phase. Nowhere does it say you can adjust your stance at any other time.

Trodomir said:

Yes, your right. Sorry, my error.

So i guess that would mean the summary should read like this instead:

•You get 1 free maneuver each turn. Each extra maneuver costs 1 FATIGUE.
•You can ONLY adjust your stance bar at the BEGINNING of your turn. You get 1 free adjustment of your stance bar, any extra adjustments of the stance bar costs 1 STRESS.

Ryath said:

I am pretty sure you are overthinking this one. I think it just means that you have to spend a manoeuvre to move away from an enemy into the "close" range band. Failing to do so would obviously mean you are still engaged and in danger of being attacked when it is that enemy's turn to act. There are no such things as Opportunity Attacks or whatever.

szlachcic said:

that's an interesting take on the rule. I'm not sure if that was the intention, certainly the phrase "otherwise they may be attacked" would suggest some kind of free attack if any kind of opportunity attack rule was given, but as you say, no such rule is explicitly mentioned. Until now i would have given the aggressor a free use of a melee or ranged attack action, but now i may just enforce the retreating player use a maneouvre to do so...

pumpkin said:

this will be an oppertunity attack in my game with a basic. It keeps players from trading fatigue with monsters by moving in an out, causing them to take wounds while the chacters just take fatigue.

Sinister said:

Good point, like I said before there really is no rule that states this should happen, but you make a good argument. However, to play devil's advocate, wouldn't players run out of fatigue very quickly if they tried to "kite" creatures all the time. I am still kind of on the fence about this one. If I see my players abusing the rules then perhaps I will have opportunity attacks, but otherwise just stick to as I stated before.

I'm interpreting it as the character has to spend a maneuver to disengage, period. The wording in the book just provides the game world rationale for why this is so. If you want to disengage one opponent and engage another that is in short range, two maneuvers. If you want to disengage an opponent and move to medium range (run away), two maneuvers. In other words, players cannot opt to disengage for "free" by accepting an attack from the formerly engaged opponent(s).

mac40k said:

I agree with this, and in fact, the Melee Attack action has a triggered effect that allows an opponent to disengage for free. So they could move away from the engagement on their turn by simply spending their free manoeuvre.

I'm sorta under the impression that engaged isnt a range band so to speak, yet it still requires a manoveure to enter that state. The cost of the manoveure to enagage represents the act of putting up your guard and slowing your pace so as to not run yourself upon his blade. Think of it like this, I close from Medium to Close range to you, now Close range could be anywhere from two or so feet from you to ten or twenty, its abstract so we don't really know. But If I were rapidly closing the distance to an archer (moving from Medium to Close) I would then want to slow my pace and ensure I safely engaged the enemy.

Now sticking with that theory I feel its fully possible for someone to throw caution to the wind and simply go from engaged (which is simply just a state within the Close range bracket) to Medium range with one manoveure. This act would incur a basic melee strike from the rear as they broke and ran.

Heck I would even consider allowing the same rule to apply for someone recklessly engaging, going from Medium to Engaged with 1 manoveure at the risk of incurring a basic melee strike from the engaged target.

Just my thoughts.

- Mordak

Here's how it works: Say there are three combatants, a dwarf fighting an orc and a goblin. At the start of the encounter, the dwarf and the goblin are engaged, and the orc is close to the engagement.

The dwarf wants to engage the orc. He has two choices: He can take a maneuver to disengage from the goblin. This will take him out of the goblin engagement, but will not move him into engagement with the orc. He will stay at close range to the orc, but changes from engaged to close range with the goblin. He can then take another maneuver to engage the orc.

The other choice is to go directly from engaged with the goblin to engaged with the orc in a single maneuver. He does not take a disengage maneuver, first. If he chooses this option, the goblin may make a free melee attack at him.

Basically, the disengage maneuver changes your position relative to the creature you were engaged with from engaged to close, but does not change your distance relative to anything else in the battle.

As I've stated in other threads on this topic, a player does not have the option to disengage from an opponent by accepting an attack by the rules as written. The fact that they might be attacked when attempting to leave an engagement is only the fluff justification for this maneuver. A character must spend a maneuver to either engage or disengage an opponent. The rules further state that characters do not need to perform this maneuver (to disengage) if the engagement consists of only friendly characters or allies. This is the only instance of disengaging that does not count as a maneuver.

Given the rules as written (and I believe as intended) mac40k is absolutely correct. The wording of the rules is perhaps not the best, but if you look at it from the perspective of someone who has never played a game with 'attacks of opportunity' I think you should find that there is no reading of the rules that indicates that the phrase "otherwise they may be attacked" is anything but fluff. Mentally replace the words "otherwise they may be attacked" with "otherwise their opponent would surely stab them in the back of the head, killing them instantly, if the character simply turned their back to them" and I think the fact that it is fluff is evident. Again, the statement may as well be anything else since there are no rules backing it up in any case.

I think people may be reading too much into the fact that it states that "a character must perform a manoeuvre to safely disengage" and emphasizing the 'safely' part of that sentence somehow coming to the conclusion that there must be some way to 'unsafely' (dangerously?) do so, despite the fact that there are no rules covering this.

This edition of WFRP allows for so much freedom during ones turn because of the fatigue for manoeuvres system that leaving a fight without properly disengaging is not necessary since players can still engage another opponent on the same turn at the cost of one fatigue. Games like D&D, which required half your turns allotment of actions to 5-foot step (wow, I don't miss that term) away from your opponent and then the rest of your turn to move to another enemy, needed the option to be more reckless by taking the attack of opportunity because of the lack of options during ones turn. WFRP does not need this, and in fact simulates the 'recklessness' of going from opponent to opponent through the fatigue system very elegantly.

I think it makes much more sense to have to use a manoeuvre to push your opponent away or what have you to make some separation between the two of you before moving away since, realistically, if you simply turn your back on an enemy to charge another one you may find it difficult with the sword stabbed through your back.

I also believed there was a so called "free attack" for when people disengaged "unsafely". After reading some posts on this forum a while back it occured to me that there really wasn't any information about it in the game (I had just assumed a whole lot). I realised that all of my assumptions where based on knowledge from another rpg that has so called "attacks of opportunity" and how it worked in that game.

For those who think that there actually is a way to disengage "unsafely", triggering an attack by the enemy, try to answer these three questions:

• Does the extra attack when someone disengages unsafely from you cost anything (like stress or fatigue) or is it totally free?

• Can the person who gets the extra attack use an ability card, or is it just a basic attack.

• Say 3 characters all disengage "unsafely" from the enemy, does he get a "free attack" against each one of them, or is there a limit to just once per turn? (I remember well another game that uses so called "attacks of opportunity".. in that game the basic rule was a limit of 1 attack of opportunity unless you had a certain feat or ability. Does that apply here to, based on the rules of another game..?).

Whatevery you answer is to any of the above 3 questions is... "What do you base that answer on?" "What rules reference do you have to support your answer?" And rightfully so, since they will all be based on assumptions.

The only thing to back up this idea that there are some way to disengage "unsafely" is based on ONE single sentence... and it's an ambigous one at that (which can be seen all over this forum about how to interpret it). I think the total lack of any kind of information anywhere, about this so called "extra attack" that would happen when someone disengages "unsafely" speaks for itself.

Note: If there indeed is such a thing as disengaging "unsafely", then those who made the game missed a whole bunch of information when putting together the rules. Not just a small error here and there (which is pretty normal for new rpg's), they totally missed to explain an entire concept of the game, something that I find very unlikely.

Has anyone actually asked Jay about this?

-ashe-