In the shortcomings thread a lot of points were brought up, almost all of them valid, but there are a couple of deeper issues I would like to address.

1. In the modules so far, the focus is only on the story. For example, we've had two intro modules now set in or around the town of Ubersreik and the Red Moon Inn. We know broadly what the Red Moon Inn looks like...and that's it. The modules are practically useless for any details other than the immediate story. That's a gross overemphasis on Narrative elements and a total lack of Simulationist elements. WFRP1 and WFRP2 practically set the standard for fleshed out adventure areas, that you could return to again and again to continue with your own adventures. You didn't have to create a whole town on your own every time a character stepped outside of the Inn featured in "The Story". This is a very inartful use of Narrative elements IMO in that focuses solely on Narration to the exclusion of everything else. Granted these are only introductory modules, but, I'll be frank, my buying before reading reviews stops now. You guys toss out nothing but a linked series of narrative mapless scenes in the upcoming "Campaign", you've lost me.

Take the current game as is, and when making modules, look to WFRP1 and WFRP2 for guidance in regards to details and most especially maps, and you'll really have something here.

2. The abstract range system. Take the example from page 53. The waywatcher is one increment from the main melee, the priest is two. What are their ranges from each other? What are their ranges from the beastman you add in two range increments to the north of the main melee? Ugh. Did someone read 3:16, and thought range bands was a cool idea for WFRP? How the heck is this going to work in Skaven tunnels?

I almost feel like a higher-up at FFG said "Let's come out with something new like those 4e boys. They made D&D a wargame, lets make WFRP a storygame." Then the designers started reading storygames and tossing stuff in. Ok, that's just my frustration talking, but SHEESH.

Overall, I'd have to say the system is highly innovative and I like a lot of what it does, but Sigmar's Holy Hammer, could you stop with the narrative metagame preaching every two pages, we know the dice system is hella cool. Throw the old sandbox campaigners a setting we can sink our teeth into.

You design a game full of narrative and simulationist elements and you get both crowds mixing and matching what they want.

You design a game only with narrative elements in mind, you toss the simulationists out the window to another game.

I'm on board with ya, but work with me here guys, please.

An alternative system for range would be cool, also some thing might be close range for a long bow and long range for say a derringer style pistol, skaven tunnels are pretty easy, everything is "in your face" range.

As regards point #1; I am not particularly concerned as of yet. I'll reserve judgement for when their campaign set comes out. None of the original core systems contained adventures ripe with setting/town details. They were isolated adventure hooks used to illustrate the new system. Nothing different here, the exception being that instead of Through the Drakwald (v2) / Oldenhaller Contract (v1) we get the mini adventure in the core set and we have the "Day Late..." scenario for the preview.

to the problem with the range incremints, i actally understood this very well and the examlpe even helped me a little bit. Are you sure you are not over anylizing it because that could sure mess a person up.

Here ya go if you need simulationism

Use a grid map 1 square away is engaged, 2-5 squares is close, 6-10 is medium, 11-20 is long, 21-35 is extended.

Never run a combat beyond 35 squares.

Everything moves 5 squares for a Manoeuvre.

Problem solved.

Moving to engage/unengage is still a Manoevure.

In the example on page 53 of the rulebook, the range between the Waywatcher and the Initiate isn't needed unless the Initiate or Waywatcher wants to move towards the other. If that is the case, then the GM would let them know, otherwise, it's a waste of time to note the range between them with tokens since that information is irrelevant.

