First.Well i see you have diufferent opinions about defense than i do.By defense i think of defending in all aspects,ability to survive situation for as long as your defending and hardiness gives you.You will need lik 7-8 more rounds to kill melee that is defending than archer that is defending.So as i said,melee still got better defense.And by defense you count chance of being hit,reduction etc.So we *are not* making archers more adept to defense,as still they go down ALOT faster than melee,only difference is that they dont go down as a cheap ***** anymore.

Second.Up is the answer.Plus archer have ONE defense mostly,melee have 2 or 3.

Third.Almost all melee are decked in plate.heavy melee all are.Well i wouldnt say archer will have 3 str.Its point wasting for him to put it only because of enc.limit.I would say 2str is more likely,so its 10 enc.points.

Fourth.Thats true,ia agree.But in very most of situations you wont fight on home and familiar ground imo.

Fifth.They are pretty even i agree,i even think in global green are better but red sides of melee cards are mostly better so its pretty even in the end yea.

Sixth.Well against mobs yea,as they dont have cards.But against NPC that got cards,they will die in hit or 2 at most.Just take reckless cleave.With 1S+1B its like 16 dmg.Even archer with toughness 3 and mail will take 11 dmg,which is death or near death at best.And btw i am not archer in my group,i am heavy armored tank:))

We certainly do. You're seeing and playing in an awfully different Warhammer world than I am.

You will need lik 7-8 more rounds to kill melee that is defending than archer that is defending.

Not in my experience. Maybe 2-3 more hits to knock a guy unconscious. Combat is that dangerous even for melee PCs. This does depend on opponent and melee PC's armor, of course.

Second.Up is the answer.Plus archer have ONE defense mostly,melee have 2 or 3.

One Defense (ie 1 misfortune die) makes a small difference in defending. However, I even pointed out a cheap and lightweight method for an archer with 3 St to get 2 Defense and 2 Soak, or par with most melee in my experience. If they aren't using those, then that isn't the fault of the game but is their choice to limit their Defense.

Third.Almost all melee are decked in plate.heavy melee all are

This is far from my experience. Plate costs a heck of a lot, as well as weighing a heck of a lot. It's also hard to move in and *very* conspicuous. About the only PC I can see in plate, at least until they get to 2nd or 3rd career, is an Ironbreaker. Otherwise, most melee PCs in my experience are wearing chain or *maybe* breastplate.

Fourth.Thats true,ia agree.But in very most of situations you wont fight on home and familiar ground imo.

The PCs might not, but most NPCs are usually very aware and familiar with their immediate surrounings. Usually it's the PCs doing the traveling and being in unfamiliar territory, not the NPCs.If both are on unfamiliar territory, then it's still a chase, IMO. Favoring the chaser, of course, but not guaranteed.

Sixth.Well against mobs yea,as they dont have cards.But against NPC that got cards,they will die in hit or 2 at most.Just take reckless cleave.With 1S+1B its like 16 dmg.Even archer with toughness 3 and mail will take 11 dmg,which is death or near death at best.

I'm curious why your GM is assigning cards like reckless cleave to average NPC enemies? Most enemies have their own cards from the beastiary and the basic cards. That should be, for the most part, what the NPCs are using unless they are named (IMO, of course), or unless the GM is having a hard time making combats challenging for the PCs. Secondly, why is he using the reckless cleave action on the archer, when it is more needed to damage the heavily armored tank?

As I said, your GM and I run our games, and obviously think, very differently. Apparently for your GM and group, enemies commonly use the most powerful melee cards, and enemies target archers in the back before the front-line fighters, etc (ie, archers get hit first and the most). I suppose in this situation you sort of do need to beef up the defense of archers to try to give the archers a chance to do something before dying. Since it is unlikely that your group/GM will change their playstyle any time soon, I guess making house rules to give archers better survivability is needed in your game.

I want to stress, though, that as a general rule, for the majority of people playing WFRP, that it isn't necessary to alter the defensive abilities of ranged-focused PCs. This appears like it is probably just a specific need for this specific group, due to their playstyle.

