I was hoping someone could help me understand a specific element of the game. I know opposed checks follow certain rules (i.e. if the opposing characteristic is equal to the acting characteristic then roll 2 challenge dice, if the opposing characteristic is less than the acting characteristic then roll 1 challenge dice, etc.). I was wondering why this rule is not used for combat? Aside from, "that's what the FAQ tells us to do", why do we always default combat to just 1 challenge die even though the action cards tell us that it is Weapon Skill vs. Target Defense? Yes, I know it makes it tougher to hit in most cases, but is that the whole reason? Is it maybe because players cannot compare the stats quickly enough and end up slowing down the game? Additionally, why is a target's agility not factored into his or her defense at all? It seems that doing things this way really minimizes the tactical depth that occurs from differences in ability. Maybe this is why some people feel it is too easy to hit? I personally don't mind my players hitting more frequently--I think it makes for a more exciting game, but I do find players that wish to play the classic nimble fighter (high agility and light armour) get pummeled consistently. Even with action cards, the core mechanic will punish that kind of play.

Has anyone ever tried to play a session using opposed checks for melee and ranged attacks ? How about using the target's agility (I suppose modified by the defensive rating of armour instead of adding misfortune dice) as the opposing defensive characteristic? Again, aside from "it's what the FAQ says to do", is there a good reason to do it the official way or is the system robust enough that it would work using the opposed check method? Would the opposed check method result in a better system? If not, (and here I think I've found the heart of my question) why is the opposed check rule even there in the first place? If the system works better by making a check default to just 1 purple die (modified by misfortune dice) then why not just make everything work that way?

My 2 cents,

I ask myself similar questions when I first started reading the rules and try out a session or two. The only reason I can formulate and infer is that the designers want to keep Characters in a state of vulnerability. In past editions, they offered game mechanics that allowed uber PCs. Players couldn't resist exploiting these mechanics to create Heroic, and near godly characters. It started to become difficult to challenge them and idea of a "World of grim and perilous danger" became laughable. So how do you keep things grim and dangerous without being sadistic? Well for starters make bad things fun to play! Insanities, Critical wounds, Mutations and Diseases used to be somewhat boring and a bit fatal. Now they are more interesting, not as lethal, and really fun to role-play. It is also, easier, for a GM to adjust encounters to match the health of the party since damage was introduced in a more steadily, not an "All or Nothing" approach that they used to have. This also has the benefit of giving players a better sense of when to run for the hills!

Anyways, this is all just speculation. I'm sticking with the "vs Target Defence" rules as written and having a fun time with it!

Steve (of the Red Fez) said:

I dont have a problem with armours being very good in combat - however I would prefer if some of the downsides were played out as well, ei. reduce dodge bonus by a misfortunedie when wearing heavy armour (have advanced dodge have light or no armour as a prerequisite) - give out movement penalties (extra fatigue, if spending x amount of manouevres) to heavy and light armours

Aside from that if you want to play an agile fighter type - It is possible to get quite a good defensive bonus from various action cards - the problem is just that there is hardly any downside to wearing armour ... so no (in system - well free form the GM can add any number of misfortune dice of cause...) reason for a thief to NOT wear a platemail...

Boehm said:

There is the encumberance cost of armour. Along with everything else people are wearing. Non fighter types arenlt like to have huge strength. 3-4 = 15-20 encumberance pts

Fullplate 8pts

Clothing 1pt (unless you are naked under that Fullplate, in which case I recommend a move to the Slaneesh cult)

Hand Weapon 3pts

Climbing kit 1-2 pts

Ilumination 1-2 pts

Pistol Crossbow 2pts

16-18 pts of encumberance.

Not exactly what you want to be thieving in.

The rules are somewhat generous is regards penalties form wearing Full plate, but at the same time they also probably understate somewhat just how protective it was.

Still ... I find it somewhat odd taht a S4 T4 guy can easily outrun ...or catch ...a S3 A5 thief ...despite the fighter guy wearing HEAVY armour ....and the thief just wearing robes .... (all due to no mention of athletics penalty or fatigue penalty when wearing armour - and thiefs not having athletics as a career skill )

First, I appreciate everyone's input. To Lordbobman, I get what you're saying regarding making the game tougher, but I think the opposite must be true. If the designers wanted vulnerability then the opposed check system makes more sense because it's tougher to hit your foe in many cases. Below is a small table showing how many challenge dice get rolled when comparing characteristic scores. Sorry for the low res pic but I threw this together very quickly. As you can see, if your stats are dead even (i.e. a character with a characteristic of 4 versus an enemy with a characteristic of 4), you get 2 challenge dice. Only if you're better is it just one challenge die. Of course, if you use the defense system of the game without factoring in agility then everyone becomes absurdly easy to hit; after all, it's a check versus a defending score of zero or 1 in almost all cases (meaning you'd suffer from NO challenge dice). However, if you factored agility into defense you'd get a much smoother system*.

