Unofficial Wfrp4 Faq: Last Update: 13/10/22 (Dd/mm/yy)

UNOFFICIAL WFRP4 FAQ
UNOFFICIAL WFRP4 FAQ

This is a collection of rulings and rules clarifications from the WFRP 4th Edition developers. Most of these
answers are publicly available on the Rat Catchers’ Guild Discord server using the search function; this FAQ is
meant only to curate these statements under a single document.
Some of the most recent answers come from Andy Law and Andy Leask via The Rookery, where the former
WFRP devs are quite happy to answer questions (join The Rookery on Discord here:
https://discord.gg/rSuaK6qHm2). We thank the Andys for their continued support and insider knowledge.
The individual rulings listed here should be considered ‘official answers’ to rules inquiries, but this FAQ itself is
unofficial and has no affiliation with C7 or Games Workshop.
Some answers are contradictory, or were written by former developers or writers of Warhammer Fantasy
Roleplay. Use your best judgement when deciding which rulings are most applicable if any contradictions do
arise.
We have tried to quote the source of all answers, but contact us if something appears to be missing attribution.
If anything else doesn't work or you need further clarity, ping @adambeyoncelowe#6971. I am always happy to
be sent clarifications I've missed!
This project was started (and maintained for a good few years) by @BadJuJu#0604 and is now being updated
by @adambeyoncelowe#6971, @Robak#1097 and the team at The Ratcatchers Guild.
Last Update: 13/10/22 (dd/mm/yy)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORE RULEBOOK
CHAPTER 2: CHARACTER
Species
Elves
Skills and Talents
Native languages
CHAPTER 3: CLASS AND CAREERS
Careers
Advancing
Edit Through
with the DocsYour
app Career
Advances and what they mean?
Make tweaks, leave comments and share with others to edit at the same time.
Career Skills and Talents
Status
Maintaining Status NO, THANKS GET THE APP
Hedge Witch
Hunter
Physician
Rat Catcher
Slayer
Witches and Hedge Witches
Wizard
Wizard’s Trappings
Learning Dark Magic
CHAPTER 4: SKILLS AND TALENTS
Skills
Ranks and proficiency
Art
Channelling
Heal
Injuring on a failed Test
Staunching multiple Bleeding Conditions
Healing in Combat
Intimidate
Intimidating weak characters to make stron flee
Intimidation (RAW)
Intimidation (RAI)
Language (Magick)
Lore
Lore (Apothecary) and Savant (Apothecary)
Lore (Engineering) and Trade (Engineering)
Lore (Medicine)
Research
Sleight of Hand
Talents
Alley Cat
Arcane Lore
Attractive
Berserk Charge
Combat Master
Combat Master and Outnumbering (RAW)
Combat Master and Outnumbering (RAI)
Concoct and Trade (Apothecary)
Deadeye Shot
Dealmaker
Dirty Fighting
Doomed
Dual Wielder
Declaring Dual Wielder
Dual Wielder and Advantage
Andy Law#7502 (Rat Catcher’s Guild, 09.11.2019)
Dual Wielder and reversing the dice
Using Dual Wielder with Knuckledusters
Dual Wielder RAI?
Stacking Dual Wielder, Frenzy and Furious Assault
Etiquette
Fast Hands
Fast Shot
Feint
Field Dressing
Frenzy
Furious Assault
Gunner
Implacable
In-fighter
Iron Jaw
Linguistics
Magic Resistance
Magic Resistance and Overcasting
Magic Resistance and Religion
Noble Blood
Noble Blood and interacting with other people
Noble Blood and “being true noble”
Nose for Trouble
Petty Magic
Pure Soul
Reaction Strike
Robust
Roughrider
Roughrider benefits
Andy Law#7502 (The Rookery, 20.06.2021)
Roughrider and Charging
Roughrider and Test Difficulty
Rover
Seasoned Traveller
Sixth Sense
Strike to Stun
Strong Back
Surgery Talent
Trapper
Witch!
Witch! and Dwarfes
Witch! and casting spells
Witch! and Arcane Lore spells
Legality of Witch! spells
CHAPTER 5: RULES
Simple Tests
Automatic Successes
Tests and Actions
Dramatic Tests
Failed Tests and adding SLs
Fast SLs clarifications
Benefits of Fast SL
Andy Law thoughts on FastSL
Cons of Fast SL
Fast SL and Talents
Fast SL and Tests over 100
Fast SL and balancing encounters
Difficulty
Modifiers and Advantage caps
Standard Difficulty
Opposed Tests
Opposed Tests and adjudicating ties
Highest Tested Skill or Characteristic in Opposed Tests
Opposed Test and Criticals
Extended Tests
Combat
The Oops! Table
Initiative Order
Taking Your Turn
New Action: Hold
Attacking
Ranged Combat
Ranged Combat and Advantage
Failed Ranged attacks and Opposed Tests
Opposing Ranged attacks at Point Blank with Melee
Damage of ranged attacks
Using Ranged weapons while unskilled
Increased damage when targeting crowds
Point Blank
Ranged attacks and No Opposition
Criticals while Opposing Ranged Attack
Opposing Blast Weapon
Combat Difficulty
Pistols, Engaged and Close Combat
Helpless clarification
Size Modifiers Clarifications
Mounted Combat
Damage
Minimum Damage Clarifications
Moving
Moving During Combat
Difficult Terrain
Fleeing
Running (AKA ‘Sprinting’)
Conditions
Stacking Conditions and Combining Difficulties
Bleeding
Entangled
Fatigued
Fatigue and Broken
How Much Rest?
Poisoned
Surprised
Other Conditions
Fate & Resilience
Fate and Fortune
Resilience and Resolve
Injury
Wounds, Critical Wounds and Death
When does a Critical Wound effect apply?
Andy's alternate Critical Wounds system
Healing
Corruption
Gaining Corruption
Dark Deals
Corrupting Influences
Disease and Infection
Symptoms
Psychology
Psychology at character creation
Psychology Tests
Psychology Traits
Frenzy
Insanity
CHAPTER 6: BETWEEN ADVENTURES
Endeavours
General Endeavours
Crafting
Reputation
Research
Training
Unusual Learning
CHAPTER 7: RELIGION AND BELIEF
The Cult of Manann, God of the Sea
Prayers
Pray Tests Difficulty
