Ok, I finally got my hands on the box set christmas day and have been devouring it over the last couple of days. Basically I really like the system but FFG needs serious help when it comes to laying out rules and editing. Anyway, more on that when I get round to writing up a review.

The one rule I really can't find in the rules or the errata is anything on active defences. They sound like they are immediate reactions to being attacked, but this is only implied in the errata and mentioned nowhere in the rules. Can someone clarify for me?

Cheers

Iain

Yeah, they are immediate reactions. They don't cost an Action and are usually played in response to some opponent's Action. And, you can play as many as you like in response. Eg, if you're really desperate to avoid a blow, you could play Dodge, Parry, and Block against the same Action.

monkeylite said:

Whre do you read that?

It's kinda strange to dodge an attack while trying to block or parry it at the same time. Doesn't make sense to me.

It's in the FAQ www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/wfrp/support/warhammer-fantasy-roleplay-faq.pdf on page 2, right column.

Fossy said:

Actually I do that all the time, when I'm fighting with a sword (yes I do sword fighting) I very often do jump out of the way of an attack while redirecting it, wear suspenders and a belt as my teacher says, better to be safe than impaled in 4 ft of steel.

Have you read through all of the action cards in addition to the rules? One thing abbot the new edition that differs from the vast majority of other games is the fact that the cards themselves are the only places that contain a number of core mechanics. So, if you want to know how active defenses function, take a look at the parry, dodge, and block cards, as well as their improved version.

I disagree with that analysis Bohemond. The rules state that during an encounter the active player chooses an action card then resolves it. There is nothing about the players being attacked and playing action cards in response to something happening to them in the core rules and nothing is referenced in the living index under reaction, active defence or anything similar, unless it has updated from when I first downloaded it. The rules for playing a card in response are also not on the card itself, though the implication is that its effect activates, note that is not the same as choosing it as an action, when the owner is hit.

These rules about reactions are also implied in the FAQ, but are not specific. The FAQ states that;

The Reaction trait itself confers no special meaning (see Game Term: Trait for more information on traits). However, some cards bearing the Reaction trait feature effects that can be used immediately in response to a triggering event of some sort. These special responses do not count as a character’s action. They are performed while a different character is being managed by the Active Player.

Any number of immediate use actions/responses can be activated when an appropriate triggering act occurs. For example, a PC could attempt to apply Dodge, Parry, and Block all against the same incoming melee attack.

The action cards block, parry and dodge do not have the reaction trait nor do they indicate that they are immediate use actions in response to something happening, apart from in the implicit wording in the effect.

I would like to state that I like a load of things about the new system, and am really looking forward to playing it, but I think that its explanation and layout of the rulebooks is lacking in several key areas. I will cover this more in my review, which I will post here or provide a link to.

Cheers

Iain

I think that there may be some slippage in terms (and the source of the slippage is FFG) that might be causing confusion. Both ‘Active Defense’ and ‘Reaction’ are keywords. They are not the same thing (active defenses are not reactions, and reactions are not active defenses, unless there is a card which I have missed which contains both keywords) as they are written.

As to how the active defense card functions, I thought that the card made it quite explicit. During step 2 of the combat sequence, the active player announces his target. If f you are announced as target, you can place recharge tokens on the active defense to modify the die pool (as longs as there are no recharge tokens on the card and your active defense is relevant to the attack in question).

Yes, the errata one that you sighted is clearly crafted in haste and is incoorect. Technically, according to those rules, Dodge, Parry and Block are not 'immediate use actions', since they lack the reaction trait, and can not be used during another players turn. however, the example of immediate response actions references these cards. Clearly, active defenses (cards with those key words) are intended to be valid immediate use actions. In fact, they are the primary examples of such actions.

The cards themselves make it clear that they are 'used' during phase two of another player's combat turn. They are explicit about their use. I think the way these cards are made to function is quite clear, despite the careless error in the errata. Do you disagree with this reading? is there some other way that you think they could/should function?

I totally agree that cards work how you are interpreting them Bohemond, as reactions to an attack. What I am saying is that this is not stated explicitly anywhere in the rules, and is only implied on the cards themselves.

The step 2 you refer to has the following text:

Once the player has announced which action his character is performing, he announces the action’s target. In many cases, this is who is being attacked or affected by the card. When there are multiple available targets, clearly announcing the target of the action is very important. The characteristics, abilities, or equipment of the target may influence the action’s challenge level.

This does not mention playing reactions, or how those come into play. If for instance, somewhere down the line, reactions exist which can counter a parry, in which order would they take place? My argument isn't that the interpretation of these cards is wrong on your part, I agree with you totally in how they should work. All I am saying is that there is a severe lack of explicit explanation.

Action cards in themselves are stated to be used on the active players turn. Without the knowledge of how these things usually work in games, that you and I have, how would someone interpreting these rules come to view their use? I have already seen other interpretations on these forums where people assumed that active defences are activated on one turn, and stay in play in some way. As the rules stand, this interpretation is correct, as you have stated yourself, but is obviously wrong when you come to the cards. The rules in this case, are vague, implicit or just wrong depending on interpretation.

Cheers

Iain

I understand where you are coming from now. And, yes, the rules themselves need some work in defining keywords and action types more explictly. Thankfully, I think the texts on the cards themselves works well.

So, are you telling me that I can use my three Defence cards (Dodge, Parry, and Block) in the same attack, so 6 misfortune dice could be added to one attack?

Is this true?

felix.fdez said:

From the FAQ:

"Any number of immediate use actions/responses can be activated when an appropriate triggering act occurs. For example, a PC could attempt to apply Dodge, Parry, and Block all against the same incoming melee attack."

So, the answer is: yes, it's true.

6 misfortune dice could be added only if you have Coordination, Weapon Skill and Resilience skills trained. Moreover, if you have purchased improved versions of Dodge, Parry and Block you could add 3 challenge dice against one attack targeting you, instead of 6 misfortune dice.

Cheers

@Fossey

To make sense of it:

Remember that a card or action does not represent a single blow, numerous parries and feints go about in a combat, so using those actions could be dodging, blocking, and parrying different elements of your foes assault.

UncleArkie said:

Win.

Also: looking forward to the link of the full review Iain. (since everyone else answered all the questions ... I'll have a coke).

On a side note,

The company I work for had a corp wide event were we had stage fighters doing some "gladiatorial" fights, even though they were coreographed they where pretty awesome, one of the guys was so big that he was swinging a two handed broad sword in one hand which made me go "better than being impaled on 7 ft of steel". I also got to swing a blade a little, been years, now I wanna get back into it.