@Leondgorance

Just sounds like your GM has a thing against archers or perhaps more pointedly he just wants to win. It also seems he's running the monsters like they have total foresight into their opponents and not like they are just approaching the situation from their own perspective. It appears your rule changes are being made as a result of an arms race between the PC and the GM. In a situation like that no one wins.

Yea,for sure i am.

First and last.I see this conversation will go forever as we clearly have different opinions.Just wanted to answer to your question about rules changing.Its not about our GM or somethin its only about Warhammer rules.In this system you cannot dieif playing totally by the rules in combat.At least in those official campaigns..Gathering Storm for example.With this amount of stats you start and rules,its just to easy.I dont know how well playin oriented your group is,tactical,skilled,experienced in combat etc.maybe you guys arent that geeks like we are or somethin,but by this rules its soooo easy to do all those combats.Beacuse that we have rules changes,and as i see many ppl are using similar house rules,i think even more than that play by core.And as well i saw many ppl on forums say its kinda hard to die here.So thats all point about changing rules.

Cheers:))))

Wait... I'm confused. Are you saying that you cannot die in combat using the basic rules? Really? The Journey To Black Fire Pass demo I ran the other weekend I knocked the Trollslayer out (as well as giving him a couple crits) and had both the other PCs below half wounds, and that was in the first 2 rounds of combat. I had to pull punches a little bit to avoid a TPK. I had a similar experience in the first demo adventure. My regular group isn't heavily melee focused (only 1 of the 4 PCs is melee-focused, and still mostly balanced purchases), so they try to avoid physical confrontations where possible and play smart, but they've been knocked out a few times.

Granted, it isn't easy to kill a PC with just one or two hits ... but knocking them unconscious is often just as dangerous (and can easily lead to death), besides which WFRP is not about insta-kills. It is about the accumulation of wounds (especially criticals) over time. So as the game/adventure goes on, the PCs begin entering combats with 2 or 3 criticals (and maybe some wounds), and that is the point where things become really grim and nerve-wracking for them.

If you're saying you cannot die in combat using the core rules, then why even bother increasing the archer's defensive ability and why was this thread posted?

If combats from the books are too easy, using the core rules, then something is being done wrong (most likely by the GM).

If combats are too hard, then either the GM is doing something wrong or the players are being too reckless/foolhardy.

I'm sorry, but it *is* an issue with your group and not the rules themselves. I'm not saying that is bad, or is negative, or that your group sucks or anything, so please don't take it that way. My point is that I don't want other people reading threads like this, having not played the game, and automatically assuming that the game is somehow broken or things like an archer's defensive ability *needs* to be house ruled because the game rules are inherently somehow deficient. They aren't, and they can and do work just fine. It is possible that these people might want to make house rules, just like your group. That is fine, but they should at least try the game as written before making such a judgement. Most everyone makes a few house rules for an RPG. I have yet to see or play one that hasn't, although some need more than others. WFRP3, for me, needs less than most of the other RPGs I've played (at least so far, barring rules for things that haven't been produced yet).

If your group needs these house rules to balance the game for your playstyle, then it is good that you guys have made the adjustment to allow you to continue playing and having fun. It is not accurate, though, to portray this as a flaw of the game itself.

First.Unfortunately i live in poor country so if we get chance to buy any books at all we are sooo lucky.So we havent played all official adventures but did most of them.And all we tried are story great,but combatwise pretty easy,when playing by rules.We have rules modifications that make our characters way weaker then they should be by the rules.And after those modifications adventures become,lets say harder than average.We havent played The Journey to Black Fire Pass unfortunately,and who knows will we have that possibility any time soon,as i stated before,my country is kinda behind everything.

Personally,i am first against permanent character killings,its demoralising and it sucks most of times.Well unconscious can be sometimes dangerous but mostly not.Thou we got house rule that you get crit whenever you go under 0 wounds.