Advantage and Religion
Sin
Ranald's strictures
Sin and the units die
Blessings
Miracles
Miracle AoE clarification
Miracles of Myrmidia
Blazing Sun AoE clarification
Miracles of Shallya
Balm to a Wounded Mind clarification
Miracles of Sigmar
Soulfire Target clarification
Twin-tailed Comet clarifications
Miracles of Taal
Taal's Miracle Tooth and Claw and Melee Skill
Tanglefoot
Miracles of Ulric
Ulric's Fury
CHAPTER 8: MAGIC
Magic Rules
Magic Difficulty
Casting Test
Language (Magick) and speaking aloud
Casting and Targets
Grimoires
Ingredients
Magical Language Specialisations
Miscasts
Bleeding Conditions and Minor Miscasts
Magic Missiles
Advantage for AoE Spells with Multiple Opponents
Channelling Test
Channelling Duration Clarification
Interruptions
Repelling the Winds
Shields and Repelling the Winds
Dispelling
Dispelling and speaking
Dispelling as an Interruption
Dispelling while Surprised
Failed Dispelling attempts
Fumbles while Dispelling
Overcasting
Overcasting nerf (Petty Spells)
Overcasting and Range
Overcasting and AOE spells
Overcasting and Critical Wounds
Overcasting on the same Target
Spell Lists
Lore effect clarifications
Petty Spells
Dart clarification
Optional rule to reign in Dart
Arcane Spells
Arcane spells and spellcaster Careers
Aethyric Armour clarification
Aethyric Arms clarification
Bolt Spell clarification
Breath Spell clarification
Entangle Clarifications
Colour Magic
Winds of Magic
The Lore of Beasts
Amber Talons clarifications
Beast Form clarifications
Beast Form and Critical Injuries
Flock of Doom and extra damage
The Lore of Death
The Lore of Fire
Lore of Fire rider clarification
Options: Spellcasters and Trappings
Options: Variable Winds
Crown of Flame clarification
Purge clarification
Flaming Sword of Rhuin Damage Clarification
Great Fires of U’Zhul Target Clarification
The Lore of Heavens
Cerulean Shield and Critical Deflection
First and Second Portent of Amul Clarifications
Starcrossed Target Clarification
The Lore of Metal
Enchant Weapon and Forge of Chamon Qualities
The Lore of Shadows
Lore of Shadows and whispering
Shadowsteed
Shroud of Invisibility and Casting while Invisible
Witch Magic
The Lore of Hedgecraft
The Lore of Witchcraft
Dark Magic
Necromancy
Chaos Magic
Missing Spells
CHAPTER 9: THE GAMEMASTER
General Advice
No Opposition
Travel
Travel Costs
CHAPTER 11: CONSUMER’S GUIDE
Money
Brass versus copper
The Cost of Living
Income from odd-jobs
Craftsmanship
Item Qualities
Practical Armour and the Winds of Magic
Encumbrance
Items
Weapons
Weapon costs
Improvised Weapons
In-fighting and improvised weapons
Blunderbuss
Ranged Weapon Groups
Engineering
Weapon Qualities
Weapon Qualities in combat
Adding Qualities to Weapons
Blast Quality clarifications
Damaging Quality Clarifications
Defensive Quality Clarification
Durable Quality
Entangle clarification
Hack clarification
Impale clarification
Penetrating Quality clarifications
Pummel clarification
Repeater Quality and partial Reload
Shield clarifications
Two-handed Cavalry weapons used on foot
Weapon Flaws
Tiring and the Champion Creature Trait
Armour
Plate Armour
Critical Deflection
Armour Qualities
Boiled Leather over Leather and Flexible Armour
Partial and Open Helms
Miscellaneous Trappings
Torch
CHAPTER 12: BESTIARY
General Bestiary clarifications
The Peoples of the Reikland
Ogres
The Monstrous Beasts of the Reikland
Bloodletters (errata)
Demigryph
Giant Spider (errata)
Hippogriffs
Hydra (errata)
Pigeons (errata)
Creature Traits
Attack Traits clarifications
Armour
Animals and Low Initiative
Bite
Ethereal
Magical
Magical, Daemonic and Ward saves
Regeneration
Skittish, Trained (War) and Mounted Combat
Size
Size and moving in combat
Size and Outnumbering
Size and Qualities
Tough
Vomit
Vomit and free attacks
Weapon and Ranged Creature Traits
Weapon Damage
Weapon Qualities and Flaws
ROUGH DAYS, HARD NIGHTS
APPENDIX 1: GNOMES
Gnome Characters
Skills and Talents
Suffuse with Ulgu
ENEMY WITHIN (GENERAL)
Gideon and the Daemon
ENEMY IN SHADOWS COMPANION
Sigmafoil missing rules
DEATH ON THE REIK COMPANION
CHAPTER 5: RIVER NAVIGATION
Riverboats of the Empire (Table, p.33)
THE HORNED RAT
INTRODUCTION
Skaven Troops
SULLASARA'S SPELLS OF UNRIVALLED UTILITY
THE LORE OF LIGHT
MISCELLANEOUS
Alternative coinage
COMMON COINS OF THE EMPIRE
Demilances
Dwarf Runes
Elves
Grail Knights
In-character knowledge
Katya (unofficial)
Khorne followers and magic
Looting in combat
Notable Freistadts in Middenland
Orcs
Reiklander Thorncobbles
Skaven
Wizards
LAWHAMMER
Animals rules
Keen Senses (senses)
Wayfinder
Dogs rules
Horse rules
CORE RULEBOOK
CHAPTER 2: CHARACTER
Species
Elves
Q: Why do Elves have such high stats?
A: Resilience and Resolve are the balancing factors. If you play RAW, with Conditions, Elves should be rather
brittle. If you don't use Conditions often, they lose this vulnerability. This may be more of a problem if you merge
the metacurrency pools.
In an attempt not to ramble for a couple of thousand words, if you use the RAW, Elves get a surprisingly raw
deal with their lack of Resolve. Indeed, in playtests, it was almost always Elves dead first in extended
adventures. Surprisingly so. But the playtests just used the RAW. [...]
So, as a single example, Conditions kill Elves fast. The species can't do anything about them, especially
because so many PCs chose Fate over Resilience at char-gen. But, many groups downplay the impact of
Conditions, forget to use them, or just remove them entirely as a faffy rule. Then Elves suddenly become
ascendant.
Skills and Talents