Let's say a warrior with a strength of 4 is fighting a thug with an agility of 3. The thug is wearing leather armour; leather gives a defense of zero and a soak of 2. If you add the agility to the defense we end up with a total defense of 3. Since we have a strength of 4 versus a defense of 3, the fighter suffers from one challenge die. However, the thug wishes to hit the fighter. The thug has a strength of 3, while the fighter also has an agility of 3. The fighter is wearing chainmail, which gives him an extra point of defense, making for a total defense of 4. The lowly thug now has 3 challenge dice when trying to hit the well equipped fighter.

The part I like about this is if a skilled fighter (again, strength 4) tries to hit an agile character (agility of 4) it's actually 2 challenge dice, meaning the agile character--let's say he is a thief, though he could be a hunter, assassin, etc.--can better survive thanks to his agility. In short, the thief doesn't need to resort to heavy armour like the fighter would (* see my final note at the bottom of this post). And while the fighter would focus on raising his strength, the thief could focus on his agility and continue to see great combat benefits from it. In fact, at an agility of 5 he'd be as well defended as would a fighter with an agility of 3 equipped with a breastplate & chain and wearing a round shield. This sounds a heck of a lot more fun for the nimble character since he could really dig deeper into the game mechanics for the purposes of combat.

It's just something I was wondering about because, as I said in my first post, if this opposed check system is unsuitable then why do we even have it in the game?

* P.S. If agility were used as part of defense then medium and heavy armours should really have the "restrictive" quality (if the wearer has an agility that is greater than 3 then it is treated as though it was 3 for purposes of defense). That'd make this all make much more sense.

Steve (of the Red Fez) said:

How would you then deal with defensive cards?? adding their effect on top? That would make it extremely hard to hit a buffed out character? wouldnt this be to go in the opposite ditch? ...I cant help but feel that the above would just lead to even more min-maxing ...something Im not a fan of

I do not have my cards in front of me right now but are there any cards that change your actual defense rating? I thought they all just added misfortune dice. Maybe some Hero's Call cards add challenge dice? I don't have that set so I can't be sure. The end result seems that this arrangement would allow for more customizable defense for both characters and NPCs. Right now, if you've got an incredibly swift NPC (perhaps an Elven Wardancer), he or she can only get defense from armour and cards. They cannot gain anything from their natural ability.

Case in point, I've got one character in my game who threw everything into agility and began with a 5. His concept was to be an incredibly agile Estalian Diestro-style fighter. This hasn't really worked out because he feels like he's got to armour up which makes him less of a swashbuckler and more of a front line fighter. He tried to go without the armour but was nearly killed several times and, as someone has already pointed out, there is currently no downside to wearing armour. The encumbrance only becomes an issue if you track every little item (as was pointed out in an earlier post) which isn't much fun and is easily overcome by sticking to the bare basics. In old games I've played in other encumbrance-heavy systems, players simply stuck every non-combat item into a pack and dumped it at the start of the fight (which is why I stopped worrying about being so specific on mundane items).

As for the min-maxing, I haven't had any issues that have affected game balance so far. I would like for the combat to more sensibly reflect character ability but I'm just wondering if there's something I'm not understanding here.

Steve (of the Red Fez) said:

I would be concerned with making high Ag too powerful, keep in mind Ag is both balistic skill, stealth, skulduggery, coordination, ride - like there are also a number of Ag based melee attacks .... whereas S is pretty much just used for Weaponskill and melee damage (unless as noted its an Ag based attack - like 'nimble strike')

IMO I think the core mechanic is quite well balanced - if a sword master is truly quick and nimble, as opposed to simly having good dexterity that should be fleshed out by him having the appropriate defence cards...and perhaps talent 'Catlike Reflexes' etc. - yes Armour IS good in combat, thats why people tended to wear it historically - If you find it too good (as I also do in some cases) it should balanced by a proper representation by its downsides ie. lack of maneouvrebility (extra fatigue for taking extra movement manoevres as well as harsh penalties on climbing and swimming checks ...and the fact thats its expensive and that people would lift an eyebrow if you show up to a social function in a dirty hacked armour (I always compare it with showing up at a dinner party wearing a flak jacket)

The more challenge dice you roll, the greater chance for chaos stars to come up, which will drastically throw off the combat odds as intended. What do you to do mitigate chaos stars?

Might I suggest a simple fix??

simply modify advanced dodge (req. Ag 4+ and Coordination trained) by adding the following (houserule) statement

- Characters wearing light or no armour add an additional 2 misfortune dice when utalizing this card.