As i told you million times before,archer defense isnt only house rule,its rule combined with some other house rules that together makes system improvement.

You say its likely that something is wrong with GM if fights are easy?Well i suposse you are GM by yourself.Last campaign we finished by core rules is The Gathering Storm.You can take any fight and combat situation from that campaign against our group,with characters made by core rules and i can bet you wont even give us hard time at all.I am not saying that we are some imba players or that you are bad GM,honestly i think you are very good one seeing you are very open-minded,just saying its very hard to fight against 25points characters at first place.For example,we have 12points on character creation,with some rules that go against PCs,crit rule for example,and some others(you can check Gallows house rules if you have some free time,we took some from his book,they are showing pretty nice so far),and *after* all those modifications,combats are balanced.Dont know how long you have been playing this type of games,but me and my group played like very most MMO RPG FRP game that existed over last 20 years which doesnt necessary means anything,but its some clue,and trust me,nothing is wrong with GM at all:)

Well i see descent number of ppl having rules changed,but still,every group have different style of play.As well,some groups like playing easy with not many things to be affraid about,so thats okay.We like when you need to sweat alot before doing your job,so we like to play on hard mode i guess,or harder than normal mode at least:)As you stated earlier,there isnt any game so far that doesnt need any house rules,some should have more,some less.And i *never* said that archer must have or need to have better defense.I said *its my opinion that it should be that way* and i gave some facts that i think could defend my statement.But as i said,its just opinion of few guys of 6 billion ppl in the world.So i tought maybe someone want to consider it or try it or something.I never said ppl *must* play that way.

And one more and maybe most important thing.As a very very experienced gamer i guess my opinion is worth something,a little bit at least.And my opinion is that this is best FRP system i ever tried by far,and i cant even count how many i tried.I think it could have some changes,but overall,its very best,and i wholeheartly reccomend it to everyone.Otherwise i would never loose so much time trying to prove some point that isnt of huge significence for playing.

Cheers:)

Well, I will point out that it is in the Core rules that a character gains a critical every time they go unconscious (ie 0 wounds). Unconscious is dangerous by itself for several reasons. The rest of the group cannot flee the combat without leaving you to the mercy of enemies, for example. As well, the enemies have an easy time hitting or abducting an unconscious character, or even just being allowed to coup-de-grace the unconscious foe. Regardless, that character is out of the fight.

As for Gathering Storm, I will admit that I haven't run that yet for my group. However, I have seen several threads in the GM section specifically discussing the difficulty of some of the combats, because some of them are difficult. So, there are quite a few groups that found at least some of the TGS combats dangerous/difficult.

So, unfortunately, it sounds like your group is having an easier time in combat than quite a few (if not the majority) of other gaming groups. This doesn't sound, then, like it is a game issue, but something specific to how your group plays.

Using the normal rules, and using book adventures, groups that I have run don't have an easy time in most combats. Combat is scary. So I am at a loss why your group finds combat so easy all the time.

I also want to reiterate that I don't think your opinion is worthless, or that you or your group are bad players or that your GM is bad. I do think that something is probably not being done "right" if your group has an easy time in the majority of combats.

What is your group's PC makeup? If you've got 3 or more combat-focused PCs (or possibly just 2), then combats *will* be easier and the GM needs to adjust enemies to take this into account, for example. I think the majority of groups have 1 combat-focused PC, and then 1 or 2 that have a smattering of combat abilities (like being trained in WS but a Str of 3, etc). That seems to be the typical group composition that the book adventures are balanced for too. So, the more combat-focused PCs you have, the easier the combats will become. A group of 4 IBs/Trollslayers, for example, will crush most book encounters in combat. So, the GM, knowing his party's strengths, needs to adjust the book encounters to provide a challenge for his players.

