I bought WFRP3 the other day and had a quick read of the main rulebook. A quick question:

Am I right in understanding that you get one action per combat phase for free? And any action beyond the first costs stress or fatigue points? I am very used to DnD4 Standard/Move/Minor, or DH or RT Full / 2 half actions per turn, so this is a new mechanic to me.

Hypothetically, if i want to draw my weapon (first action free), close distance from short range to melee range (one fatigue), and attack with a card (one fatigue), that could be done? But it will cost me two fatigue, is that right?

Could I, in theory, just keep taking actions until I passed out from exhaustion?

In a typical battle, how many actions do players tend to take? I can see players wanting a balance between maximising actions, but also minimising stress and fatigue points.

Cheers for input.

You get one free manoeuvre per turn and anything beyond that causes you to take 1 point of fatigue. You only ever get 1 action (use of a card, generally) per turn and there is no way to 'spend' fatigue to gain more.

A manoeuvre is something like drawing a weapon, moving, picking something up, etcetera. You could do as many of those types of things as you wanted until you passed out from fatigue. An action is something like jumping down onto someone's head from a rooftop (perform a stunt card) or attacking someone (melee attack card). Again, anything that uses a card is an action and you are limited to one of these per turn. This action is always 'free'.

On a related note, you also get 1 free move (1 space in either direction) on your stance track as well and you can move it one additional space per stress suffered.

You're right, combat is about maximizing maneuvers/actions and stress/fatigue mitigation. Too much fatigue can seriously become a hamper to actions very quickly as the character becomes fatigued by adding misfortune dice to certain actions. After a while, my group found in tight situations, when the situation is dire, they will use that extra maneuver, otherwise they stick to one maneuver and one action as to prevent fatigue accumulation (which also comes off of actions and stance). We did have the night where everybody did five maneuvers in a row, before they realized they could no longer hit the side of barn because of all those black dice so we had to retreat. But what's great about the system is that flexability. If a player needs to get somewhere and do something, they can...it will just cost them. The maneuver system is fundamentally fantastic in game-play and makes combats very dynamic compared to standard RPG'S.

With that being said, I feel like I should point something out. If you read the rules in depth it sounds like anything that doesn't have a specific card involved is, to a large degree, a maneuver. So in the example above, climbing the tree is a maneuver, jumping out of the tree: a maneuver (a GM can rule they count as one) the only actual action is the attack action as it is attached to a basic melee attack card or another card.

Now, what if someone wants to tackle instead of stab? After playing for a few months, my group looked at the action cards further and we found that on the basic melee attack action you get to perform a free maneuver for two boons. On other cards, the two boon effect had results that are typically described as maneuvers such as disengaging, the target is knocked prone, etc. Remember, maneuvers can actually take a roll to perform as described in the maneuver section, so it seems that any activity in a combat round that does not:

A) influence a target (intimidate)

B) cause damage (stab)

C) or is governed by another card (such as scrutinize)

...is considered a maneuver. This comes from reading the cards. So if a player wanted to run up (a maneuver), knock his target prone (a maneuver, but causing no damage), then stab (gaining a bonus white die from the target being prone) he could do that. Except this combination would cost him one fatigue. This may sound like the type of thing that would be his trick, except there would only be so many times he could do that before he grew too tired to keep it up. Furthermore, the other limiting effect would be that knocking the target prone would be a check.

So going back to the tree example. If the guy jumps out of the tree and tackles his opponent, that is a maneuver. Now, when he chooses to stab the opponent or influence him in some way (socially, such as intimidate) then those would both be maneuvers, they are actions. Again, let me stress this comes from our reading of the rules and my group has been debating this for some time. For now, we use this system as it gives us a great deal of flexibility.

Of course, I welcome any correction anyone may have of this interpretation and an explanation of where they find it in the rules, just so I can reference it myself.

Sorry that was pretty long winded, but I wanted to stress how you can use the maneuver system as either a flexible or static mechanic (in my opinion). If you want something rigid and by the book - which the book does leave it pretty open as a list of "guidelines" rather than hard and fast rules concerning what a maneuver is in the system - Yupsite's interpretation is very sound. If you do choose to celebrate the flexible nature of the maneuvers it really does help to encourage players to really take part in a scene and get more creative than I engage him and use double strike. To this regard, you can be absolutely more favorable to say that when a player is into it and describes or pushes his character to achieve the goals of the combat, the GM can define more of what that character is doing as a series of maneuvers until they activate an action or reach some climatic end such as I Intimidate the target to surrender. Using the maneuvers in this manner really adds kick to the combat scene. Those that hang back and say "I shoot that guy and reload my bow" is very much extinct with the group I play with now. Another reason though to limit maneuvers is when the GM feels the PCs may be getting too far ahead of where you want a scene to go, as it happens in our games.

