UniversalHead said:

I'm sorry mate, I know that exception, but that simple answer doesn't shed any light on the basic problem outlined in this whole thread.

Are you sure you're not just looking for meaning/logic in what amounts to sloppy editing on the developers' part?

Have you read the whole of this thread Doc? I'd really prefer not to go through it all in detail again. No where does it list the basic actions for creatures in a consistent way. These are the basic actions before you add optional actions as guided by the icons on the creature cards.

I have, it's just that I think the real answer is one you don't want.

UniversalHead said:

Fair enough, but I don't agree. Why? Because I did get confirmation from Chris Gerber, the Managing RPG and Miniatures Producer, that the icons on the creature cards are for customisation, if desired, in addition to the basic actions that are available to all creatures of that type.

Therefore there is a system of basic actions. It's just that the basic actions for each creature type have not been clearly noted anywhere that I can see. Perhaps they consider the 'Used by' notes in the creature listings as the basic actions, but there is no consistency to support that. By the same token, the 'Basic' keyword on the cards doesn't seem to work either.

It's obvious that creature types have basic actions, there's just some mix up in what they are.

You're certainly entitled choose to solve this problem by choosing whatever actions you like for creatures, that's fine. Due to my way of approaching things, I prefer to know what the basic creature actions are and how the designers intended the system to work. And I'm going to keep bothering them until I get an answer!

This is how I interpret the rules on what creatures get:

Creature action: All action that fit their Category and their creature type, Goblins would look through the Greenskin list and pick out anything that says goblins on them.

Optional extra actions: Sword indicates” pick a melee action outside their Category, pick any card that melee goblins can use outside the green skin category”

Have fun with: GM can overrule any of this and pick what he likes to fit the scene and make the game more fun.

There is some confusion with the use of the term 'basic actions' (another problem with the way this whole business is described in the rules), but Gerber's initial reply makes it clear that a creature has the Basic Actions available to all PLUS a creature type's basic actions PLUS any actions you choose to use as guided by the icons on the card.

You're correct, but a look through the Guide and the Vault cards (and creature listings in published adventures) shows there's no consistency on what constitutes a creature's 'creature type' basic actions. Where's the Greenskin list, for example? There is none in the Guide, and if you go through the Vault cards you'll find only Stick 'Em With the Pointy End and Chop! as Greenskin cards with Basic written on them. Look in the Tome of Adventure , however, and Orcs can use Crush 'Em Good and Da' Big Smash! Who knows how, since the Orc card has no icons on for choosing extra actions...

It's this kind of confusion that I'm trying to clarify. Orcs aren't the best example perhaps, but there are plenty of examples of total confusion.

Unfortunately, FFG seem to be ignoring my entreaties for a clarification, which is a shame.

I think the issue is that they added those symbols for the extra actions to creatures pre-creature vault, when creatures all had a set of fixed actions. They made perfect sense in that context.

Then they were ported into the CV, where there was more of a mix-n-match mentality. We ended up with directions to add actions, in an environment in which we are encouraged to add and subtract actions as we see fit.

Yes, both rules can still be in effect, but the new way makes the old obsolete. We don't really need those symbols anymore, other than to direct us in what kind of actions to give a creature/character (attack, spell, supplemental, etc).

Well, I finally got a reply, and personally, I'm a little disappointed that this system is so heavily dependent on GM work.

Here's what Chris Gerber had to say:

considering the effort you go to design board game summaries that are concise and elegant it was inevitable that you would emerge from this encounter somewhat deflated.

now that you have your answer, don't sweat it too much, think of the number of times you don't even get to use a creatures array of actions because your players kill it before it moves, or they avoid it completely.

even when you get to use an action it can be problematic... i was really excited to use the mutant from An Eye for an Eye's ability Revel in Corruption, i got my chance to use it, i quickly checked the mutation he had and read it aloud without thinking - it was a discoloured hairy patch of skin. that raised some eye brows at the table, i described the action as him tearing his shirt off grappling the player character by the ears and forcing his face into his hairy belly.

New Zombie said:

You gotta admit, that's a classic roleplaying moment!

Thanks for the offer of help. I'm not keen to spend my time doing free work on this particular issue so I won't be doing anything for general use (I can't use the officlal logo and icons anyway), just whipping up some kind of guideline for myself that lists the basic actions of each creature type. Someone else on this forum has already made a good start on this I believe, which should be a starting point.

Looks like we're all on our own with this one, fellow GMs!

I agree with you Universalhead, the setup in all the books is unorganized and messy.