I don't get the map/setting stuff. In TEW for example, we got a map of Weissbruck that only has 3 locations noted on it. Those are the locations needed for the story. The buildings themselves didn't have maps of their layout, because all three were Inns. If you needed a map, they referred you to the map of a typical Inn in the rulebook, even though the shape of the buildings on the map of Weissbruck were clearly different and would have to have different layouts. Matter of fact, the story doesn't call for a map of any of these Inns (since they are supposed to just be investigating/asking questions) unless the PCs somehow start a fight in one of them and then it's only necessary since the old system used scale movement. The new system doesn't need detailed location maps since the GM can just describe and/or sketch the scene and note the relevant ranges between relevant individuals and things. For me, inside an Inn's taproom, everything is at close range anyway, so a PC can move freely anywhere within the room and I wouldn't even bother with the standups. Yes I would simply narrate any intervening obstacles, if any, and assign any additional maneuvers required to get where the PC is trying to go or perhaps have them make an Athletics check if they are trying to jump over tables rather than going around. I don't need a detailed map of the taproom showing the (starting) location of each and every table, chair, and patron.

But getting back to Weissbruck, okay we have a map, but where's the blacksmith shop? Where's the barber-surgeon? Where can I buy a nice pie? If the players want to visit another location than one of the Inns that is needed by the story, the GM has to make it up and decide where it is on the map. Weissbruck isn't a detailed setting that the players can explore or that the GM has a wealth of information on should they choose to return here at a later date. Only the information relevant to the story is provided.

I guess TEW is a poor example of an adventure because while they give us a map of Weissbruck, they don't provide any details of the setting and they don't even provide detailed maps of the locations that the PCs are expected to visit! What a piece of...

If you enjoy scale movement and detailed maps, use the system proposed above or create your own, then draw your own maps, but don't fault the game for not providing stuff that it doesn't need to be played the way it was written.

mac40k said:

Whoa. Did you steal that from my brain? 'Cause I think you did...

My big problem during the game was also the movement/range system. Let me give an example of what happened during our game.

So we had a Slayer, Roadwarden, Waywatcher, and Celestial Wizard. The party was traveling down a trail in the drakwald forest, and encountered a party of beastmen on the same trail. The parties started out at medium range. If I understand correctly it takes 3 maneuvers to move from medium to engaged. (2 from medium to close, then 1 from close to engage.) After one round the combat looked like this.

B = beastmen
S = slayer
R = roadwarden
C = celestial wizard
W = waywatcher
x = counters between each.

BBS x RC x x W

The two beastmen (Gor and a group of ungors henchmen) had been engaged by the slayer. The roadwarden had moved to close range to fire her pistol, the celestial wizard was engaged with the road warden to provided assistance, and the waywatcher hung back and moved off the trail into the forest.
After the first round was over the field looked like this.
C
x x
BS x BR x x x W
The ungors disengaged from the slayer and engaged with the roadwarden, which if I was doing things correctly took two maneuvers. (Disengage to close range, and then re-engage with roadwarden), the celestial wizard disengaged from the roadwarden engagement, but did not want to move closer to the waywatcher (RPing fear of woodelves). And not move too far from the slayer, for support purposes. The Wood elf takes a maneuver to put himself further into the forest to hide.
So then the way watcher wants to thread the needle and help the Gor. And I don't know what his range is.
He's three maneuvers from the roadwarden/ungor engagement, so that's medium, but he's four maneuvers from the gor/slayer engagement, which is what? Long range? But if I understand it, Long range is 6 maneuvers from engaged. (3 to move from long to medium, 2 from medium to close, 1 from close to engaged.) So he's closer than long and farther than medium. How is this supposed to work?

"When covering long distances, multiple manoeuvres do not have to be performed on the same turn, but the character is not considered to be in the new range increment until all required manoeuvres have been performed."

First of all, it's only 1 maneuver to go from medium to close, but your problem was that you had three elements in line and were not tracking the ranges independently and apparently were using the tokens to track maneuvers rather than ranges.

In the case where you have

BBS x RC x x W

what do the two x's mean between the Waywatcher and the Road Warden/Wizard? Is he at medium range from them? If so, he could be either medium or long range from the BBS, it's your call. But you need to indicate that with a separate set of tokens, so it would be

BBS x RC x x W

|___x x x ____|

When he then moves deeper into the woods to hide, you have to see where that puts him in relation to both groups. If he was at close to RC and medium to BS in the first place, then one maneuver further away is enough to make him now medium from RC, but he's still medium range from BS since it takes two maneuvers to move from medium to long. If he was at medium to the RC and long to BS in the first place, then one maneuver further away leaves him at medium to the RC and at long to the BS since it takes two maneuvers to move from medium to long and 3 maneuvers to move from long to extreme. Had he taken two maneuvers, he would be at long to both RC and BS.

