This isn't really a rules question so I'm not sure where else to put it. I just have one question about the game in general regarding actions that characters can take. I know there are action cards and that all careers have access to them. My question is are these action similar to spells, in terms of how..supernatural they are? I am interested in getting into this game but I have this fear that the action cards will basically be spells for warriors.

Take something like the 4th Ed. of D&D for example, a fighter might get an action he can take once per encounter that say..ignores armour. That's fine if you like that sort of computer gamey approach, but it's really not for me. I find myself asking how does that work? What manner of move does that? How could I describe it as a GM? And perhaps most importantly, if the fighter has this move or style that makes armour reduntant, why does he not use it all the time? After all he's just a soldier so anything he does must be a simple physical gesture. Putting an arbitrary time limit on the use of such an ability is just so..gamey (even for a game).

Does that make sense? Can someone tell me if the actions in Warhammer are similar to this? Just trying to gauge if the game is going to be my cup of tea.

Well you could start by looking at the errata cards found on the support page for WFRP, and you could also check out the basic action reference sheet where you can view the basic actions.

In general though I'd say that the actions are described by their name, most often artwork and sometimes a little description. This gives me as a GM plenty to go on when trying to make sense of what's happening. Also most actions feel unique, at least I do not get the feeling that there's a spell with the exactly same effects as for example a melee or ranged actions, all the actions feel distinct and as I said, unique.

Flavour wise, the action cards for melee and ranged combat do not appear supernatural (as say the Barbarian's of D&D 4.0 do). As for the use of recharge times (why don't they just use this ability/attack constantly) it's simply a gameplay mechanic. In the narrative of my games, it's assumed that the melee characters are continually fighting in the best way they can, parrying, feinting, leaping to one side, thrusting at an exposed area, etc,.

They don't use Troll-feller strike every turn due to the recharge - but in the narrative each attack is just as spectacular; it's just for the gameplay it's more fun to have certain abilities that can't be used all the time to allow for the elements of strategy and resource management to enter into a combat encounter.

This is the same explanation for encounter/daily powers in D&D 4th edition that we use at the table and I believe the designers of both WFRP and D&D 4.0 feel the same way.

In short - recharge mechanics are a meta, gameplay mechanic to create more strategic and fun encounters. I feel that applying some sort of simulationist logic to them can only break suspension of disbelief and enjoyment in the game.

Recharge can also represent an abstraction of the state of battle. Just because you have access to a massive attack like "Trollfeller Stroke" doesn't mean that every chance you have to attack you will be set up to use it. Perhaps there's strain involved, perhaps your opponent has moved back a few feet, almost certainly you have to reset your weapon the 'beat' after you use it...

The recharge mechanic feels much more natural and organic to me than D&D 4's attempt.

As for how they work in the fiction of the game, I haven't run across any abilities that feel supernatural that aren't clearly supernatural in nature. The combat cards represent skill and opportunity.

Thanks for the replies! Much appreciated. It doesn't sound as bad as I'd feared

My biggest concern was that all careers would have abilities that could only be described as supernatural in nature, but your assurances and the examples in the support section have been helpful in stomping that fear on the head.

As for the recharge mechanic, that does sound a bit more organic than the 4e arbitrary mechanic. Coolness. Thanks again.

Bready said:

Actually you'll likely find that magic users doesn't excell at destroying stuff, but more in delivering lots of utility to a group.

I have a player playing a Veranna Priest (Goodess of knowledge and justice), he came from D&D background, and was literally stunned that his "cleric" character could not cast any damaging spells, and couldn't heal... He loves the char, because no one can uncover information like he can, but he feels very feeble in combat situations, his actions being giving two fortune dice to another char each round

Our wizard is an Amber Wizard, and while he does have a damaging spell, the soldier character is a lot better at dishing out damage, but the Amber wizard can do stuff the Soldier can't (like chasing a man on horse...).

But two of my playuers come from D&D, and are stunned at the lack of very damaging spells, and how fragile chars are (one orc beat two chars unconcious, before they finally got it down...).

In general the melee actions are very melee oriented. Duelist Strike, Thunderous Blow, Shield Bash, Parry, Riposte are all examples of cards that are melee actions.

Cards by design have 2 faces - conservative and reckless. For melee type combat, conservative and reckless usually translate to 'less damage, less bad stuff can happen, more reliable' and 'more damage, more consequences like fatigue, more bad stuff can happen'. They also have a 'recharge' of X rounds. Meaning that while you might not be able to 'thread the needle' with your arrow, hitting an un-armored area (and thus negating 1-2 points of armor), it takes a few minutes to line up your shot. You won't be using the same 'technique' or 'tactic' every round (as opponents get savvy, and you have to find a new opening) but you can speed recharges with fortune points, talents etc, and you can use it 'frequently enough' and not once-a-fight or once-a-day.

I hope that helps!