One last thing, before I stop typing, this flexible nature of maneuvers became apparent to my group the more we played the game and we got to a pace we felt comfortable. What really sealed us into this way of thinking was a review of The Tome of Adventures. In the section where it describes the three various ways to describe the result of a roll, it seems in 3e Warhammer combat, a roll is not a single swing, but a series of exchanges...parries, blocks, description. The turn is actually timeless so you can add or subtract as much detail as possible and as it suits your groups needs.

Welcome to the game by the way. I hope you enjoy it.

I forgot one thing:

In your example it only costs him one fatigue. Yes, you can only perform one action per turn, but that action does not cost fatigue to perform. Only additional maneuvers cost fatigue. So in your example drawing weapon (free maneuver), closing distance (maneuver spend 1 fatigue), attack (action, free).

Actions never cost fatigue unless they take a fatigue to activate, as a result of an effect on a card, or is spent to trigger an effect (such as stress can be spent on Accurate shot).

Don't worry though about the maneuvers, once they start drawing black dice to all physical actions for too much fatigue, they will think twice about it.

Again, someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

commoner said:

Knocking somebody prone would count as an attack, and therefore an Action in my book.

Though I admit that having your opponent prone could count as a temporary advantage, and generally, I'd say gaining some temporary advantage (represented by a fortune die) would justify making it a maneuver. However, knocking somebody prone would probably mean: a) you have an easier time attacking him, b) he has a harder time attacking you, c) he has to spend a maneuver to get out of the situation. For me, that's enough to justify making it an Action instead of a Maneuver.

Although I can see how tripping somebody could be considered a maneuver. Hm... Perhaps the key is how difficult the roll is? If it's hard, maybe requires assistance, and an agile opponent can avoid the effect, then it might be a maneuver, if it has a good chance of success and might even do a bit of damage (a slam or a tackle), then it's an action (probably a Stunt).

As for performing several maneuvers in a row, I think I'd have a problem if a dwarf with maxed-out Toughness charged somebody at long range, leaving his nimble but not so tough elven compatriot far behind. Perhaps limit movement maneuvers to only one per turn. Or maybe 2 per turn for non-dwarfs, to represent the dwarf's short legs? Dwarfs used to have lower movement than elves and humans, but this edition seems to make them speed demons.

I think I would requir the use of the "Perform A Stunt" card to knock someone prone, thereby making it an action. Also remember you can use multiple defense action cards in the same round at no penalty. Stress and fatigue happen, don't let your players get overly careful in avoiding them. If they do become overly careful force them to change their stance to reflect how they are actually roleplaying. Don't let a player keep their stance say 2 deep toward aggressive when it is very obvious they are playing cautiously, if they aren't playing it out they shouldn't get the bonus.

As far as multiple maneuvers, I have no problem with this as long as they roleplay it out. That dwarf running from long range might be overcome with battle lust swinging his axe over head and and screaming oaths to his ancestors while the much faster elf is simply more careful in her attack positioning. Always try - "Try" - to say yes to your players as long as the action they want to attempt is reasonable, and being a fantasy game I think you will find most usually are.

Thinking about this some more, if it was roleplayed well and there was good thought put into the planning of it, I might allow the knocking prone to be done as a maneuver using an opposed skill check.

That's why I love this systems, there are so many 'correct' options to choose from depending on the situation.

About the Dwarf running ahead of his group. While I agree a Dwarf should run slower than an elf, I don't see it as entirely in the spirit of 3e. At first I thought all the maneuvers and action the character could do a turn was a bit strange, until I realized this system doesn't use standard RPG turn systems. There is no time gauge per combat turn. It's just a turn, a way to moderate who gets to act and how much per turn. 3e hasn't confined time into the round hence why actions such as Rapid Fire and basic Melee attack can be done in the same round when obviously Rapid Fire is an action that would take more time than swinging a sword once. Again I point to the example of dice rolls in the Tome of Adventure where the three dice roll examples explain how the roll does not represent a single roll, but a series of swings or blows instead of a single attack. Dwarves therefore can run "as fast as an elf" because there is no "time" factored in. Now if a Dwarf is racing an elf I believe the best way to reflect it in opposed Agility checks is to give the dwarf black dice to "beating" the elf in a race, to reflect his smaller stature.