Ultimately, I am a firm believer that the GM has the ultimate responsibility to balance the game, and it is always a bit of juggling to get things right. If an encounter is too easy for the group, then IMO it is the GM's responsibility to make it more of a challenge, and vice versa. That is what I mean when I say your "GM is doing it wrong". The GM is the one with the control; he has the ability to make combats as easy or as hard as he wants. If he doesn't, then IMO he isn't doing his job well. Adjusting is pretty easy in WFRP ... give NPCs more A/C/E dice, throw a few more opponents into the combat than what is listed in the book, give the NPCs some better equipment, etc.all can work to make combats more difficult (or vice versa).

Flat-out changing the game rules is one of the last things I would do to adjust the game, and so far my personal experience is that WFRP is fast and deadly for just about everyone, and combat is far from easy for even hardened melee PCs. I wish I could see or hear how your combats (using the normal rules) transpired, so I could offer better insights into what I think was making them easy for your particular group. If your GM is making most enemies henchmen, for example, that is something that would make battles seem easier, as would more than 1 or 2 combat-focused PCs in your group, etc.

Well dunno..maybe my group is kinda good in combat than?There is difference in playing skill for everyone..some are better in roleplay,better story controllers,aliving character at their best etc,as well as some are better in playing combat,preparation,tactics etc.Guess we will never know that thou.

Told you,we finished it by the rules=easy.We played some similar campaign with house rules=way more interesting and on the edge of the knife all the time.Well mostly we have 1 heavy-opriented combat character,2 are mixed non-combat/combat combo and one is heavy non-combat oriented.That is in most of situations.

Yea i am firm believer to.And for that,i say we got awesome GM.And i think its much more harder to adapt rules that will make every combat balanced than to change every combat when it comes to that situations,making combat easier while fight is going on and you see grp is going to die,aid that is falling from nowhere to save grp etc.We never had that kind of situations,mainly because our GM always make fight extremly interesting,on the edge,and all that without changing anything during a fight itself.

Would love to have you one our few sessions when we are playing by the core rules fully,too bad thats impossible.And no,our fights are mostly against strong oponents.Sometimes henchmens as well ofcourse,but moslty vs strong fellas.

Honestly, it sounds like something is being done wrong in the games you're playing. Firstly, it sounds like you're an MMORPG-type of group, in which the players were given the chance to choose classes, and set it up with a Tank-Healer-Caster trinity for maximum effectiveness. If that's the case, then the GM needs to modify the encounters to make things more interesting. It's also possible the GM isn't using creatures to their best; enemies have plans, traps, and strategies as well, and the PC's plans shouldn't always work.

If you're playing characters in their first careers, you should be having difficulty with battles per the core rules. We played entirely Core for Eye for an Eye, and had some very close calls even though we completely halted the ritual and had only the Cultists and Beastmen to deal with... though the Cultists went down without much of a fight at all due to careful planning.

Without seeing exactly what is occurring, I would have difficulty seeing any situation in which it was player skill invalidating any amount of challenge the adventures offer, unless it's a case of a GM who is not playing the creatures or adjusting the encounters adequately. The other possibility would be that something along the way is being done wrong... for instance, in our first game we had players assigning additional challenge dice to rolls rather than misfortune, which skewed things.

No,we were not given a chance ofc.Than it would be even easier to play,by core rules ofc:)And our GM is pretty brutal combatwise,believe me:)He never spare players,change fights on our behalf or something.And we are very glad about that.

Well i said million times before,different opinions,different styles of play,and most important,different skill in playing what makes alot difference.Combination of 5 people will play combat in different way than combination of any other 5 people in world.So as i said,some ppl find it hard,some find it easy...and thats okay.

Leondgorance said:

I see the first issue; you have 5 players. That means that all the fights in any published material are going to be easier. Your GM cannot play "by the book" in that case; he needs to increase the difficulty of the battle to make sense of it. Most fights seem to me to be pretty well balanced for a group of 3-4, with 4 players making it a bit on the easy side.

I suppose you might just have the greatest group of players of all time, and every other group pales in comparison to your mighty skill, but I would find that very, very hard to believe. I've noticed from your previous posts that melee fighters in your group are equipped in full plate; this is a telltale sign of a powergaming group/GM who are getting rewards far, far too early, and not challenging the players in response to their playstyles.