Gorehammer said:

First off; it's only 1 move to go from medium to close. Close to medium is 1, medium to long = 2, long to extreme =3.

Second, you appear to have somewhat conflated the idea of using a maneuver to moving 1 step, but it doesn't work like that. If you are at medium range you are at medium range until you take 1 move to go close, or 2 moves to long. In other words, you don't take 1 move closer to long, thereby making you 2 to short, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

The way I would have handled this:

1. Parties start off at medium range - two tokens between them.
2. Slayer takes 2 moves (1 to move to close, 1 to engage).
3. RW & CS take 1 move apiece to close range and fire. The Warden is STILL at medium range.
4. The Warden "moves off the trail into the woods." I would suggest that he is now engaged with the trees, thereby giving him a misfortune to target him. Regardless he is still at medium range to the combat (two tokens).

You now have the slayer engaged, while the RW and CS are at close range. The Warden is at medium range.

1. Beasties disengage from slayer and engage RW. They are still at close range to the Slayer.
2. The CW breaks engagement; he is now at close range to beasties, slayer, RW. EVERYONE is still MEDIUM from the watcher.
3. Watcher goes deeper into woods - what does that mean? The issue is, unless he moves to long range (2 moves) or into close range (1 move) he STAYS in MEDIUM range. If we wants to "hide" as you suggested, that is something else entirely from moving into a range band.

If the watched uses 1 move to enter close, then he is still in the forest, at close range to the engagement. I hope that all made sense.

mac40k said:

Ah, I see. Is there anywhere in the book where I can look to see that rule?
And also, wow, that's a lot more complicated than tactical movement. I'm beginning to wonder if FFG didn't shoot themselves in the foot design-wise with the "abstract" movement. I don't see the benefit of this over using miniatures and a grid or measuring ranges like in 2nd ed. other than people can say it's not a board game since it has no board. (Not that a board makes a boardgame, I have said this since people came crashing down on this edition with that idiotic complaint from since before the game was released.)

To be honest, I find it much simpler than tactical combat; it takes me infinitely longer to explain on a web board than it would to demonstrate it. It's so far proven to be fairly easy to arbitrate for our group. The time savings is increased by the fact that players aren't counting on the number of squares (checking to see if they are in LOS of someone or going to receive an attack of opportunity). They just say they're moving into engagement range, or moving out to medium and it's done. Takes up little real estate, and we have found we don't use many chits since close range is generally assumed between a group, and further I use colored chits as opposed to number of chits to denote range.

@Gorehammer - what rule are you looking for?

The section on Maneuvers includes movement, which discusses changing range increment and the number of maneuvers required to change range increments. It further states that when covering long distances where multiple maneuvers are required that the character is not considered to be in the new range increment until all required maneuvers have been performed, while noting that all maneuvers do not have to be performed on the same turn.

The section on Abstract Measurement which immediately follows says that the distance between two points (emphasis mine) is defined in broad range categories and then defines those categories.

The section on resolving movement and positioning states that standups or figures in base contact are engaged and the the further apart they are, the greater the range between them. It also notes that the GM can place tracking tokens between individual standups or engagements to indicate how far apart from each other those two elements (again emphasis mine) are. The example above that shows tokens being used to indicate the range between A and B and between A and C. The range between B and C is not shown since that information is not relevant.

Your problem was two fold in that it appears you were using tokens to denote number of maneuvers rather than range increments, and that you noted the range from A to B and B to C, but not the range from A to C. You were trying to infer the range of A to C from the other two noted ranges. Since range is abstract, if you need to know the range between two points (A and C), you must specify it rather than try to derive it from the ranges between other sets of two points.