At the same time if a Dwarf does run far ahead, he is still suffering from a lot of fatigue to do the action. That will limit him in the future. Plus it leaves the Dwarf open to being mobbed up against, or the enemy running past him to engage the weaker elves. This type of behavior can easily be curved using the mechanics against him. In my demo game, I was the elf envoy and the Troll Slayer ran off to fight a pack of beastmen on his own. The GM swarmed me while the Slayer fought the Ungor. I went unconscious and the Dwarf was left alone and by the end had enough fatigue to go unconscious. It's just a matter of threat and how the GM stages the threat to hamper these kind of oober-maneuvers.

As for the prone action, my group absolutely agrees that if the "tackle" does damage then it would be an action. As I outlined above, we think any action that does damage or influences the target is considered an action, regardless if there is a card for it or not. Simply because all social and combat action cards have these two statements explicitly printed on the cards. Therefore, if you are going to knock a target off a cliff to their doom, that is obviously an action as it will do damage. If it just to knock someone down, it is a maneuver. Allowing things such as trip attacks, pushing people back, etc is beneficial in the system it really opens up options with the basic melee attack card where you get to perform a free maneuver on two boons. It gives the player a great deal of narrative freedom. I absolutely agree the check should be difficult to knock prone and not something where the player says "I knock him prone." It should be governed by a check, but use a skill are allowed as maneuvers which obviously need rolls to resolve. So you can pick a lock then stab someone, based on the rules. Knocking someone prone should either be an opposed or contested roll based on how hard the GM wants to make the action and a lot of it comes down to GM rulings on this. Obviously knocking a giant prone would be impossible for a dwarf, etc. When you really think about it, the benefit you gain from knocking someone prone is not all that exceptional: a bonus white and they must spend a maneuver to get back up. A bonus white can be gained by an assist maneuver so that's not all that big of a deal. The maneuver simply means the Orc you're trying to kill can't simply run away and must get up to attack you or attack from the ground with a black for being prone (again, not all that huge). So our GM put it in practice. Of course, after the ruling, one player in my group got that old glimmer in his eye of "here is a way to max out my damage," but found, after failing half his trip attempts, it was a moot point. It was the majority of the time either a waste of a fatigue or a maneuver (such as after he killed his opponent, moving on to engage someone else or giving up an assist action.) Now he does it on occasion or as a free maneuver, but figured because of fatigue, he should simply hold off until then.

As my final point, ruling that knocking someone prone is an action means it will almost never get done. If you're choices are attack which inflicts damage and actually neutralizes the target or knock someone prone which does no damage (or very minimal damage), players will typically just choose stab.

However, I will say, regardless of the knocking prone debate, the idea that anything that doesn't inflict damage or influence the target or is not governed by another action card, really opens up the combat system for player creativity which is the spirit of 3e system . It isn't about hard and fast rules where GM's overlord a system, it is a cooperative play experience. Giving players more freedom enhances that feel. So the freedom of maneuvers rewards creativity and interesting play, not your standard I engage the target, I hit the target which was a typical trapping of classic RPGs. We find, the more we think outside the box, the better 3e gets, a system designed to be out of the box of classic RPG's.

When it comes to performing an actual "action" (in quotes since I don't mean the actual playing of an action card) I think the difference between maneouvres and action cards is that maneouvres should typically result in a small bonus or penalty, it doesn't actually do anything, but rather creates an advantage that can be used the next action, or a disadavantage that your opponent has to work through on their next action. I think mcv have been talking about this (or something similar) before as well.

Example: There's a table between me and my opponent. As a manouvre I can (not limited to these of course) a) turn the table over and hide behind it, giving the opponent misfortune dice (1 or possibly more depending on size of the table) on ranged attacks, b) throw the table at my opponent, perhaps forcing him to spend a manouvre to extricate himself or just giving a misfortune dice on his next attack, c) jump up at the table and give myself an advantage of height when attacking the opponent.

One can also possibly allow for more dice/better effects if a skill is used to make the manouvre. But the basic structure of the manouvre only affecting the next action should still be in place. For example a) above one could demand that the player rolls for Stealth/Coordination/Intuition to get sufficient cover, if the player then gets comets or multiple boons perhaps the simple misfortune die could be made into a purple die. On the other hand, if he gets a chaos star, nasty things can happen...

Personally I like this quite simple classification, but there are some problems with examples in the book and this. For starters, an Intimidate check to influence the morale track of enemies is a manoeuvre. I gues one could say that this is not a direct attack and thus a manoeuvre, but I think other skills should be possible to used in similar powerful "end battle"-ways. But that is up to the GM I suppose. There's also the infamous First aid skull use. But I don't really think that is so much of a problem, First aid is only once per act/encounter anyway.