That said, your posts seem all over the board. You first complain that combat is too difficult for archers, and then claim that everything by the core rules is too easy for your awesome and powerful group of supergeniuses. What is most likely occurring is this: Your GM gave out rewards that were far too powerful for the group, giving you melee characters with soak values far above normal, and potientially damage output above normal. Then, your group attempted to play a prewritten adventure, and found melee combat to dominate due to the overequipment. Your GM attempted to compensate in a manner he shouldn't have, by increasing the power of the monsters you were facing by giving them action cards. This made combat more dangerous for those in melee, but instantly deadly for archers and those without massive soak values.

The solution here would appear to be that the GM either needs to rein in the rewards by giving you situations where your heavy equipment doesn't help, or actually hinders you, or, as I would suggest, he needs to sit down, own up to his mistake, and rectify it.

Hey all, this turned out to some seriuos discussion

I need to clarify things a bit cos I was the one that proposed that "blasphemous" changes to rules.

First my group have 10 gold in items total at the end of their first carrier and I consider it not to generous.

Only full plate this party is going to see is ironbreaker's one when he gets into that carrier. I would rather drown myself than give option to buy fullplate to someone who is not noble, knight or warriorpriest. Getting it from someones body is tottaly different thing but have its own reprecussions...

Also I never gave any of player's cards to the monsters. But humanoid NPC's are imo different story. Why would be captain of the Altdorf's guard for example inferior to the players. I make him as I would make any playing character and give him cards as appropriate. Or leader of gang of thugs. I would give him without many thoughts reckless cleave card. Or some other... But to return to the point:

There were 2 points to my post. First that 25 points is too much and second that we use agility as opposed check in combat rather than easy(1p).

First point I am not going to discuss here because it have tons of discussion on it in house rules section.

Second breaks onto this: Isn't it strange that it is the same difficulty to hit someone who have agility 2 (for example some townfolk) and to hit super fast elf swordmaster with agility 6. I know this is extreme comparison but it shows point. Yes elf will have some good dodge card but it works once in 2 rounds.

I noticed a problem in advancement and this was my answer. When you advance you get more blue dies and more yellow ones. On the other hand your defence can't advance, well it can by getting the better dodge/parry/block card's but it is first: once in 2 rounds. second: It's advancemet is weaker than gain from blue/yellow. So ultimately that already really high chances of hitting will go sky high. Some calculations gave 98% on third rank against normal target.

About 78% against target with fullplate and towershield who is defending. Classes with high armor can compensate this by soaking greater deal of damage. What can nonarmored guy do? He will get hit every time for massive damage. In best case he will get down in 2nd attack if attacked with powerfull ability/card. In every other system I played (and I played lot of them) chance to be hit depended on your agility/dexterity. I can't understand why it isnt the case here and what I can't understand even more is why is this suggestion getting this much flame from people. In DnD 4 you could choose you AC from dexterity or INTELLIGENCE. I didn't propose to base it on fellowship. I proposed agility cos its natural and addresses advancement of to hit ration in most natural way.

Waiting to hear some more constructive thoughts on this from you

First of all I'll just say that if this works for you then go with it... i'm not posting this with the intention of saying you and your group are wrong.

Ok, with that out of the way, my major problem with basing defence on agility is it disrupts the balance of the system . It makes agility a power attribute responsible for both ranged combat and defence, and as a result you will have super powered archers wandering around... it will become the first attribute that people look at purchasing.

All attributes are 'responsible' for something already. By giving one dominion over two areas things start to become skewed. Defence may not seem right at first look - but when taken as part of the overall system, it helps keep everything balanced (IMO).

Also, I think the whole system has been setup to make it easier to hit in combat - someone better with numbers can confirm or deny this.

