Just to clarify, the icons next to creatures that indicate how many special actions it can have - that includes ones specified, correct?

For example, in Liber Infectus the Plaguebearer has a single Melee Action icon. On the right hand page it says that Plaguebearers have access to the Festering Strike action (Lesser Daemons) and the Leprous Blow action (Plaguebearers). So does that mean a Plaguebearer can only have one of these actions (or another of choice)?

Or am I wrong, and they can have both of these actions - plus another of choice?

Thanks ...

I read it as: Basic Actions plus (ammount of symbols) special cards to choose from the fitting ones.

But wanting to have diversity in my combat experience as a GM, I often chose more than the standard ammount (taking care not to make the encounter unfair, of course...)

It means extra melee actions. So a plague bearer would have all the attacks marked "plague bearer" in the signs of faith book as well as one action fo your choosing. But really, there's no point in making that a hard and fast rule if you have a particular action combination in mind.

Crazy Aido said:

That's correct.

Two different opinions already! What excellent rules clarity.

So in my example, the Plaguebearer is going to have Festering Strike (because he's a Lesser Daemon), Leprous Blow (because he's a Plaguebearer), plus one other appropriate melee action.

Seems fine, only, all the new listings in the Creature Guide don't have this 'extra page' of actions, just the icons. Which seems to support the theory that the above actions are only ones you can choose from for the PB's one melee action.

Anyone know this for certain, or is their a reference to the correct ruling somewhere?

I've written to Jay Little in an attempt to get a final ruling on this. Fingers crossed ...

UniversalHead said:

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from - if you just have the Creatures Guide and Vault it's all very confusing. You have to manually scan through all of the action cards and check on both sides for a "used by" entry to find the equivalent of what was on the creature pages in the "floppy back books".

Check here for a spreadsheet (uploaded by garthasl) listing the creatures and their action cards: www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/63963/wfrp-3e-creature-actions

UniversalHead said:

In the creatures guide page 7 it says "Action Card Options: The number and type of actions the creature may be supplemented with by the GM to customise an encounter."

So, I read this as additional action cards on top of the cards listed as "used by" for that creature.

However, more confusion reigns in Omens of War...

The Chaos Knight has 2 melee icons on the creature card. On page 22 of Liber Carnagia, the Chaos Knight has a "Suggested Actions" entry of "Berzerker Fury, Blood for the Blood God, and Skulls for the Skull Throne. So, this leads me to think - OK, I'd usually have the normal base Chaos Warrior actions from Creature Vault and then I'd add 2 actions from the 3 suggested - as the card has 2 melee icons.

However, the Chaos Warrior of Khorne has the same suggested actions but doesn't have any action icons on the creature card! Is this a misprint or not... I'm guessing it is as the "Chaos Warrior" creature card from Creature Vault has essentially the same stats (only minor differences) and does have the 2 action card option icons. More confusion!

Also, none of the actions that come with Omens of War have "used by" entries on them - so this leads me to believe that all of these new actions are the "supplemental" actions indicated by the action card option icons on the creature cards.

It would very nice to get clear guidelines on this (an updated FAQ???) as it is hard to try to piece it together - especially if some cards have misprints on them!

UniversalHead said:

I hope you (we) get a ruling on this.

However, I play creatures NPCs fairly fast and loose - ruling or not. When needed, I usually pick up the NPC stats card and quickly reference what kind of cool cards I want to use in the encounter (I have them grouped so that I can quickly just pull out a few interesting ones) - and balance things as I move along (hoping for the best and planning for the worst!). Sometimes I just pick up stuff - not really caring if it applies specifically or not (that nurgling cast a spell?!? No way!).

Maybe it's not the best way of doing things, but it doesn't drag down the pace of the game if I didn't plan for this particular encounter.

As an aside: If I can ever get myself to build a randomizer for this sort of thing (simulating the "grab bag" effect) - that would be cool.

Alot of the cards do have misprints or, more likely information missing or on only one side of the card, which could be potentially very annoying.

Honestly, why the blazes are we even discussing this?

The simple answer: Attack one of your PC's with a plaguebearer, or roll it out yourself. You'll quickly find whether they can just own all and sundry with just the one action, or if they need the extra assistance. Personally, even if a plaguebearer were allowed only one action, I'd be throwing other stuff in there. I can't just have my players expecting the same thing coming at them over and over again, and the creature vault allows you so many wonderful combinations of actions plus monsters why shouldn't you try your hand at mixing them up? Think about it, cold one+breath fire=baby dragon, plaguebearers+stream of corruption=surprise vomit cannon. I really don't see why your letting yourself get bogged down when the principal goal is to have as much fun as possible.