As for the Wood Elf, if he uses a maneuver to move deeper into the woods and he was at medium or long range from his target to start, he is still that same range since moving a single maneuver away from another point at either of those ranges is not sufficient to change his range increment. The key is you have to know how far he was to start with to determine when he has spent sufficient maneuvers for his range increment to change (assuming he were to keep moving away). Furthermore, simply moving deeper into the woods does not allow him to hide. He would need to spend a maneuver to engage a tree or something to hide.

That's it?

* You need more maps and details of locations prior to running scenarios. I can understand that..but to what extent would you be happy? Paths of the Damned did up the vague-ness of the cities they were in. Care to write anything? Fans are going to have to step up again, just like they did for Marienburg in WFRP2. I think it's unrealistic for us to expect FFG waste money to put out easily piratable material in this day and age..especially for money-losing scenarios like BI did before they abandoned WFRP2.

* You want movement like in Warhammer Fantasy Battles or D&D. One poster solved that one for you. I prefer D&D-Basic style of combat where you move around in areas, but when it comes to my MAPTOOL games (in the Rat Warrens as you say), we're going to have to take exactly 4 seconds to say what people's movements are. Halfling/Dwarf (3), human (4), Elf (5) and go to a 5' grid. Problem solved.

Okey dokey Next problem?

Jh

Emirikol said:

The piracy thing is overdone to death. Somehow Mongoose, Green Ronin, White Wolf, AEG, etc, are doing just fine with easily pirateable PDFs. FFG's anti-piracy method is by putting rules on cards only. Someone who already has the cards (or scans of the cards, which are going to be pirated very soon anyway) can pirate the rules just fine, yet FFG released them on PDF. With the money put into the lavish and excellent production values of the line, you expect me to believe FFG is going to be bankrupted because the artist who did the first level of the lodge in Eye for an Eye actually drew the second level and tunnels? Please.

BI didn't abandon anything, GW did, and it had nothing to do with scenarios or maps.

Yeah, I can make or scavenge whatever maps I want, I've done it before a thousand times, but would it have really killed them to map the actual location where the story was taking place?

Emirikol said:

Yeah, I can do that, I've been around since the red box and little black book, the questions are 1. Should I have to? and 2. What about the new blood this game is supposedly going to be bringing in? Again, would it have killed them to include a simple conversion? As you and a couple posters have proven, it really doesn't take much, does it.

I'll add a third concern, which really FFG has nothing to do with, and that's the "One true wayism" I see on a lot of threads here. (Not directed at Emirikol personally or specifically).

If your main concern is the game succeeding, you should at least admit from the discontent there are a lot of people FFG is going to lose and it frankly wouldn't take much to keep them on board. Take the narrative stuff down from 11, draw a friggin' map or two and the old farts might look long enough to see there's a hell of a game underneath all the preaching and fiddly bits.

If however, your main concern is being a GNS-warrior and helping Uncle Ron bring in the new Age of the Forge, then you'll cackle with delight at the grognards fleeing like droves.

What it comes down to is, FFG can go narrative while still supporting the simulationist aspects that made WFRP1 and WFRP2 such great games, or they can go narrative and cut loose the people that liked those simulationist aspects. It's their choice, and the stuff I've seen so far seems to indicate their taking the second option, and that's my deepest concern.

Kruge,

While I totally understand you and a few others wanting a more simulationist approach, it's respectfully one of the things I'm looking to get away from. This game caught my eye because it was sooo narrative. I don't think your players will fault you for using or coming up with a simulationist approach, especially if all you guys are comfortable with it.

That said I have to stress my opinions of why I bought the game. If I was forced to use a grid I would be dissappointed with it.

I thought GW specifically excluded miniature combat from the WFRP game license. Or am I mis-remembering that?