My answer to the whole really experienced fighter versus poor village person is to use the flexibility of the system as it stands by adding white dice to the fighters pool to hit, and/or black dice to the villager's. I have no tables for this, I just play it by ear... But it seems to work, and was accepted by my players without any problems.

Still, as I say whatever works for you.

I am maybe repeating myself here, but if the DM wants to make Attack tests Opposed the rules give him this latitude.

This is how I would do it:

• The defending character would declare how his is defending himself (Dodging, Blocking or Parrying). This determines the skill which will oppose the attack. Characters that are surprised default to vs. Defence checks.
• The defending character can play an Active defence card corrosponding to his declared defending technique. This card adds further misfortune/challenge to the attack pool as normal - but only one Active defence can be played against the attack.

So in this situation the defending character will play to his best defensive style - Coordinated (Ag), Resilience (Tou) or Weapon Skill (Str).

Doing things this way will lead to longer combats and everyone will need to learn the Opposed check table very well - to quickly work out the tests. This isn't to difficult.

Fresnel said:

Could work, but one should be aware that doing things that way will mean that

a) Someone attacking a person/monster with a higher defending stat will have to deal with 3 challenge dice (+misfortune) or possibly 4.
b) Someone attacking a person/monster with a defending stat less than (or equal to) half the attacking stat will have 0 challenge dice (+ misfortune/challenge) even though an active defense was used. In fact, the defender might be better of being surprised.

It should also be noted that a lot of the monsters have attacking stats (str in almost all cases) that are almost always higher than the normal stats for non-combat PC's. So you'd better make it clear to the players that if you have 3's in the physical stats and no combat training you will probably be unconscious in notime. I'm not saying this is wrong, but one should be aware that this is the case. I'm not sure it would lead to longer combats really, yes if it's a close call, no if there is a clear difference in power.

I really like the idea of declaring a specific skill for defense though. It ties very well into the storytelling aspect. If I were to GM I might use a somewhat different approach with the base defense scaling with skill training. So unskilled => 1<P> defense, 1 skill point => 1<P>+1 , 2 skill points=>2<P> and so on. Then the active defenses add to this as normal. Every time you get attacked you chose which skill to defend with (it's debatable whether active defenses could be chosen freely) and use the defense associated to that skill. It might also be wise to adjust the listed defense values for NPC's to keep things challenging if this idea is used.

gruntl said:

Core p43 reproducted for easy reference:

If the Opposing Characteristic is:

Less than half the acting characteristic: add 0 challenge dice
Less than the acting characteristic: +1 challenge die
Equal to the acting characteristic: +2 challenge dice
Greater than the acting characteristic: +3 challenge dice
Twice as great as the acting characteristic:+4 challenge dice

Other Opposed Check modifiers:

Opposition has a Relevant Skill: +1 misfortune die
Opposition has a Relevant Specialisation: +1 misfortune die
GM Spends Aggression or Cunning: +1 misfortune die

How a PC defends is their option, so they can always decide to use the default vs. Defence checks.

gruntl said:

I was thinking that the combat monkeys would be toe-to-tie with the Rat Ogres - so typically 3 challege for the PCs and 1 for the Ogre.

To be honest I think this is more in-line with the novels. Gotrek might be able to go one-on-one with a Rat Ogre, but even a skilled fighter like Felix has no chance without a lot of luck... A Str 3 non-combat character has simply no chance in attack or defence.

gruntl said:

Conjuring a new opposed system is really steering into clear house rule waters. My suggestion is arguably RAW.

Wrt freely choosing Active Defences, I think the game always assumes people are, blocking, dodging and parrying anyway. This is what generates the standard vs. Defence challege. If a character is incapacitated then the check should be a Simple (0d) check). Playing an active defence is also doing something above-and-beyond typical defence - therefore recharge.

Fresnel said:

WFRP Rulebook, p. 43
Under the Other Opposed Check Modifiers list in the Opposed Check Difficulty table, when the Opposition has a Relevant Skill, it should read: +1 misfortune die per skill level.

Cheers!