When I was learning the game I learned more from the 6 page summary you wrote than from the actual rulebooks.

Being WFRPv1 & WFRPv2 player for 20 years I thought I would never get back to roleplaying but this new version intrigued me.

I like the free form Idea and how GM can easily adjust things to fitt the scenario, unfortunetly I spend more hours puzzling out the rules than working on adventures.

This system is brilliant but messy and it needs a rewrite, after the creative person is done with writing it up the material a logic person needs to take over.

I would assume that once the "boxed sets" are 'completed' we'll be offered a "Deluxe Rulebook Summary" akin to the core rulebook for Pathfinder. I would hope they could streamline some of the unnecessary/messy/rube-goldberg rules first however.

jh

UniversalHead said:

Made a suggestive list of the creatures and their actions that might help you, at boardgamegeek:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/75765/creatures-and-creature-actions

When I design my NPCs I just pick their NPC card. Soldier for instance. Then I write down on my wound tracker for the NPC if he has weapon/ballistic skill and/or extra toughness. Then I try to picture the NPC and how he fights/acts. Then I just give him any action cards I find appropriate. For monsters I use the correct cards, so skaven gets skaven cards, but they may also have advanced dodge, parry and riposte. I bought a players vault, so have extra cards for my NPCs. I like keeping the monster actions to the right type of monster to give them that particular theme.

I just have a few gudelines. Regular NPCs have just 1-3 actions apart from basic actions, depending on their power level. Special main NPCs can have up to 8 extra action cards, plus he can have up to two active talents. A group of henchmen can only have 1-2 extra action cards. I also use the monster party sheets whenever appropriate as they give the monsters a certain feel, that I like.

So the power of my NPCs is defined by the basic template of the NPC card and the number and quality of cards.

Last session a skilled archer highwayman had both knockback shot and immobilising shot. A great combo You could also create a viscious party of thugs that has a lot of status effect cards and teamwork cards.

I'd say don't worry about what it says on the actions. Just create interresting NPCs that have some signature moves or a certain style. Let the encounter have a distinct feel to it by picking actions that highlight your concept of the NPCs and the encounter. I don't give a **** what it says on the creature cards about how many actions the creature has. Perhaps that lonely goblin is a brutal assasin, that is a formidable foe.

I do agree with you with making signature "bad guys", however I find it very helpfull and easy to look at the list and then know what action cards are connected to, say skaven.

I am a "petty mind fascinated with structure" type who obsesses over "am I doing it right" so I am one of those who has found the organization of actions and creatures a bit of a mess as I strugged to find "what am I supposed to do" until I realized "whatever I like really".

That said, I am doing pretty much what that response from FFG customer service says:

- I give all critters the basic actions PCs get with same limits (a Bear can't Parry), swapping out if there's an appropriate monster basic action to replace one (i.e., melee strike replaced), creatures never really Assess the Situation but otherwise they've used them all (a band of henchmen doing Guarded Position can really help keep a boss monster around). So of course goblin archers have ranged attack (and do their AG plus 5 for bow damage).

- I give each critter a minimum of 2 other actions as being "standard" (having been influenced by the spreads in original rule books), choosing from those tagged to them. Sometimes this may be almost all those with the creature's tag though there are some such as skaven that have oodles.

- I give them more for icons showing extra actions and try to make sure those are really good ones

- I eyeball that and throw in more if they are higher skull rating, at least as many as they have expertise dice. I typically give creatures with 4+ skulls one or more improved defence actions to replace basic defence.

I'm coming to appreciate that Warhammer is not so much "a complete system, rules for everything" but rather "a core system that you then wing it with as works for your table, this issue etc.". They do say this at points - e.g., no long list of modifiers to actions, just samples to use in adjudicating misfortune dice etc. They could have been clearer that's really how they approach creature actions too.

Rob

Hehe yeah it's very different from D&D where a goblin is a goblin. It's like a big toolbox that lets you build everything from a normal orc with standard orkish actions to a crazy mutant with tentacles that use a swarm action, a flaming hand that uses flame breath.

I love WFRP 3rd. edition and how it's a toolbox more than a list of definite answers.

Gallows said:

I totally agree !

But there would still need a quick encounter guide for impromptu events. (How to set up a cool bandit attack in 3 easy steps, for example.)

I always really liked the extensive lists of pregenerated NPCs of V1 adventures. Recreated some for V2. Now in the process of doing the same for V3...

I'll keep you guys in the loop if I come up with these "quick encounter" quick setups (all actions prechosen and general feel of the encounter predefined).