Native languages
Q: Do Elves, Dwarfs, etc automatically know their native tongues by default? Or do they need to take
advances in the corresponding Language skills?
A: In addition to Reikspiel, you are assumed to be fluent in your Species’ language, unless you choose to take
advances in it (in which case, it's a secondary language).
Indeed, exceptions are made so all species can speak their home language if it makes sense for the campaign
and character. If you have a Language Skill, it is assumed to be a secondary language (at least, that's what the
Skill now says -- that needed to be clearer, I thought).
Jaalib#2203 if you choose to take the skill, you're saying you're not fluent in it.
Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358 (Rat Catcher’s Guild, 22.07.2019)

Careers
Q: What are benefits of 4ed style careers?
Jaalib#2203 asks:
1) With the benefit of hindsight, do you consider the highly structured construction of careers (4 linear tiers, precise
number of skills/talents in each tier) as more of an upside, or more of a constraint/limitation?
2) If given opportunity, would you setup careers in a different fashion?
3) Do you think preserving "equality" between careers/tiers in terms of number of skills and talents available is
important?
4) I am aware you've went to some depth on this with the Fire Wizard and Apothecary Physician careers on your
blog, but I'm curious if you had any new reflections on the matter.
5) And finally - is there any chance we get to see more Careers with the treatment you've applied to the
aforementioned 2?
1) I broadly see it as very useful. However, I feel that its implementation, like much of WFRP4, is only a starting
point. The Careers were designed from the beginning to have 5 tiers, and for tiers 2, 3, and 4 (and maybe 5 -
that was undecided) to have multiple options. However, it worked best for general Careers, not specific, which
was occasionally problematic when building four tiers.
2) Yes. But not by much if I was redesigning WFRP, as it is very Warhammer, and it offers a far greater spread
of advanced play. Having 64 versions of low, standard, advanced, and high play did wonders for potential
player advancement in comparison to what came before, where it was mostly basic and early tier play. And, to
be clear here, four tiers isn't a new Warhammer concept at all - it's just a replication of the very old format of
Basic Troop, Champion, Hero, and Lord, but translated to the RPG side.
3) Yes.
4) I still think it's a strong implementation of the current expression of the rules, and wish I'd had the opportunity
to take that farther.
5) Not very likely. My free time is extremely limited, and I'd prefer to be writing more Rookery stuff, or maybe
answering this Q&A! smile
Advancing Through Your Career

Q: Do you have to complete a Career Rank before you can advance to the next rank?
A: If you haven't completed your current Career Rank, you can only move to another tier 1 Career without GM
approval. Advancing to the next level without completing your current Career Rank requires GM fiat, as does
moving to a higher tier in another Career. As always, moving up a level or into a new Career without completing
your current level costs +100xp.
RAW say you can advance a level if completed, or move to a different career T1 if completed or not. It's in the
book. Anything else - skipping a level, progression to next level without completion - needs GM OK. Don't have
book with me, but it's in there.
Advances and what they mean?