Sinister, what I'm trying to get across, and maybe I'm doing a poor job of it is, why choose? I think the abstract ranges fit well with the narrative bent of the game, but why does it have to be one or the other? Focus on Acts, Scenes and Story, but toss in some maps and details like who owns the bar the characters have been hanging around in for two adventures. Go with the narrative ranges as default, but recognize the Warhammer universe has been using actual distances for 25 years. This doesn't have to be a violent narrative revolution, even if that's what some might prefer. Bring the boardgamers and card-players into the fold, but don't toss out people who lean more toward simulationism just because.

Saint&Sinner said:

DH and RT seem to do just fine with actual ranges. Listing a number for range doesn't mean FFG is going to start making miniatures to compete with GW. If GW was going to object, you'd think they object more to an abstract range system that used stand-up figures made by FFG instead of a tactical system that was meant to go with GW miniatures.

Gorehammer said:

The advantage is that you don't need a lot of space on the table to represent large distances. When using minis, long and extreme ranges usually end up off the table. Also, making measures with a tape is pretty cumbersome to do and gets the attention away from description. This said, the abstract system will take a while to get used to. I think a few sessions will be necessary for it to become reflex. But once it does, I think it will make things simpler.

Also, the abstract system works better with henchmen, since the minis become fairly "abstract" themselves. Note to self, only the system must be abstract, not the descriptions !

Lord Kruge said:

I find the tactical movement in DH/RT unnecessary and obtrusive. When I have DH, the tactical movement has been the part of the game my players liked least. But, to each his/her own.

D&D4e is a highly tactical game that requires miniatures and scale movement. Some people really like that and others don't. I appreciate the fact that FFG isn't trying to compete with D&D by trying to build a better tactical simulation. Instead, they've provided us with a completely different play experience. And yet with a little bit of work you can still use scale movement if you want to without FFG having to provide official ranges for all weapons etc. Probably easier than the effort required to play D&D without miniatures.

Did FFG miss out on an opportunity by not including rules to support scale movement? Possibly, but they are definitely going for a different style of game that yes, is more narrative. The fact that it doesn't appeal as much to those looking for more tactical combats that involve scale movement is hopefully offset by the appeal to imaginative players that enjoy envisioning the actions described on the cards and dice results.

With all the table real estate taken up by other stuff in this game, a map or board to support scale movement would be excessive. In order to support scale movement, FFG might have had to rethink too many other aspects of the game to free up table space to make room for it. I for one am happy they didn't make scale movement required and chose to innovate in other areas.

mac40k said:

I totally agree. Also, there's nothing stopping you from making it tactical on a grid if thats your preference.

If your main problem with WHFRP is abstact movement; I would gladely have your problem.

You see I can handle abstract movement, You can either go with the system or change it into grids. go grids go nuts. At least that is a solveable problem. MY PROBLEM with the new edition is that all careers are general, their specifics are narrowed down to a single special career card. Sure there are slight variations like the student can only take wounds once, while a warrior can take it several times. But the openess (its a word right?) of the system have taken away the individual feel to each career. A Commoner can pick up troll-feller action card as sure as the troll-slayer. It doesn`t feel right for me. I am still cooping with getting used to this whole system.

like a sushi dish, some slices goes down easily others need a bit rice-wine before swallowing. And like WHFRP there are parts I am not used to yet. The generalization of careers are one of them right now. That and the decrease of skills and characteristics.

I ate to much sushi last night, bad for my digestion. But I still think I need more time to digest WHFRP.

hail to sake and its wonderful medicinal properties.

To be fair Mal Reynolds (presumed captain of the Serenity); your concern that Commoner's can buy slayer action cards is easily handled by requiring that a character must be currently in the career or completed the career with the key words.

Have you played prior incarnations? The career system was just as open in many respects - nothing prevented a commoner from having an insanely high WS or BS, particularly if they rolled well in the beginning. I do agree that in the old system(s) the careers were often a little more individualistic since skills and advances were particular to each career, whereas in this new version, players can buy some generic advances along with the career specific ones. You also had more particular skills in the old versions, which has been changed to specializations. I do however think that this new version offers the PLAYER way more flexibility with developing their own character such that no two PCs sharing a career have similar stats and skills and abilities.