thanks for illustrating, in detail, exactly what i wanted to avoid with other players: DWARF MEASURING. only a mind tainted by chaos would ever attempt to measure a dwarf for "hight or mass," especially for hight. 

 No, using the standup size to determine size relations is just an interpretation to me. Not much point in arguing that though, feel free to call it a house rule if you want :)

The problem is that when you start making assumptions on what physical size means, your immediately interpreting the rules. That you say that an ungor is the same size as a dwarf/human is also an interpretation (or in your words it would be a house rule ;) ). As already pointed out by others, the mean size descriptions in the book is quite worthless when comparing to individual sizes of opponents. To keep the system effective and fast you need some kind of general interpretation that works, you can't really keep track of the physical size of the PC and every individual opponent.

I find it a little bit problematic to use standup size (although it is a quite beautiful solution that fits well with the 3e rules) since to me a wargor is definitely something large enough. I would rather go with the toughness criterium.

I'm not arguing the outnumbered thing, I find it ok as written. If you think the player gains too much from it, just don't attack him with multiple opponents (or do it when the strike is on recharge). Also, to me it's quite clear that out-numbered refers to the actual engagement not the battle in total.

gruntl said:

ToA p50 states: Ungor Warrior: ... have the size and build of a strong, hale human.

Imo this is as clear as things get in human communication...

Core book p23 " Dwarfs are a sturdy race: four and a half feet of solid muscle."

So they are shorter, but have more muscle. They are extremely mesomorphic, making them far heavy than a human at the same height . WFRP2 gives the has the average weight in pounds as: Human: 155, Dwarf: 140

An ungor will weigh about 254 pounds. So the average ungor is about 100 pounds heavier and 1 foot taller than the average human. He is 115 pounds and over 2 feet taller than the average dwarf. The wording on the card is ‘larger’. So saying an ungor is larger than a dwarf is a very, very safe position to take. A really extraordinary human might exceed an ungor, but he would be catching the eye of witchhunters…

As I said, I am adding the word 'significant' when I interpret the card. As a matter of gameplay and common sense I cannot calculate a height/weight figure for each NPC. So I look at the racial description for an average and make a call.

gruntl said:

Oh, I totally agree. I interprete it exactly like this: the engagement as defined in RAW. I hadn't even considered any alternative.

word                   

Bindlespin said:

Yeah, it's the size of the ego that counts. Dwarfs are huge.

mcv said:

this conversation is getting disturbing...

Ok, so "The Winds Of Magic" are closer with every day and if all things are going to go right in the next week their are going to be avaliable.

So my question is - is this card errata in the box? Will we get those cards with "The Winds Of Magic:"?

ffgfan said:

If you are asking about getting errata cards in the Winds of Magic set, the answer is no....

mcv said:

Also Trollfeller has a 2 recharge so can't be used every round like double strike.

Stuntie said:

Yes you can. There are two ways.

1) Use a fast weapon. A single boon can be used to reduce the recharge by one (to one).

2) Using the optional rule from the GM Toolkit to use a manoeuvre to prepare . This reduces the recharge by one (to one).

Stuntie said:

Also, there has been an errata card / a correction for the Double Strike action: it now also has a 2 recharge.

ValiantOne said:

Ok, so when will we get them? This is a good question to Jay.

Is it just me or the modifications for Double Strike could have been worded more simply without difference where it says : "Determine normal damage and apply the target’s Toughness and Soak separately for each weapon."

What's the point of having Soak and Tou applied separatly?

Example :

I have a two weapons, one has DR 5 and the other DR 4. I have Str of 4. I attack an ennemy with Soak 3 and Tou 4.

 - The way the card is worded : I do 5+4 (9) and 4+4 (8) with both weapon respectively. Now, I apply soak and Tou separatly. My 8 damage against Tou 4 does 4 damage. My 9 damage against Soak 3 does 6. Total : 10 damage.

- More simply : I do 5+4 with primary weapon and 4+4 with second for a total of 17 damage. The ennemy has Soak 3 an Tou 4, so soak a total of 7 damage.
17 - 7 = 10. Same fringgin' thing.

Am I not getting something here?

EDIT : I do know the only way it could make a difference is when opposing soak/tou who are higher than your damage since you do minimum 1 damage. So instead of doing 17 -17 soak = 1 minimum damage, you do : 9-9=1 + 8-8=1, minimum 2 damage. Still, i could have been worded : you do minimum 2 damage if the ennemy soaks all your damage. or smething like it.

Applying Toughness and Soak separately means you apply (Toughness + Soak) to the first weapon (DR + St) and then apply (Toughness + Soak) to the second weapon (DR + St). I guess it's worded like that to make a clear distinction from the old card where the first and second weapons were added together before subtracting a single (Toughness + Soak).

Silverwave said:

First Weapon Damage Potential: 4 +5 = 9

Second Weapon Damage Potential: 4 + 4 = 8

Damage Reduction: 3 + 4 = 7

First Weapon Damage: 9 - 7 = 2

Second Weapon Damage: 8 - 7 = 1

Total Wounds Caused: 3