Calgori#3278 asks:
So, I was thinking:
1) could you tell us more about the meaning of skill/characteristic levels?
2) What does a certain value in a skill or characteristic means?
3) How much is too much?
4) What about the balance between characteristics and skills?
5) Would Tyrion have a huge level of WS or level the skill instead?
1) Sure, what do you want to know?

2) The easiest way to look at this is in terms of Advances. Loosely speaking:
● 10 Advances: Trained/Capable
● 20 Advances: Skilled/Impressive
● 30 Advances: Expert/Extraordinary
● 40+ Advances: Holy Shit!/Unique
More: We're talking proper epic-level stuff here, where a single % point per every other session or so is the
maximum gain. That said, you'll note that the table in WFRP4, p47, goes up to 70+ Advances! Yes, I playtested
characters up to that level. (And, as an aside, the XP costs at that end were much higher in the first draft of the
rules; but that's another story.)
3) There is no upper level.
4) As in what should the balance be between Skills and Characteristics? You'll find this organically sorts itself
as the cost in XP for either the Characteristic or the Skill at hand becomes too expensive in comparison to the
alternatives. You'll see this as your games progress. There is no correct way to handle this during play, but
there are fast ways to build NPCs that are fairly representative, and I covered that in Enemy in Shadows, p144.
5) Both. He's Tyrion. Manslayer. The greatest warrior of the age. Yeah... he's beyond kinda kick ass.
Q: Why you need to pay XP for career changes?
A: Balance reasons, to restrict jumping from Career to Career.
@LongShadow asks:
I am interested in the reasoning behind the XP costs for career changes, as opposed to simply allowing characters to
change career, possibly with some RP constraints thrown in so that it makes sense (yes, I know the GM is allowed
this as an optional rule). Was it to slow down career progression, to discourage players from picking the 'best'
careers too easily, or something else?
...If there is no cost or restrictions, players would just flit from Career to Career taking the cool shit, and the
entire Career system would fall apart, invalidating its implementation. The hard-coded costs and ways to avoid
them are ingrained into how the Careers are used, how they manifest in play and act as a guide to future
advancement, and how they help tell stories at the table.
Q: Can you pay double the cost to take a Talent outside your Career tier?
A: No.
WFRP4, p48, 'Non-Career Advances':
Characters will inevitably want to advance Characteristics and Skills not listed in their Careers. That’s fine, if the GM
feels it’s appropriate, but it costs double. The GM might want you to find a teacher or otherwise play out this
unusual education.
So, that rule only applies to Skill and Characteristic Advances. Confirming that, Talents, and the Endeavour in
question, are specifically called out in the same rule block:
Normally, non-Career Talents may not be purchased with XP, although Training and Unusual Learning Endeavours in
Chapter 6: Between Adventures provide an opportunity to purchase non-Career Advances as if they were Career
Advances, and give the possibility of learning non-Career Talents.
So, the XP costs that apply here in the Unusual Learning Endeavour are not doubled.
Career Skills and Talents

For learning out-of-Career Talents, see Unusual Learning.
Q: Can you buy Talents from earlier levels in your Career? Can you purchase additional ranks of a
Talent you already have if it’s not in your current Career Rank? For example, if you buy the Hardy talent
in the first rank of a Career then move into the second Rank of that career, can you then purchase it a
second time?
A: RAW, no and no. But Andy suggests a house rule where you might be able to buy additional levels in any
Talent you have already taken at a lower Career tier. He also suggests you could use an Endeavour to learn
Talents you didn't take at a lower level of your Career.
@Andy Law#7502 That I know! But let's say I buy hardy, level 1 of it. Can I afterwards in the next career
advance my talent hardy to level 2? If it was presented in my latter career tier? Or any talent that can be leveled
for that matter? Ceodryn said it!
Greenfeuer#6852
Nope. Only when it's in your Career level.

Andy Law#7502
So I need to max out my talents, before passing on, if thats what I want? - Is there a designer reason behind
this?
Greenfeuer#6852
If you want a Talent you have purchased before, move back to that Level. Or gain it from another Career.
It’s pretty much what you mentioned there. Any Talent you have already purchased you can always increase
with XP.
I think I'd also add talents from a lower tier with an Endeavour, but without having to roll.
LongShadow#4934
I kinda agree. But it’s a touch more complicated for my game, as each career is designed to have multiple
careers in every career level. So, the above rule I suggested keeps it simple.
Q: Why do some Careers have Trappings, Skills and Talents you can't use until higher levels, or why do
they introduce Basic Skills that are then succeeded by more useful Advanced Skills in the next level?
A: You often start to learn to use something before you are capable of actually taking advantage of that
learning. Earlier levels therefore set you up for later levels.
why does the engineer career start with Range (Blackpowder) just to get Range (Engineering) just the next
career step, basically wasting 50 xp?
Stan#4208 (Rat Catcher’s Guild, 26.02.2021)
Because first you learn to use standard blackpowder weapons, before you learn to use experimental ones. Like
apprentice wizardss having grimoires before they can use them: the careers are designed to reflect what you
do (within the constraints of the format). That's not always going to lead to the most ruthlessly efficient
acquisition of desirable skills. If you want them optimised for efficiency there's a lot of them would need
tweaked, but mostly minor tweaks.
Status
Maintaining Status
See also Income from odd-jobs for confirmation on average day rates (Status x 3).
Q: How often do you need to spend the ‘cost of living’ expense? Every day or every week? And do you
need to pay during weeks where you take the Income endeavour?
A: Once per week. Money made from the Income Endeavour is after cost of living expenses, too.
@handydandyhandy just FYI, you only need to spend the cost of living expense once a week to maintain your
status (that’s not very clear in the book).
macd21#2249
@macd21#2249 matter you’re in adventure or out?

