Kryyst said:

It is worded as if the damage type is unarmed. Just wondering if they intended unarmed combat to have special damage.

I'm inclined to agree with dvang on this one. That unarmed does not count as "melee weapon equiped". That beeing said, I might allow the use of the basic melee strike and parry against unarmed opponents. I like the thought of a brawler character. I picture the thug that likes to start tavern brawls and is thrown into adventuring life dute to some strange event.

Hopefully we will see more unarmed cards in Omens of War, but untill then I'd go for Mighty Blow, Grapple, Dirty Tricks, Improved Dodge as actions. Then specialize in unarmed fighting and improvised weapons (to be able to pick up some tavern furniture to wack people with). That would be a cool starting character and if the need to parry ever comes up, just pick up something improvised to parry with (like a chair at the tavern, or a thick branch in the woods). That would be a cool character to play in my oppinion.

I think the only house rule I'd apply is that when attacking unarmed, the "Always inflicts 1 wound" rule is not applied. So if you attack someone with Toughness + Soak higher than your output, you deal no damage.

I just don't see a person trained in swordsmanship automatically being trained in unarmed fighting/martial arts, and vice versa. Which is exactly what allowing a melee action card to be used for both is doing. It's making the only difference between the two being a 2 DR difference between fists and hand weapon (or whatever). Keep in mind, for example, that the action cards that we know are unarmed attacks use Athletics instead of Weapon Skill to make the attack. Which makes a LOT of sense to me as well. So, while I don't have a problem with making an unarmed version of various melee attack action cards (using Athletics instead of weapon skill), IMO it doesn't seem balanced (or sensible) to allow that single action card to be used for both armed and unarmed attacks.

dvang said:

But someone trained in swordmanship is also trained in using a spear, halberd, flail etc. I really doubt a well trained warrior don't know how to defend himself using unarmed fighting. Hooligans fight at football matches. How on earth do they handle that without proper training?

But you make it sound like ALL melee actions can be used. If you go through them, there are a lot that don't just say melee weapon required, but list specific weapons.

Gauntlets are listed under Melee Weapon Descriptions on p. 99 of the PG and belong to the unarmed group.

There are already cards, that has weapon reqs on them listing specific weapons and unarmed is one of them.

Acrobatic strike in one such card.

But being able to use reckless cleave with your fist is pretty silly, so just allowing all cards would be over the top.

But I see no reason at all that basic melee attacks shouldn't be allowed with fists/gauntlets. The basic melee attack is granted to everyone. Even a merchant who has never held a sword or thrown a punch. Of course players should at least be allowed to make unarmed attacks using this card. This action card does NOT indicate any form of training.

This might be something but I'm not sure.

The melee basic attack just says "melee weapon" , while the melee action cards all say "melee weapon equipped". Maybe they meant for the melee basic attack to be used with all weapons from the melee weapon list while for the actions you need a weapon equipped. So maybe the the basic attack is designed for the unarmed strike.

I know this is very unlikely but who knows.

Chaos85 said:

If it only says Melee weapon on the card I will allow it. But I'd probably add the rules about armour (found on the Mighty Blow action) to the attack, otherwise Melee Strike is just way better against most foes and that would suck, since Mighty Blow hardly would be worth buying anymore. Hopefully more Unarmed cards will turn up in Omens of War, maybe with clarifications and general rules about unarmed fighting (such as the armour rule I mentioned earlier).

Edit: Oh and I'd probably make the check Athletics rather than weapon skill (also the way Mighty Blow works).

I'd say that a guy throwin punches at foes equipped with axes, swords, claws and all sorts of other nasty things is asking for a gutting. This is Warhammer, not D&D - an unarmed guy prevailing in such a gritty world just doesn't mesh. I'd let him try it, but I sure wouldn't make it any easier on him, no bending of rules, no special anything - take mighty blow, grapple and use lots o stunting - You'll have a shot, but it's not going to be very good, and you'll likely have to pick up a weapon or perish.

CMtheGM said:

I can assure you that when fighting with a sword, a surprise punch from an armored fist isn't a bad move. But when you have no weapon or shield equipped you can not parry, block or use riposte/counterblow. You can only dodge. You WILL be at a severe disadvantage already on top of worse damage and critical rating. I can't remember the rules on mighty blow, but on acrobatic strike the rules are exactly the same no matter if you use a fist or a sword. But attacking unarmed doesn't have to mean a punch. It could just as well mean twisting the arm and bring down your elbow on the strained enemy elbow for a nasty attack... armor or no armor it will result in critical damage. I think some of you are too focused on a single fist to the body/face. It's an unarmed attack, which can be many things from a headbutt, a kick in the groin, a sweep of the legs, a punch to the throat or a finger in an eye. All quite simple moves if you're used to fighting. The hardest part about fighting isn't the moves, but the awareness and the way you react to the opponents movement and knowing when to strike - those things are the same across different fighting arts, with their own twists, but fundamentally the same principles.

Gallows said:

A punch with an armored fist means you're equipped with Gauntlets, which isn't quite the same situation.