- As above, but characters wearing medium armour add 1 additional misfortune die instead.

This way you wont mess up the basic mechanics of the game ...such a chaos starts or balance of one stat vs another, but just reward high Ag characters who do not wear armour with a bit extra defensive capability.

Totally agree, Boehm.

Reward, instead of penalise.

Mordenthral said:

but... I want to make them cry

I agree. We do have some house rules. Running in medium+ armor costs more fatigue. But for combat armor is just better than no armor. I've been thinking a lot about this after talking with Boehm about the issue. I just can't think of something that makes some sort of sense and works mechanically at the same time.

Improving dodge to light armor isn't a bad idea, but what I would really like to see was a range of cards, a combat style, that required light armor or less. A combat style featuring counter attacks and reactions, plus a lot of movement. A sort of assassin style nimble fighting. The wardancer cards could easily be limited to light armor and the dark elf assassins strike reaction card could be thrown in. Perhaps this style could be created from the cards already there. There is also a reaction card that allows you to deflect an attack towards another enemy and cause damage.

See I'm technically trying to play a nimble fighter type in my current game. Now, I have to say, I'm failing kinda miserably at it. But that seems to be because no matter how many dice I make the other guy roll, he still seems to hit me. But I still think it's doable, but you kind of do have to stay within the rules as they are given.

Bad guys trying to hit me roll anywhere between one and two challenge dice and a not inconsiderable number of misfortune dice. A number I hope to increase. I would not want to make it more difficult for someone to hit me though, for the following reasons.

1. A challenge dice is no small fish when you compare it to any of the attribute dice. One against even a stat of three and an expertise is definitely not considered a sure shot. Remember, a straight draw is always a failure.

2. It would downplay the defences already available, why take improved dodge when you have agility 5 and the other guy is rolling three attack dice anyway?

3. PC's are difficult enough to kill without making me roll three dice straight off the bat.

4... I have run out reasons, but I think the above are pretty compelling. I can see people wanting to do the whole "fast and loose" style fighter, but I think with improved dodge, some diestro actions or maybe a wardancer, that's possible. Otherwise, no, I really don't see why you shouldn't have to invest more experience into not getting hit. Makes sense in my head.

Sorry to necro an old thread but I have to say that I share Aido's misery.

In our current game I am playing a Wardancer and it is a bit of a running joke that the ref keeps managing to hit me, generally with tiny little bad guys,

This is despite having added up to 12 misfortune dice to the opponents pool.

Catlike Reflexes (2), Dodge with co-ordination trained (2), Shadows coil from 3 deep in stance (3), Parry (2) and Vipers Dance with 3 Ritual Dance Cards recharging (3).

I find it is becoming even more of an issue for the Wardancer than most others as, due to their propensity for not wearing armour, they don't even have a soak to fall back on.

So when their defense fails, it fails dramatically!

I will however be upgrading to improved Dodge, so here's hoping that extra splash of purple helps turn the tables a bit more.

Still ... I find it somewhat odd taht a S4 T4 guy can easily outrun ...or catch ...a S3 A5 thief ...despite the fighter guy wearing HEAVY armour ....and the thief just wearing robes .... (all due to no mention of athletics penalty or fatigue penalty when wearing armour - and thiefs not having athletics as a career skill )

This sort of thing is what the GM is supposed to decide. They didn't need to create a rule for that sort of thing. The effect of armour on movement doesn't deserve pages of rules in a narrative style game imo , but it is true that there is no established comparative mechanic for a nimble fighter though opposed to a heavy armoured fighter.

Certainly something simple like a talent would suffice here:

Nimble - actions involving a heavier armoured opponent than yourself gain the following, as applicable, per armour category of difference: ■ or □

actually, I'm glad you digged this up, princeearwig.

what if we consider there's always a "standard dodge" taking place in a fight, provided the target of an attack is aware of the attack? that could add some misfortune dice calculated as per opposite checks, i.e., misfortune instead of challenge dice. on top of the regular one challenge, and on top of any active defences used. what do you think?

Still ... I find it somewhat odd taht a S4 T4 guy can easily outrun ...or catch ...a S3 A5 thief ...despite the fighter guy wearing HEAVY armour ....and the thief just wearing robes .... (all due to no mention of athletics penalty or fatigue penalty when wearing armour

This is actually covered in the Player's Guide. Page 96, in the "The Wrong Tool For The Job" sidebar. It directly tells the GM to apply misfortune dice to the armored character's pool in situations like this. It's pretty loose and off-the-cuff, relying on GM instinct and fiat instead of a solid formula. Personally I find that preferable to something fiddly like the carrying capacity rules that I can't be bothered to look up and enforce even when the non-Dwarf PCs are going on a long march. YMMV.