Zoltan#5019
I don’t think it says anything either way (though I could be wrong). And it should be noted that if you’re
performing an income endeavor, the money you make is after cost of living expenses.
macd21#2249 (Rat Catcher’s Guild, 11.11.2019)

Hedge Witch
See also Witches and Hedge Witches
Q1: Listening to the brilliant Rookery discussion https://youtu.be/YlX8CJE3114 on Hedge Witches, it’s
suggested that they are the remnants of the pre-Teclis Old World belief system. Is that the case?
A1: Yes.
Q2a: Would a Hedge Witch consider themselves a practitioner of the Old Faith like the old Druids of 1e?
A2a: No. The beliefs of the Old Faith are quite different to the beliefs of the disparate groups of the Blessed
Few.
Q2b: Or is the Old Faith a mostly forgotten belief system, which they no longer fully understand.
Aspects of which they continue to try and practice from a limited understanding?
No. The Old Faith is alive and strong in a variety of different places. Most famously, in the Old Druidic Families
that did not join the Jade College. And, uh... in many of the Jade Wizards, too!
Q3: Depending on the answer to the question above - 2ed lore mentions that a 1/3rd of the original
druids disappeared back into the forests after Teclis formed the magical colleges. Where did they go?
Can you still find Old Faith Druids in the forests of the Old World today?
A3: Into the forests, mostly. And, yes, you can still find Druids today.
1) Yes, that's the case.
2a) No. The beliefs of the Old Faith are quite different to the beliefs of the disparate groups of the Blessed Few.
2b) No. The Old Faith is alive and strong in a variety of different places. Most famously, in the Old Druidic
Families that did not join the Jade College. And, uh... in many of the Jade Wizards, too!
3) Into the forests, mostly. Some went to some rather unexpected places, though (in my games, two of the
families are noble!) And, yes, you can still find Druids today. Indeed, I was looking forward to examining that
properly in Death on the Reik, but resigned before I could add the Druidic Lores to the game.
However, as is often the case with edge-case lore such as this, it's prone to being written over by those that
don't like the previous version, don't understand it, or more likely haven't read it. That being the case, be aware
that it's very likely all of the above may be changed by other writers (indeed, it may have already been - I've not
been keeping up). But, in this case, I wrote all the relevant sections in the Tome of Salvation, Shades of Empire,
and WFRP4, so I'm in a very strong place to provide authorial intention there.
Hunter
Q: Why the Hunter is so OP?
A: That is intended and based on that Hunter are… tough.
@Roderick (He/Him) asks:
How did the Hunter get so swole? Aka: is there a story behind why the Hunter is capable of becoming such a total
beast - outside of that someone should get Hardy and Toughness at tier 1? I.e.: particular tropes or archetypes,
characters you wanted to replicate or careers from previous editions?
This may be the most disappointing answer ever, but: little to say here beyond Hunters are tough. Wandering
the wildernesses of the Empire chasing beasties is exceedingly dangerous. Hunters do this. So, well, Hunters
are tough. All that rough living, I suppose.
Physician
Q: One of my players plays a Physician's Apprentice. The Career has the Bookish Talent but no
possibility to learn the Research Skill until much later (which that Talent supports, and according to the
RAW in the rulebook, it supports nothing else). This is a conundrum for me, since the errata does not
mention it. I have allowed him to take Bookish, which is on the career on tier 1, and my personal ruling
so far has been that he can use Research as a Basic Skill with a -10 modifier despite not having direct
access to the Research skill (because otherwise, it makes no sense to be able to take the Talent that
aids Research but have no way to use the Talent). I would very much like to know if there is an official
position on this, though, since I prefer using official rules if they exist and make sense.
A: It's a mistake. Do the following for an unofficial fix:
● Replace Sleight of Hand with Research in Physician's Apprentice.
● Replace Lore (Anatomy) with Sleight of Hand in Physician.
● Replace Research with Lore (Any) in Doktor.
This one makes my blood boil. Just a bit.
As has been mentioned many times both when I was still the producer, and again after I left the job (including
many times in this Q&A), a large list of errors was compiled (by @Lindsay, btw) to be installed before the book
was printed. However, not all those changes were installed. So, WFRP4 was left with what I perceived to be
many errors that I thought were fixed, but were not. After, when I became producer for the line and it became
clear that the rulebook had what I considered to be many small errors, I was tasked with compiling an Errata
that was as small as possible to address this. So, small errors like this one, which were not fatal to the game
running and did not actively break other rules, were not fixed.
So, that leaves you with an unofficial fix only unless the current publishers decide to tackle this.
But, I'm happy to provide a quick unofficial fix until that happens! This fixes just the issue you mention.
Replace Sleight of Hand with Research in Physician's Apprentice.