The moves you describe are effective when fighting a more lightly armored foe of equal or lesser size you to. If you allow unarmed to count as a melee weapon (but not melee weapon equipped), and disregard the minimum damage rule, this reality is represented fairly well by showing that an untrained unarmed attack on an armored or tough (large, generally) opponent is ineffective and usually results in you being eviscerated.

Darrett said:

Both gauntlet and unarmed belong to the unarmed category, so they are the same according to the rules and either they are both a melee weapon or not.

A broken windpipe, crushed nuts, gouged eye, sprained elbow etc. hurt just the same no matter how tough you are. Armor will have holes for the eyes and because of mobility there is a limit to how much protection armor can offer against these attacks. The full joust armors from european history isn't the kind of armor warriors wear in real combat.

I will still allow my players to use the basic melee attack for unarmed for these reasons

1. It is basic and indicates no training. This means it's just a basic punch or whatever the attacks is.
2. Players will ALWAYS be better off using a weapon, so there are no balance issues.
3. The cards that list both unarmed and other weapons as possible to meet the requirements make no difference between unarmed and the lethal weapons.

But someone trained in swordmanship is also trained in using a spear, halberd, flail etc. I really doubt a well trained warrior don't know how to defend himself using unarmed fighting. Hooligans fight at football matches. How on earth do they handle that without proper training?

Fighting with a weapon and fighting without a weapon are much more different than fighting with one type of weapon and fighting with another.

Fighting with a spear and fighting with a sword are different, but they also have many similarities.

Not so when considering the differences between fighting with a sword or spear and trying to fight unarmed.

Your 'hooligans' might know how to throw a few punches, but do they really know how to properly throw LETHAL punches at foes armed with swords/axes?

But you make it sound like ALL melee actions can be used. If you go through them, there are a lot that don't just say melee weapon required, but list specific weapons.

Actually, there are a lot that say "melee weapon equipped". I haven't gone through and counted, though. It's still quite a few.

But being able to use reckless cleave with your fist is pretty silly, so just allowing all cards would be over the top

I agree. And so the question is where do you draw the line, and how do you handle it? That is part of the discussion. Really, "unarmed fighting" in Warhammer (and medieval historical times) is fine when you're in a tavern brawl ... although you're not really dealing lethal damage (except for the occasional accident), but rather fatigue (or stress?) and knocking each other out with little chance of killing someone intentionally. The concept of effective unarmed fighting vs armed and armored enemies really only comes when we start discussion martial arts-level training, which is extremely rare in either Warhammer and historical medieval european times.

I understand what you are trying to say about the Basic Melee Attack action card. I just think there are a few flaws with doing so:
1) The only difference (without further house rules) is that a fist does a few DR less than an attack with an actual weapon. Keep in mind we're talking lethal damage. I have no training in martial arts. I severely doubt I can punch a guy anywhere close to lethal force, whereas even without training, if I managed to hit someone with a sword they are in danger of dying and will be significantly hurt.
2) Someone who is focused on unarmed combat (and thus trains Athletics) will do just as much damage (or less, because they aren't trained in weapon skill) than a swordsman, when doing an unarmed Basic Melee Strike attack.

General bar-room brawling "unarmed fighting" is easily covered under Perform a Stunt. Most people are not trained in the ability to punch/kick/unarmed fight an armed and armored opponent. It really requires some specialization to do so. So, it doesn't seem fair that those not trained in unarmed are very effective at killing someone with their bare fists, while those specialized using their fists are penalized. If fists count as a melee weapon, then weapon skill applies to attacking unarmed, which seems odd and seems to contradict the concept of using Athletics, for example.

I certainly wouldn't penalize a player who wanted to be an unarmed specialist, and would let them use Melee Strike unarmed. I'd also probably modify it to favor the unarmed fighter by using Athletics instead of Weapon Skill. However, I don't think it should apply to the general majority of people, since they aren't trained in lethal fighting unarmed.

Gallows said:

Please indicate to me how I can possibly unarmed attack with no training a Great Unclean One and deal damage in a combat situation, when it is difficult for an individual with a sword to do so. It's entirely illogical when applied to targets of greater size, foreign anatomy, or in armor.

Note that full platemail was used in combat, and was not particularly heavy, equal to full combat kit. Jousting plate was heavier and more resistant, but don't fall into the trap that because tournament plate wasn't used that the plate that was used consisted only of a breastplate and chainmail beneath.

Note that I agree that the basic melee attack should be possible with an unarmed strike, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to defend yourself should your weapon get broken or you were disarmed, outside of Perform a Stunt. However, realistically, it is nearly impossible that someone who has not devoted themselves to unarmed fighting will be a threat to an armed and heavily armored individual, which is represented by disregarding the minimum damage rule.

Even a trained martial artist would be an absolute fool to attack a Wargor without a weapon.

Darrett said:

Well then I believe this debate has concluded, because that was my point exactly.

Interesting you saw the need to argue against what has been exactly my point in the first place then. Unarmed is a melee weapon, but is not an -equipped- melee weapon. In addition, to prevent imbalance, the minimum damage rule should be ignored for unarmed attacks when not using a Gauntlet.