That and your PC's don't tell you what to do.

Crazy Aido said:

Personally, I'd like to discuss it because this is a new mechanic brought in with the release of the creature guide and vault and I'd like to know how to use it. Of course, there'll always be times when I might go for the "grab bag" approach as mentioned in the creature guide (and by gsoul) or go with your simple answer - which basically means "ignore this new mechanic", which is fine if that's the way you want to go.

But, I'd like to understand it more, hence that's why we're discussing it in this forum. Discussing it here doesn't mean that my game gets bogged down and we don't have as much fun as possible. That's one of the reasons these forums are here - for discussing things away from the game table so that we can maximise our enjoyment when we are at the game table.

I appreciate where you're coming from, your simple answer is completely valid - thanks for contributing to the discussion...

I'll admit I got a little cranky at your response. I am the living embodiment of the internet d-bag theory.

This mechanic got mentioned as early as winds of magic, though of course, I can't remember which came out first, that or the creature vaults. The wording is nonetheless ambigious.

But if we only choose from the actions available to the monster, according to how many actions it indicates we are allowed, then what about the multiple monsters for which there are no such icons on their card? They seem to be largely present for higer level monsters with above average capability. Hence I go with the "pick some assorted extra actions that work well."

I appreciate that everyone has different approaches to their game and the rules - this is roleplaying after all, and a very individual art. For me, I prefer a good solid rules bedrock that I can then be creative upon; otherwise why have any rules at all? Rules are meant to be broken, but we need some rules to start with; much like the best artists have a solid backround in life drawing.

Personally I just don't have the time or inclination to muck about with house rules and a rough grab-it-as-you-go style of playing, though some prefer it that way. I like to save my creativity for invoking the world, and the rules framework to be as streamlined and effective as possible. Right now, I don't know how this particular aspect of the rules was intended to work, and I find that frustrating.

In any case, I think we're entitled to a ruling on how the designers intended this basic mechanic to work. Then we can all individually decide whether we wish to implement it that way or not.

BTW, I had intended to do up a complete list for Liber Fanatica 9, however life has me sidetracked. Also, I couldn't agree with you more about having a solid, well-playtested rulebook. Some of these little things make it tougher than it needs to be for us GMs.

jh

I just give anyone whatever the hell I want and let the Pc's deal with it . *puts on shades while referencing old tired meme*!

Nah seriously as long as it makes sense for an npc to have something they get it, I'm not worried about limits.

@Universal head - Your blog is super awesome and is an entertaining read. Also your a fellow Sydney-sider to boot?! + rep indeed good sir!

Cheers mate!

I've had a definitive reply to one question but, as yet, not the other.

In answer to the question:

1. Whether action card icons are *in addition* to the listed actions or not: For example, in Liber Infectus , FESTERING STRIKE (Lesser Daemons) and LEPROUS BLOW) are both appropriate for a Plaguebearer, but his listing only has one melee action icon. Is this melee action in addition to those two actions, or does the GM choose one of the two?

I got the answer (from Chris Gerber, managing RPG and Miniatures Producer):

The custom creature action icons shown on a particular creature card can be used to enhance a creature if desired with actions in addition to those that are available to all creatures of that type. Using your example, this means that a Plaguebearer would be able to use the appropriate Basic actions, Festering Strike, Leprous Blow and one additional Melee action if you wish to customize that particular Plaguebearer. It should be noted that you do not need to customize every such creature in this way, but when you would like to, the icons offer an appropriate suggestion for customization.

I have to get an answer to another question about inconsistencies between ToM listings and Creature Guide listings (ie basic actions like Subdue for Soldiers not in the Creature Guide), but fingers crossed ... though it seems from further reading that all creatures get their basic actions (eg Subdue says on the card it is used by soldiers).

If so, I really think this whole system is badly described in the book and seems to require a lot of checking and cross-checking. I mean, in the case of Soldier, Subdue is nowhere listed in the Guide listing, but I have to go through and check the action cards to see that it's one of a Soldier's basic actions? It just seems crazy...

Determined as I am to follow this confusion through to its ultimate resolution, I've written again to FFG for clarification. No reply yet.