Replace Lore (Anatomy) with Sleight of Hand in Physician.
Replace Research with Lore (Any) in Doktor.
But that doesn't fix the lack of Language (Classical)!

Rat Catcher
Q: Do Exterminator realy needs 10 doses of Heartkill?
A: It should be changed.
@Andres asks:
By what means does an Exterminator acquire 10 doses of Heartkill? Heartkill is 40 GC per dose.
Bluntly, this should be changed. Similarly, basic Rat Poison should be added to Rat Catcher.
Slayer
Q: How should the Slayer Oath be handled? Does it have any mechanical weight?
A: Andy suggests you could make such a system like the one for Religion.
I'd suggest it's more a hole in the current ruleset - create rules for dwarf oaths and Ancestor gods, which
includes clear restrictions and the consequences for breaking them, and most issues melt away. Much like few
have issues with Cult strictures.
Yup. That said, I'd see many penalties as personal, not sourced from the attitudes of others. Accumulated
shame is all-consuming and eats up the dwarfs from within, until they eventually break and swear an oath
before Grimnir. So, the very character of the dwarf changes as the internal obsessions build, resulting in
penalties to tests until atonement of some kind is achieved and that pressure valve is released. Atonement or
bust. Sometimes, the Slayers are the only way out.
Q: Can Slayers wear armour?

A: This is intentionally left vague. There's nothing mechanically stopping you but it's probably frowned upon.
Andy suggests that a Talent allowing Slayers to have skin as thick as Leather Armour (and thus giving +1 AP)
might be appropriate or a Talent that allows Slayers to spend Resolve to ignore the effect of a Critical Wound
may work instead.
Then again, I purposefully didn't limit this in the core book to allow people to play Slayers any way they wished
without fear of contradicting the rules. There are a lot of WFRP1 players that want Giant Slayers in chainmail,
for example. And armour ain't cheap (and Slayers are usually poor), so there are some built-in mechanical
limitations.
Andy Law#7502
Or you know, you decide that the slayer skin is leather equivalent armor.
Leman#6992
That's a far better conclusion, and one that could easily be built into an expanded career.
Andy Law#7502
Rather than giving them actual AP, I'd suggest a Talent that allows Slayers to spend a Resolve to ignore the
effect portion of a Critical Wound.
joesmoke#0464
Another great idea. I wouldn't use Resolve in my games, but only because I don't really use it any more.
Witches and Hedge Witches