Gallows said:

Darrett said:

I was arguing against the idea that you can't hurt someone in armor when unarmed, and arguing against your idea that there is a difference between a gauntles and bare fists, because according to the rules there aren't apart from 1 point of damage. Attacking a great unclean one with your fist is no more ridiculous than trying to hurt it with a dagger, an improvised weapon (a chair?), a quarter staff, a thrown stone, a sling, a shield bash, a whip or a throwing dagger. In fact the whole idea of anyone going up against such a creature is beyond logic. And still... I allow my dwarf iron breaker to shield bash a demon lord if he wants, the thief to backstab the dragon, the mage to smash the skull of the giant with his quarter staff... and why? Because it's **** cool and they are heroes.

If we apply realism to wfrp we need to kill off gotrek first, remove all the magic etc. etc.

No matter how you turn and twist it, someone unarmed will always be better off had he been using a weapon, because he would do at least 2 points of damage more and have an easier time getting criticals. Those two points of damage are more than they seem, because after soak has been subtracted they may be a much bigger difference than it seems from the weapons table. He would not be able to parry either. I don't see how a player can possibly get the idea into his head that he will completely ruin game balance by using unarmed combat... because there just isn't any way to exploit it.

You do realize that Parry has the same "Melee Weapon Equipped" requirement as the other action cards we've been discussing, meaning that technically, according to what you are saying, unarmed *can* parry.

Keep in mind that although Unarmed is on the list of weapons chart, it has no entry in the descriptions of melee weapons. Oversight? Maybe. OR, maybe Unarmed was in the list to show its DR & CR, but it isn't really a "melee weapon".

They should really give as an official answer to this...

dvang said:

Gauntles does have an entry and it's still classified as unarmed. I am talking about basic melee action still and that does not have the text "Melee weapon equipped" as far as I remember, but simply the text "Melee weapon". As with all the other reading between the lines this could be seen as a distinction between having something equipped and simply using a melee weapon (including unarmed).

dvang said:

I think "melee weapon" is listed that some "specialists" don't use a Longbow for a standard melee attack.

And as a GM I of course allow my players to use Standard Melee Attack with their fists and feets (common sense)

Why couldn't you use a longbow as a melee weapon? Or a crossbow? Or an arrow/bolt? Or a wet noodle? Or your grandmother's cat? Technically, they'd probably all be improvised weapons.

there are two definitions of "Unarmed". First, "Unarmed" is a melee weapon group. Gauntlets are a melee weapon of the "Unarmed" group, for example. Fighting unarmed itself (using fists) is not a weapon. By its very definition "unarmed" means without a weapon.

So, if you aren't using a melee weapon (ie, you are fighting unarmed) you cannot use the action cards. Since I don't consider or see how a fist/foot could be a melee weapon, even the Basic Action card cannot be used. Now, as a GM, if a player wanted to be a kung-fu master and fight unarmed, I would have no problem allowing him to purchase melee attack action cards (and get a basic attack action-unarmed for free instead of the melee weapon version) ... but for him they can only be used unarmed (probably also with weapons of the unarmed group) and not with melee weapons, unless he purchases the action a second time.

Similarly, PCs with the melee weapon versions cannot use their cards when fighting unarmed, and would have to purchase a separate unarmed version of the card.

My common sense tells me that normal untrained fist-fighting is not generally lethal until taken to extremes (ie, pounding on someone already unconscious). My common sense tells me therefore, that the Basic Melee Strike is too lethal to reasonably be used for untrained melee attacks, and that "Perform a Stunt" provides better results for untrained unarmed combat/brawling.

Why do we need an official answer? If you want to let your players do it - let them. If you don't - don't. Mechanically it's not going to break the game. Logically or thematically it's up to you and your players. I'm always curious at what point some peoples imaginations shut off when you are playing a fantasy game where elves are mixing it up with dragons and chaos beasts.

Kryyst said:

My thoughts exactly. Since using unarmed with the melee cards (especially the basic one) will NEVER break balance, it's not really something that anyone needs to worry about. My players can use the basic melee attack with unarmed because nothing in the rules state they can't, it doesn't ruin the balance and I honestly don't care for all the reading between the lines of the rules, guessing developers hidden intentions or reading realism into an rpg with dragons and wizards.

I am just concerned with the game playing well, what works and what is fun. The rest is a waste of time.

Kryyst said:

Agreed. There really is no great need for an official ruling to use it either way. I just disgree with Gallows that "nothing in the rules says they can't" , because as far as I can see, fists aren't technically melee weapons. I do think allowing fists/unarmed access to weapon-required action cards (even the basic strike) makes untrained unarmed combat more deadly, so beware getting into a barroom brawl! But, I do not consider this game-breaking if your GM allows it.

I think we've beaten this topic to death now, though, so I'll try to refrain from posting anything else favoring either side.

dvang said:

Well not to nit pick but in a barroom ball with tables, chairs, glass bottles and various other misc. at the hand it's far more believable that action cards would come into play, as well as heavy use of perform a stunt.

But anyway - yeah the topic is done to death.