There you go, it does scale with skill level. Also Parry, Dodge and Block specialisms actually make sense using Opposed tests in combat this way.

Darrett said:

Man...only if you were in my skin you would see how wrong and maybe funny your post is:)

Yes we have 5 players.And yes,difficulty is changed,most of enemies were doubled...Izka fight,Cemetary event,last fight,all largely improved.

I never said my group is greatest of all time,you did:)All melee fighters in full plate hahahahah.Most of us completed our first careers last session,and our total party items value is less than 10g:)One full plate cost 20g(if normal price),so you were kinda wrong:)

Well i guess you see now how third paragraph you wrote is like TOTALLY wrong:)So nothing you tought is occuring actually,not even close.Funny...

Fresnel said:

So you say if you parring you use Weapon skill as opossed,Blocking(ressilence) and Dodging(agility)?

Each type of defence has a skill associated with it:

Block - Resilience (Tou)

Parry - Weapon Skill (Str)

Dodge - Coordination (Ag)

This is canon. Curiously each of these skills has a suggested specialisation of Block, Parry and Dodge (respectively) - however these specialisations make no sense if the 'vs Defence' check is used. They make perfect sense if combat checks are standard Opposed check (as I am suggesting here).

In fact, if you take an overview of the WFRP3 system the 'vs Defence' skill check system looks out-of-step (a kludge even). I would be willing to bet a modest sum that the game was originally designed without the 'vs Defence' check. This would leave Unopposed, Opposed and Competitive checks - which is nice and neat and can cover all situations.

I speculate that the 'vs Defence' check was created after playtest feedback complained about Opposed tests in combat.

Yea i see..that makes sense definitely.But maybe that way block is underpowered?As you have attacks that use Weapon skill(Strength) and Ballistic Skill(Agility) and you dont have any kind of attack that use toughness,so those have use in both defending and attacking,and toughness only defending.

Leondgorance said:

Unfortunately the board doesn't seem to like multiple quotes, so I'll have to do it this way.

1. Interesting. So, all melee are decked out in plate. Oh wait, they're not! In fact, we're all wearing cloth and still it's too easy!

2. So, you didn't claim your group is "the best ever"? It sounds like your exact claim is that the fights are all too easy, and that you need to massively cripple your group (12 creation points would make a character that would have mainly 2s in starting statistics unless they elected to begin with no action cards) in order to make things "Balanced". Why is this the case? By your own words, it's due to your group's experience over 20 years playing RPGs, and MMORPGs.

So, where am I misunderstanding your positions?

It's very simple. Though the core rules may be slightly too easy for some, the large amount of modification you're putting on the game against the players in order to make it simply "balanced" screams one basic thing: You're doing it wrong. I'm certain you'll reply saying that's not the case, and that's indicative of the problem you're having. But the ridiculous claims that it's impossible to die by the core rules, and that fights were doubled in difficulty and still weren't even close to a threat are either due to the rules being completely misinterpreted, the GM making some massive errors in judgement, or a lie.

By plate i meant iron armours,heavy armours,with 4 soak mostly,and if i meant FULL plate i would say FULL plate,not PLATE.Tought you could use some logic and think that plate isnt FULL plate always,but oh well,doesnt matter:)As i said,many years of playing makes you by plate meaning heavy armour,and full plate ISNT only heavy armour in the world:)Didnt know you are taking everything literally,so sorry,i will correct myself...by plate i meant heavy armours.Hope you get my point now:)

House rules with 12 points creation accepted alot pepople,you can check it in HOuse rules sections.Its in Gallows house rules.So even if one more group have those rules besides us,than we are not only,and i guess you know only one can be best.Its like in football,its impossible that two teams win championship in same time,you know what i mean?:)So no,i never said we are best group ever:)

After fights were changed,its close call every time,on the edge of the knife,as i said before.So i NEVER said after fight modifications its still very easy.Dunno are we speaking same language but seems you dont understand me,or you are taking every word literally,or you are imagining things i said,dunno really:)

Cheers!