I went back to the Creature Guide again last night, thinking that a creature's Basic actions (now officially defined as a creature's basic actions before adding extra actions as defined by the icons) might be easily found by the use of the keyword BASIC on the actions cards.

I also discovered, in the action card listings, a completely new 'used by' line in every action card description.

Alas, neither of these lines of enquiry revealed any consistency.

Take the Undead for example. If you look at creature action cards with the trait Undead written on them, there's a confusing range of nomenclature: some say they are used by a specific creature in the Trait area ( Scything Death: Cairn Wraith, Supernatural); some say they are used by a specific creature in the Conditions area ( Seized by Bloodlust: Used by Crypt Ghoul); some have no direction at all save the single trait ( ...Braaaaains!: Undead). Where is the guidance? In the Creature Guide, there's yet another note under each action card listing to tell us which creatures use which actions - but it doesn't seem to relate to Basic actions.

yeah, it's a mess. pretty sad that FFG allowed it to get in that state. i think you will simply infuriate yourself if you keep picking at this.

There must be some logic behind it all! I must discover it!

UniversalHead said:

I fear you'll be learning the difference between 'must be' and 'should be' the long, hard way...

Still nothing but silence from FFG. Disappointing ...

"Disappointing" merely scratches the surface.

First, let me say unequivocally that this game has single-handedly renewed my interest in RPG's after a very long absence. In addition, it has done the same to three of my long time friends. Mr. Little and his cohorts stuck their neck out BIGTIME with this new edition, and although it appears they have paid the price with the P&P diehards, it has served to bring many hours of raucous fun to those it has 'enlightened'.

That said, it is glaringly obvious to me that no one is manning the ship. There are many of us that have spent upwards of $200 and more on these otherwise wonderful products. This omission, or blatant oversight, is something that could, and should, be quickly rectified. It is beyond me that a product as advanced and innovative as this, does not have a dedicated community manager to quickly respond to Universal Head's query. It teeters on the brink of amateurism, and what is so disheartening is that this product deserves so much more!

At this point I am certain that some of you, possibly even Universal Head himself, are uncomfortable with the tone and level of concern that I have expressed. If that is indeed the case, I have succeeded. Something as simple as a creatures BASIC actions should not be a difficult task to provide. If, in fact, both Universal Head and myself have missed an obvious explanation, then the only fault of the stewards of this franchise is that they have failed to quickly point out our oversight. If the omission falls onto the current said stewards, however, then I would expect a quick and thorough response.

Please understand that I write this not out of malice but out of love. WFRP 3.0 and its growing player base deserve to get an answer to this. Thank you.

Meh. Where you see something to be upset about (some folks even outraged over), I see just another string of errors that, while are annoying, do not break or render useless the value of the product or the system.

I have never found an RPG (short of Hit a Dude) that was perfect, didn't contain any errors, require some FAQ or Errata or have some anonymous group of folks on some internet message board calling for blood.

I absolutely agree that it smacks of rushed editing/design, but I quickly discovered that this particular issue in no way impacted my ability to be a good gm or create interesting encounters. Now I see those traits and symbols as mere suggestions, and when I select actions for my NPCs and monsters, I do so with the encounter in mind and not some objectively consistent encycolpedia of choices. Sure, it'd be great to have a tidy, unambiguous, consistent ruleset, but this isn't really an issue for me or my group (or the other groups that I've played with).

Just to save on repetition and dilution of this thread, could I request that we keep this thread on track with people who would actually like to see a resolution of this issue. I realise some people like yourself, HedgeWizard, aren't bothered by the fact that the basic actions for creatures aren't clarified, and that's absolutely fine if you like that style of play. But I'm pursuing this issue because there are some that want to know what the actual intentions of the game designer(s) were in the Creature Guide and Vault.

If you like to put together your own basic actions as well as the suggested actions, more power to you. But what I'm trying to do here is find out what the designers meant us to do if we actually prefer to follow the rules as given.

I like the idea of the icons giving you suggestions for extra types of actions that you can give to creatures, that's great, and is personally just the amount of customisation I'm quite comfortable with. What I'm having a big problem with is - and what I am really hoping we are going to get someone to officially clarify - is that now we have confirmed that basic actions for creatures are completely separate from those extra actions, how the Sam Hill are we supposed to know what the basic actions are?

Fair enough. I wasn't really responding to your thread so much as the hyperbole of outrage expressed above. If and when an answer is delivered, I'll be just as interested in hearing one ('casue I do agree it's a badly implemented concept so far). Until then, I'll keep playing.