Chase scenes work better with Opposed or Competitive Athletics checks instead of just spending Fatigue. Fatigue-based movement works well as an abstraction to simplify movement calculation in combat, but it doesn't make for compelling chase scenes.

It's likely that one of those characters (the thief or his victim) is an NPC, and thus has an A/C/E budget. How capable he is of getting away thus becomes a function of the needs of the plot, and how much A/C/E you want to dump into the roll. The extra A/C/E options in the GM's Toolkit and Creature Guide make this dynamic work even if you're using the Fatigue-based movement.

Still ... I find it somewhat odd taht a S4 T4 guy can easily outrun ...or catch ...a S3 A5 thief ...despite the fighter guy wearing HEAVY armour ....and the thief just wearing robes .... (all due to no mention of athletics penalty or fatigue penalty when wearing armour

This is actually covered in the Player's Guide. Page 96, in the "The Wrong Tool For The Job" sidebar. It directly tells the GM to apply misfortune dice to the armored character's pool in situations like this. It's pretty loose and off-the-cuff, relying on GM instinct and fiat instead of a solid formula. Personally I find that preferable to something fiddly like the carrying capacity rules that I can't be bothered to look up and enforce even when the non-Dwarf PCs are going on a long march. YMMV.

Chase scenes work better with Opposed or Competitive Athletics checks instead of just spending Fatigue. Fatigue-based movement works well as an abstraction to simplify movement calculation in combat, but it doesn't make for compelling chase scenes.

It's likely that one of those characters (the thief or his victim) is an NPC, and thus has an A/C/E budget. How capable he is of getting away thus becomes a function of the needs of the plot, and how much A/C/E you want to dump into the roll. The extra A/C/E options in the GM's Toolkit and Creature Guide make this dynamic work even if you're using the Fatigue-based movement.

What r_b_bergstrom said above.

Armor penalties, beyond encumberance, are essentially GM discretion. The GM should certainly apply misfortune dice to PCs climbing/swimming/etc while in heavier armors. As well, the GM is perfectly free to add fatigue to PCs doing extended movement maneuvers while in heavy armor. As r_b pointed out, a chase is usually better resolved with a series of skill checks, often athletics, although it could easily fall under a straight Ag check, Ride, etc. The unarmored thief can escape through a narrow window or sewer grate, where the chasing fighter in platemail has no way of fitting through the opening.

Agility is powerful enough, that it would severely unbalance the game if it was able to modify defenses more that it already does (allowing Dodge/Improved dodge).

Simply ... Warhammer is a dark, gritty, grim, and dangerous world. You are going to take wounds. Unless you are a fully-loaded ironbreaker, you are going to be hit often, and taking wounds often. Combat is dangerous. I would recommend that, at the very least for the 'big' fighters, the GM enforces basic encumberance for all arms and armor. A ST 4 human is going to find that they aren't going to be able to carry much else if they are wearing armor heavier than chain and wielding a greatsword and/or sword and shield.

Really, though, in the end combat in Warhammer assumes that only extraordinary efforts at dodging affect the chances to be hit. Unless your opponents are incompetent, attackers are likely to land a hit in the period of time represented by a round. The distances are really just too close for most folks to miss landing a hit, and the real question is simply how solid a blow landed. (see above that Warhammer is a dangerous world). Agility really is intended to have little impact on melee combat. Honestly, even strength and weaponskill have just as little impact on whether you get hit (unless you are house ruling using opposed checks for combat).

Keep in mind that warhammer was modeled after medieval Europe. You don't have unarmored troops dancing around using their 'agility' to avoid being hit. It was a matter of heavily armored knights smashing at each other, and wearing each other down. The unarmored or lightly armored troops, like archers, usually got slaughtered if they ever got into melee combat (even against other lightly armored troops). Casualties were generally immense amongst those troops. THAT is Warhammer combat. Not the silly D&D concept where someone can tap-dance around like a ballarina and never be hit. Even Wardancers. They are more known for their damage ability than their ability to take/avoid hits.

Just saying. You should not expect, in Warhammer, to be able to design a 'nimble fighter' that can "defend" as well as a solidly armored fighter. The nimble fighter has a lot of advantages that the heavily armored fighter does not ... but admittedly a lot of those are out of combat bonuses. In melee combat, the heavily armored fighter has the advantage unless the nimble fighter plays smart. Use the terrain, and suggest the GM award bonuses or penalties for having armor (or not). Etc.

Dvang nailed it.

This is Warhammer - and you are gonna get hit. I would love to see a scenario where a lightly armored fighter used maneuver to tire out his opponent, and then took advantage. But the system skews towards battles of attrition.

You can theme action cards like Shrug it Off, to be nimble dodges or what have you, but the core mechanic is take the hit and reduce the damage if possible.