So the FAQ makes it clear that a "vs Defence" Action has a default difficulty of 1<P>. However, one thing that isn't clear from the RAW is when to award <P> and when to award . I tend to award <P> when the inherent difficulty of the Action changes and use for disadvantageous circumstances. What follows is an attempt to create some guidelines for myself (it is not a criticism of the RAW or a suggestion that everyone should do this).

It seems obvious that an Action Card's difficulty modifer (and improved Active Defences) will often a ccount for some of the increase in <P>. However, I am looking to create for myself some guidelines on when to increase or decrease the default difficulty of 1<P> due to other factors that will be uncommon. The difficulty I have is that these should be more about the inherent difficulty of the attack, and not surrounding circumstances (yeah, I know, its tough).

1<P> seems to reflect someone who is aware of an attack but isn't making any active steps to avoid being hit. That means that if the person was unaware of the attack or immobilised in some way then this would justify the default being decreased to a 0<P>.

I am struggling on determining justification for raising the difficulty to 2<P>. My current thought is that if you are the only enemy engaged with your target, so that he can focus solely on your attacks, that might justify the difficulty being raised to 2<P>.

Thoughts?

Unless the Action itself adds a <P>, by being a difficult action, I don't think the basic 1<P> ever changes. Swinging a sword is swinging a sword. Everything else is <B>.

I agree with Dramatic Exit. The <P> is based on the difficulty of the action. For basic ranged or melee actions, this is always <P>. Circumstances add or [W], but don't increase or decrease the difficulty of the action.

mac40k said:

Cheers guys. Those are good thoughts.

As a counter to that idea, I find it interesting that in the Combat Example in the main book, it talks about 1 <P> being assigned to a ranged attack because it is at close range. This seems to imply that making a ranged attack at a greater range may increase <P>.

It is also just as likely that the combat example is poorly worded

I just got an amazing response on RPGnet.

The default difficulty of 1<P> is used when an attack is intended to do damage. For each additional effect that the attacker intends, increase the difficulty by +1<P>.

For example, say you want to attack someone, knock them prone and make them look a fool, this would be +2<P>.

One thing I really like about this idea is that I tend to award based mostly on simple narrative statements as to disadvantageous conditions. For each such condition, I tend to add +1 and let the dice decide what the exact impact. For example, its dark (+1 ), you have poor footing (+1 ), and you have an improvised weapon (+1 ).

The above system works in the same way as a base set of guidelines as to how to deal with <P>. Cheers Paul B.

To provide some further support, the mechanical effect of adding a +1P to an attack on its target should be no more than:

- 1 manoeuvre (which is essentially 1 fatigue)
- 1 misfortune dice (or 1 fortune dice against them)
- 1 fatigue or stress

Dramatic Exit said:

I get the feeling that 3 <B> = 1 <P>. (Just look at Improved Active Defense Cards compared to normal Defense cards).

So personnally, to avoid throwing bundles of dice and eventually see more Chaos Stars show up, I would convert 3 <B> to 1 <P> when awarding circumstancial <B> dice.

Ex.: If the combat is happening through a hail storm <BB> and on a rocking boat <B> with slippery deck <B>, I would sum that up to <PB>.

Jericho said:

Mathematically, 1<P> is worth 1.5<B> (blue Characteristic dice). 1<P> is worth just over 2 (black Misfortune dice).

Using <P> and interchangeable is an interesting idea. I can't say that I am a fan of it. I think the two types of dice are designed to cover two different types of effects. Plus no conversion scale will be entirely accurate warping the results simply from the process of conversion itself.

Skywalker said:

But they do it in the RAW when Improved parry becomes a <P>, do they not ?

I think Improved Parry is much better than regular parry... I admit to not having mapped the dice, but the double fail seems to fall a lot and the multiple different possible effects of the chaos symbol that you can never get out of a black dice can't be scaled.

I don't plan on handing out more <p> on attack rolls unless there are extreme circumstances.

Jericho said:

Yes. But that doesn't detract from the general point that a GM has 2 dice with which to adjust difficulty and the confusion over when to award one over the other. It also doesn't provide any real basis for a conversion ratio.