One of my players just took immobilizing shot.  I let him know our house rule that it's dependent upon the # of successes he gets, not the actual recharge on the card.  I'm sure it's probably equivalent, but essentially it upped the success requirement by one.

Of course people always get free…

jh

Houdini hit with immobilizing shot:

What about the following for Immobilising Shot?

If a player is RP'ing a Slayer properly, should he not have a nightmare of a time surviving (his lose purpose in life should be his brutal demise, no? Not treasure hunting…)? It's for this reason that I think they need ignorant battle maneuvers. A naked character can only take so many lumps before death finds him and if you are using the Grievous Wound cards smattered throughout your deck it will make your PC's a little more loath to use things that leave them helpless…

as for the whole multi-shot effect: have it possible to only kill one Henchmen per shot and it will force the archer into a more specialized role of as previously stated whittling down the health of Boss' or Monstrous Creatures.

I ran the Demo again last night with the Trollslayer, Straßewarden, and Envoy.  I let the player use the double strike as written.  Wasn't too broken right away, but as characters gain more and more special actions, these types of things get really powerful really fast.

jh

dyn gyda chlustiau pigfain

My concern here would be to seems most of the cards your are addressing are two handed weapon ones, not leaving a lot of specific actions for them.

WFRP3, like D&D has more damage for larger weapons (with no drawbacks). 

Not to go too real-life on this, but anyone with a great weapon would get their ass handed to them by someone with a short sword (gladius anyone?) because the # of useful attacks would be 10:1.  Instead of a DR5, a shortsword would have a DR50 against a slow weapon.

Then, considering that the more action cards a WFRP3 character has, he can essentially ignore any delays or "slowness" that would otherwise be there.

Thoughts?  Solutions/

jh

In previous editions of the game, great weapons had an insane amount of encumbrance. If I am not wrong, something like 200 enc in W2 and 150, in W1. Halberds were of enc 150 in W2 (no idea right now of how much enc in W1). This ofcourse, limits a lot the amount of armou you can carry if you also wield a great weapon. For example, 200 enc would be something like enc 9 - 10 for W3, 150 would be something like 7 - 8 enc in W3.

I will think more.

Another thing could be the following. In warhammer 2 you did not get a free parry if wielding a great weapon, you need to spend a half action. You only got a free parry if you had the Lightning parry talent.

One could decide that parrying with a great weapon inccurs in puting one extra recharge token into the parry action card.

Cheers,

Yepes

You lose out on 1 defense, 1 soak and the Block/Improved Block defenses due to lack of a shield. This isn't an issue?

The soak yes, but defense doesn't really count for anything in this game simply because the chance to get hit is already so high.  Otherwise, no, great weapons and high soak are pretty much the answer to everything melee combat.  The loss of a single soak is nothing compared to reckless cleave, thunderous blow and that other thing that breaks the game simply because you're already using a great weapon, you've already got massive strength.  The power escalation is the issue (if it's an issue :)

jh

What Emirikol says is pretty much true. Of course one has to see if this is an issue at his table.

I told my players time ago about this part of the game, but they did not wanted to house rule antything (some were wielding great weapons). So what I did is start puting Beastmen, Orcs and the like with greatweapons and recklesscleave and thunderous blow action cards.

They understood then, but we haven't come to any satisfactory "solution".

As for the Immobilising Shot, we are playing with the modififed version, and it works fine so fat.

Cheers,

Yepes

Hi all,

Its just a thought but would increasing the effectiveness of a shield help to balance the 2H weapons issue?

I havent found great weapons to be too much of a problem so far. Yes they do kill normal sized people very quickly, but I kinda think thats right…  It doesnt feel quite right to me to affect the parry using great weapons either, you do get alot of coverage for defence with a long weapon, and you have lost block already.

Would giving shields a base increase to defense of 1 challenge dice rather than misfortune, in addition to all the Block/Imp Block/Guard Pos and Bulwark cards, help to create a more balanced game?

Shields are good enough in my mind. Cheap increase in defence, soak and the ability to use the block-cards is a great bonus.

I personally find some of the LF7 animal tricks to be pretty powerful, but I think they're so specialized as to be a non-issue.  Being able to make 2 actions in one turn is pretty good :)

There is an errata, btw, that animals are supposed to be able to learn 2 tricks (just like a sbvd).

jh