Quote from: jadrax;343057Yes, and one of those gods is not Ulric, which puts somewhat of a kibosh on 'The Enemy Within' campaign as well as 'Paths of the Damned'...

Yikes. I'd like to know if all the Gods & colleges are mentioned in the softcover books included.

I'll also bring out my copyrighted, "from a hook to a slice," comment on the success odds that pseudo mentioned (if they are correct - it's not my strongest point, frankly).

Quote from: One Horse Town;343058Yikes. I'd like to know if all the Gods & colleges are mentioned in the softcover books included.

I'll also bring out my copyrighted, "from a hook to a slice," comment on the success odds that pseudo mentioned (if they are correct - it's not my strongest point, frankly).

http://www.gmtools.excelocms.com/ should give you a feel at least for how likely you are to succeed.

Gurni Thorgrimson, the example starting Dockhand:
Strength 5, Toughness 4, Agility 3, Intelligence 2, Willpower 3, Fellowship 2
Athletics 1, Coordination 1, Intimidate 1, Resilience 1, Guile 1
Conservative 2/Reckless 2

Quote from: Windjammer;343056Yes, and elsewhere you said you wouldn't "make the switch". But would you want to play this if someone else brought it to the table (for the occasional one-shot)? Or would you rather play something else that's thematically proximate but simply better suited for that sort of situation?

I am planning to treat it like a beer and pretzels board game. I might play it if someone else has bought it and brings it around, but I can't say that I'd buy it, or even be particularly eager to play it. I don't like where it sits on the spectrum between board game and RPG.

QuoteI'd guess that what you describe here is corrosive to roleplaying for lots of people.

Bear in mind that I was an alpha playtester - literally part of the first group to play it outside of FFG. We had a very incomplete ruleset, and most of our time was spent figuring out how the various rules work and submitting opinion on them. But yes, I do see why people would be concerned if the final product is like that.

QuoteOk, this is downright disconcerting, especially if it isn't rectified in the final version. Solid rulesets of this magnitude are not FFG's forte, but in this case the dice pool system seems beyond my abilities to house-rule them into functionality. - For what it's worth, I'm not certain the probabilities aren't skewered in favour of the PCs by design. Sett mentioned above that Arkham Horror is a "stupid game" too easy to "crack". Well, the game is supposed to reward people playing it with significantly less ability than Sett & company (yes, there are AH expansions which amp up the difficulty, but that's not the point here.) I wouldn't be surprised if Warhammer 3rd is supposed to give newcomers an easy time, perhaps even some cheap victories, to avoid them dropping the game due to frustration.

I'm prevented by NDA on speculating about FFG's intentions, even when I have a pretty good idea what they are/were. Whether they changed the dice or not is probably going to be the make-or-break criterion for whether I'm willing to play the game.

QuoteAnd that gets us to my final question/concern. What I've just said, in response to your quoted 84% chance of success, seems to me starkly at odds with what precious little I knew of Warhammer FRPG hitherto. I thought it's "grim and perilous" and your characters will always fight steep odds against them. So how would you rate this game in relation to people like myself who haven't really experienced the Warhammer universe in a RPG context before? Do you think the game helps a GM to capture that universe, its traditional themes and so on?* Or do you think there is a massive re-envisioning of what roleplaying in the Old World ought to feel like, and that newcomers face a serious choice between having their characters continually "knee-deep in shit" and glorious Superheroes for the Win!?

In a nutshell: is choosing between 2e and 3e as much a matter of theme as it is of mechanics?

*I note that the trailer linked in the OP claims this, but I'd like to hear it from someone who's played it.

I think so. 3e felt like an action adventure board game, somewhat similar to Warhammer Quest from what I know of that game, but with the ability to roleplay overlaid on top of it. The emphasis in our game was on very heroic feats that I'd probably shy away from or do differently in WFRP 2e. For example, the first test of the combat system was against 12 skeletons / zombies, which is a lot of undead in WFRP 2e to fight at once, but we managed to survive without much damage in WFRP 3e. I think we'll start to see this whole "squabbling in the mud" meme fade away as it becomes less relevant to 3e.

I screwed up, the NDA expires Friday. So I've deleted my posts and I'll be keeping mum until then. Sorry for the tease, folks.