I see Trollfeller Strike being 'active' when the Slayer realises he is fighting something that would purge his dishonour if he dies. That's when his excitment kicks in, and the action becomes available.

The wording on the card is ok for new GM's/players and those unfamilar with the world ... but it could have been better - creatures 10 foot tall, or outnumbered 3-1 by man-sized creatures (or something similar). The current wording implies that if 2 slayers fight, the shorter one gets an advantage :) But at the end of the day, I think that being a Slayer should be a role-playing choice, and such decisions should be determined by a roleplaying distinction (not necessarily a mechanical one)

Fresnel said:

There's a lot of room for interpretation, and that's what GMs are for. I wouldn't let it count against a regular human. Just the name "Trollfeller" is a good hint that "bigger" is not a matter of a few inches in height. Trollfeller Strike is for killing trolls, giants and dragons.

In a similar way, I wouldn't say that 3 snotlings outnumber a single dwarf. 30 snotlings might. If you're in a group of 5 fighting a group of 6, you're not sufficiently outnumbered in my opinion. You actually have to feel outnumbered.

Although personally I think it'd make more sense if only size mattered. Fighting a very big opponent is very different from fighting a lot of opponents.

Fabs said:

That's a really good description of how it could work. Thanks!

The 'Slayer' trait marked on the card is not a restriction. Non-slayers can use this card. Most humans/orcs are more than a 'few inches' taller than dwarfs... The meaning of outnumbered is also clear. (Number of opponents in engagement) > (Number of allies + you in engagement).

Placing a host of house rules on the card is your choice. However, the point is that, using a 'Fast' weapon, 'Trollfeller Strike' is as powerful (if not more so) than the original 'Double Strike' in RAW.

Fresnel said:

That's not house rules, they are interpretations. The text on the card is not exact, thus the GM is free to interpret how it can be used. I find it pretty obvious that a dwarf is not meant to be able to use the card against normal sized opponents (humans, beastmen, orcs).

If you want a more game mechanic restriction I would require the opponent to have Toughness higher or equal to 6 (or just higher than the player's To) for the card to be used. In my opinion this is still not a house rule, it is an interpretation of the vague statement "facing a physically larger opponent".

you could rule that larger means larger die-cut standup. so larger would be limited to trolls, giants, rat ogres, etc.

Gotta say I really like Bindlespin's idea about "bigger" refering to size of cardboard standup, and Fabs' idea about TFS being "active" when there's a situation that would purge your dishonor if you died. Those are both cool interpretations.
 

Troll-Feller Strike certainly can't literally mean "if they're half an inch taller than your character, it counts". In this edition, we don't roll up height or weight, so you could totally metagame that by just describing your character as being short for his or her race, and thereby get the bonuses against more targets. There has to be a cutting off point, and that grey area is totally GM perogative. I wouldn't let a Troll Slayer use that particular move against a scrawny elfin teenager or sickly human senior that was technically an inch or two taller than the dwarf, for example. I think spirit of the rules trumps the letter.

A couple weeks ago, I was running WHFRP for my weekly one-shot group. We're a big group, and there were 6 PCs at the table. One of them was a troll-slayer, and he had Troll-Feller Strike. They were fighting a bunch of beastmen, I think it was 7 beastmen to 6 PCs. I told them that he couldn't use it against the Ungor unless they outnumbered him in his engagement. Him against 1 ungor was a no-go, even if 6 more of them were within medium range. 2 ungors double-teaming him up close allowed for TFS, though. I also allowed TFS on the Wargor regardless of numbers, because he was a big enough threat. The player didn't have any trouble with this ruling.

And yeah I am a midget-dwarf trollslayer so I can basically use my Troll-feller strike against everything, even a snotling.

Nah, that doesn`t fly right with me.  I think both fab and Bindlespin makes a solid case here about the honour codex and the size of cardboard stand-up.

There seems to be three different sizes of this cardboard stand-ups, and they could represent size catergories used for game terms.  Snotling stand-up (small size), All PC career stand-ups (medium size) and Troll stand-up (large size).

And only large size creatures could be effected by the Troll-feller strike, and in other situations or against monsters deemed fit by the GM accordingly to roleplatying and the honour codex.

Good gaming

Mal Reynolds said:

I agre in 100%. This is a good idea to use the stand-ups as a definition of size.  This is a effective solution and clears the problem of Troll-feller Strike.

The Winds Of Magic are closer with every day so I think so are the cards with errata - I hope. :)

There would need to be errata on both 'Larger' and 'Outnumbered'.

Fresnel said:

I disagree. I know the definitions of these two words and I am quite comfortable making a ruling as GM for my game.

Good for you - and your house rules :)

Hey, and I don't need to have precisely how many Misfortune dice get added to a roll for being groggy or due to poor footing spelled out for me either!  Or how many Fortune dice get added for creating a distraction, or what constitutes a distraction for that matter. So, nyah!

Fresnel said:

I'll say it again, they are not house rules but interpretations of a vague rule. I agree that it
wouldn't be bad if FFG released a clarification on the issue, but it's not an error in the rule,
so it doesn't require an errata.

About using the size of the standups. Is the Wargor a large standup (I don't remember
and haven't got it at hand)?

gruntl said:

So using the size of the standups are a creature 'size' classification system isn't a house rule in your mind...

The Troll-feller Strike card reads: "Melee weapon equipped, engaged with target, you must be outnumbered or facing a physically larger opponent."

The term 'outnumbered' is not vague - it is precise.

Ref: www.-m-w.com  : to exceed in number
 

If it had been worded 'significantly outnumbered' then this would be a calling on the GM to judge what 'significant' meant.  As a GM I do apply a 'significant' qualifier to this card - but I don't pretend this isn't a house rule. However, in order to have a challenging encounter I often have the PCs 'significantly outnumbered'.

The desciption of Beastmen in ToA p50 states:

Ungor Warrior: Have the size and build of a strong, hale human.

Gor Warrior: Standing a foot or more taller than a ungor warrior.

Wargor: A massive and terrible creature.

A reasonable interpretation of 'physically larger opponent', is larger in both mass and hight.  A strong dwarf, human or elf is about the same mass as an Ungor. However a Gor stands a foot+ taller i.e. 6'7" or more. Very, very few modern humans are as tall as 6'7". The number of 6'7"+ humans that are 'well build', as I imagine Gors to be, is even lower. Mass is roughly a function of hight cubed - so a Gor is a significantly physically larger opponent than any non-mutant human, elf or dwarf PC.

To only allow the card to apply to Wargors, would to be effectively rewording the card as 'a hugely physically larger opponent ' - imo that not even a modest houserule, is a bold one.

The beastmen models in the Core and the GM Toolkit are both the standard 44mm hight - one I interprete as a Ungor and the other a Gor. Imo classing a Gor as not 'significantly physically larger' than a human/elf/dwarf is absurd. The only larger standups are, Rat Orge, Giant and Troll. The only smaller ones are a Snotling (I think) and a Nurgling.