Q: Can Witches and Hedge Witches take Arcane Spells as if they belonged to Witchcraft/Hedgecraft?
A: Yes. This is covered in WFRP4, p242, 'Arcane Spells'.
Yes. This is covered in WFRP4, p242, 'Arcane Spells'.
Treat Arcane spells as extra options for every Lore of Magic, including Witch, Dark, and Chaos Lores. They are
counted as Lore spells in all ways, meaning they get all the benefits of Lore spells, and can only be learned from and
taught to those sharing the same Arcane Magic Talent.
I hope that clears it up for you!
Wizard
Wizard’s Trappings
Q: Are robes meant to be among the Wizard's Trappings?
A: No
@Andres asks:
Are wizards supposed to have robes in their career trappings? If so, at what tier?
They are not. The Trappings are only listed if they are considered to be universal to all manifestations of the
Career. And not all Wizards wear robes. Indeed, in the Empire, you could argue that many wear a uniform given
to them by the Colleges of Magic, and are a part of the military. As the Career covers all types of academic
Wizards, be that Necromancers, Chaos Sorcerers, Wizards from other realms, and many more, and many do
not wear Robes, the trapping was not included. Now, if a Career was made for individual Wizard types, then,
yes, Trappings for clothing should definitely be added. As an example of this, see what I suggested when I did a
blog post covering Bright Wizards.
https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/01/career-paths.html
Learning Dark Magic
Q: Is there any way to learn demonology or necromancy?
A: RAW, you can use Wizard Career. RAI you should be using Witch Career, but it’s not implemented corectly.
@Smiling Tom asks:
Reading the answer to Q114... is there any RAW way for a player to learn demonology or necromancy?
RAW, if you're sticking to Careers, you can use the Wizard Career, but given trappings like 'Magical License' for
the Wizard tier, that clearly makes no sense, and, as mentioned in Q114, is not the RAI. The original RAI was to
have Dark Magic included in the Witch Career, which was supposed to cover all illegal spellcasting (which is
why the Career is in the Rogue Class). That intention can be directly seen in the Career, which includes Skills
such as Lore (Dark Magic) and Lore (Daemonology), but the planned amendments to that Career were never
installed. This was not seen as an issue at the time given the plans for the Realms of Sorcery book, so it was
not added to the WFRP4 Errata (for all I would have preferred to do so).
Q: Can Elf Wizards learn Witchcraft via the Skill and Talent specialisation options in the Career section?
A: No. The RAI was that Wizards can only pick Colour Lores, or at least only 'legal' Arcane Lores.
@LongShadow asks:
While the Hedge Witch and Witch careers are restricted to Humans and Elves study colour magic and High Magic, is
there anything stopping an inquisitive Elf from experimenting with witchcraft? They could conceivably get it
through the Wizard career couldn't they? Especially if Channelling (Magick) is a thing?
No. Really, no. For so many reasons, the simplest of which is that Elves would never, (and possibly could never
for Hedge Witchery), use such magic. However, do whatever you wish in your game, especially because the
Wizard career currently has a loophole that was never intended to be there (and the Optional rule on WFRP4
p26 allows for any Career mix-up anyway). In fact, loosely, most of the Careers have small errors that I tried to
patch after the first release of WFRP4. And, as discussed in many of the questions here, most of those fixes
were not installed correctly before print. So, RAI, Witchcraft is not supposed to be accessible through the
Wizard Career. The Wizard Career is supposed to be used by academic wizards of the Empire who learn their
magic legally. Currently, the Career offers the Arcane Magic (Any Arcane Lore) Talent; that was never the
intention (and is an artefact of an older definition of 'Arcane'). The Career should either offer Arcane Magic (Any
Colour Lore) or, if you want the career to be broader (allowing Gnomes to study Dark Magic in Glimdwarrow, for
example), the Talent should be Arcane Lore (Any Legal Arcane Lore).
Q: What happens when a Black Magister becomes a Chaos Sorcerer? Can they use their original lore of
magic alongside the one granted by the Chaos gods? I'm unsure of this because in his old TT rules,
Engrimm can only use the Lore of Tzeetch, not Light Magic. Further, can a Chaos Sorcerer of Tzeetch
only use metal magic or Tzeetch Magic or can one use both?
A1: No Lores are lost upon changing Careers to a Chaos equivalent.
A2: With Andy's version of Chaos champions, memories of the previous life dim with time, and old Lores may
be forgotten (old Skills and Talents are lost).
A3: There is also an arrogance that comes with gaining access to the most powerful of magics that leaves
some Sorcerers dismissing the use of older, more Human magics from the past, as they now see them as
pathetic and beneath them. So, they may still be capable of using their old magics, but they just don't.
This is potentially a huge question that may be better for the entire community to answer. For example, I can
answer what happens according to the rules I worked on for WFRP4, and I can easily discuss the
simplifications used for the Warhammer version in comparison to the more in-depth WFRP versions, but I'm not
sure how useful that would be in general as you seem to be looking for a larger, more definitive answer. So, it
may just be easier to ask how others view this, and what sort of answers they deploy here.
With that in mind, instead of answering this in an objective fashion, I'll go very subjective, and loosely offer three
points from my games that are relevant here:
1) No Lores are lost upon changing Careers to a Chaos equivalent.
2) With my version of Chaos champions, memories of the previous life dim with time, and old Lores may be
forgotten (old Skills and Talents are lost).
3) There is also an arrogance that comes with gaining access to the most powerful of magics that leaves some
Sorcerers dismissing the use of older, more Human magics from the past, as they now see them as pathetic
and beneath them. So, they may still be capable of using their old magics, but they just don't.
It's a start at least.
CHAPTER 4: SKILLS AND TALENTS
Q: Which Skills in particular were marked to have additional rules added later?
A: Animal Training, Art, Channelling, Dodge, Entertain/Perform/Play, Evaluate, Gamble, Intimidate, Intuition,
Language, Lore, Research.
@joesmoke asks:
Whilst the issues with Crafting and Magic are oft discussed, were there any other skills that were on your 'to-do' list
to add a lot more detail to in further supplements?
Yes. Pretty much all of them. WFRP4's 'Skills and Talents' chapter received space-saving cuts after submission.
Because of this, some RAW Skills had holes I wanted to patch. None of the cuts were game-critical, so I didn't
resolve them in the Errata. But, some of the changes were impactful.
This was especially the case in three primary areas:

1) Uses for Trade and Lore Skills.
2) How Skills could be used inventively in different environments to promote the narrative and reinforce different
character builds.
3) How different Lores could be applied to score similar information (the differences between, for example,
general Lores and specific Lores).
To address this, I was going to add addendum articles in other books, much like the 'Gnomes' and 'Pub Games'
I wrote for Rough Nights & Hard Days, or the 'New Rules' appendix I wrote for Enemy in Shadows.
In particular, the articles I planned to write for the GM Screen and Archives of the Empire would have
addressed this and more. Included in that mix of articles would have been discussions about Skills. At the very
least, there were points to raise concerning Animal Training, Art, Channelling, Dodge, Entertain/Perform/Play,
Evaluate, Gamble, Intimidate, Intuition, Language, Lore, Research (this one bugs me a lot), and Trade, but the
process of writing would likely have refined the list.
Skills
Ranks and proficiency
Q: Is the difference between having 1 rank in an advanced Skill and everything else intended?
A: No, there was idea for the fix, but never got into final result.
@Smiling Tom (He/Him) asks:

The wild difference between having 1 rank in an advanced Skill and everything else. Is it intended that characters
become fully capable of an advanced skill for just 10 xp? While any other advancement gives just a 1% increase, the
first dot gives the whole characteristic value which, while mechanically it works, can open to very bad developments
like players taking endeavours to become masters of skills after a week of training. Ever considered a fix for this, like
grading portion of the characteristic per rank of a skill (so having rank 2 allows you to add up to 20% of your
characteristic and having 5 up to 50%, etc.)?
Loosely, yes, a fix was considered for this, both in the WFRP4 rules, where the extra complication I planned
was dropped, and for later books, where some extra complication was going to be added. As an example, like
the inclusion of Endeavours during standard play, this was something I intended to make clear over the course
of The Enemy Within campaign in the Optional Rules Appendices I had planned for each book (much like the
one found in Enemy in Shadows). In particular, I planned for many of the more obscure Tests to require not just
a successful Test, but also a number of Advances in the associated Skill to unlock certain outcomes. So, core
information only for low Advances PCs, but more complicated detail offered to those with many Advances.
Obviously, that never happened, so the development of that aspect of the game is now left to others.
Art
For whether you can use the Crafting Endeavour to make a work of art, see Crafting Endeavour (in short:
Crafting is for the Trade Skill. RAW, Art only uses Dramatic and Extended Tests).
Channelling
Q: Which Channelling specialisation should Witches and Hedge Wizards use?
A: They should have received Channelling (Magick) (this may have been a different specialisation for Hedge
Wizards, such as Channelling (Hedgecraft); Andy only specified what his version was for Witches).
Like the range bands question above, this one is a mistake. In short, as you suggest, the skill should only be
grouped. I'm not sure what happened here as my original redraft of the Careers has 'Channelling (Magick)' in
the Witch Career, but that became just 'Channelling' in the next draft. As far as I can tell, the file had only been
edited by me at that point, I can only assume I somehow reverted to an earlier draft of the Careers by mistake?
So, an error, and one that was seemingly 100% mine, for all that makes no sense to me. I still shake my head
in horror at this one. To make matters worse, that error wasn't spotted during development, and when the Skills
were updated to include all the Specialisations used in the Careers, the mistake was reproduced, and no
specialisation was added for Witches or Hedge Witches (or anything else). This, again, was 100% my fault, and
I should have spotted it. Cut to a year later, and people were asking what Witches and Hedge Witches used for
the Channelling specialisation. And that's when I spotted the ommission. So, given the intended rule wasn't
there, I had to fudge what was there and make the Channelling Skill a bizarre mix of grouped and ungrouped in
order to make sense of it. Not ideal, but it meant the core rules didn't need another point of errata (and I was
specifically told to keep the errata as short as humanly possible). Or, in other words, add the Channelling
(Magick) specialisation for witches of all stripes, and you're good to go. That said, if I wrote a full treatment for
Hedge Witches, they would not use that specialisation.
Q: Can you learn more than one Channelling Skill, or is it limited like Arcane Lores?
A: You can learn more than one.
As you suggest, 'Multiple Arcane Lores' (p238) makes it clear that only Elves can learn multiple Arcane Lores,
by purchasing the Arcane Magic Talent multiple times, but with some limitations. All spellcasters can also learn
one Dark Lore if they wish, using the Arcane Magic Talent, but this is illegal. Also, all spellcasters can learn one
Chaos Lore using the Chaos Lore Talent (p134), and this is also illegal. So, a Human could simultaneously
have Arcane Magic (Lore of Death), Arcane Lore (Necromancy), and Chaos Lore (Tzeentch), and still fit into
the RAW. There is no such limitations placed on the Channelling Skill.
Heal
Injuring on a failed Test
Q: Can you injure someone on a failed Heal Test?
A: Yes, if your negative SLs+IntB is less than 0.
@Baz King asks:

Healing wounds suggests that there is 'potential' to cause wounds if you get a negative result. No specifics
mentioned beyond that?
The answer to this is heavily implied in the rules, but not expressly stated. So, let's cover it fully. The number of
Wounds gained (or lost) is covered on WFRP4, p123. Let me quote the relevant section:
Heal Wounds equal to your Intelligence Bonus + SL.
There is also a small section explain the loss of Wounds.
A Failed Heal Test can potentially cause Wounds if your Intelligence Bonus + SL totals less than 0.
So, let's apply that and show how a Heal Test can possibly heal or hurt you. Let's assume your Heal is 45 and
your Intelligence Bonus (IntB) is 3.
● Example 1. You roll 25 for the Heal Test. That scores +2 SL. Adding the 2 SL to your IntB of 3 equals
5, meaning you have healed 5 Wounds.
● Example 2. You roll 85 for the Heal Test. That scores -4 SL. Adding the -4 SL to your IntB of 3 equals
-1, meaning you have failed badly enough that you have cause your patient to suffer -1 Wound.
And, just to be 100% clear, the rules for determining SL can be found under 'Dramatic Tests' on WFRP4, p152.
If you would prefer to make the rules completely unambiguous, change the first quoted text to:
Heal Wounds equal to your Intelligence Bonus + SL. If that total is less than 0, something terrible has happened:
inflict the relevant number of Wounds instead.
Staunching multiple Bleeding Conditions

Q: If Person A is bleeding, can Person B staunch some of the bleeding on Round 1, then staunch again
on Round 2, then staunch again on round 3, etc?
A: Yes.
Damn straight they can. The Heal Skill limitation was for gaining Wounds, but, again, a small edit removed
clarity there. Yay?
Healing in Combat
Q: How often can you Heal in combat?
A: RAW, there's no limit. You might limit it to one Test during combat and one after combat for each subject,
and/or limit Wound recovery to TB Wounds.
QUESTION #2
Is using the Heal Skill to heal Wounds permissible during combat?
If Heal Tests to heal Wounds are permissible during combat - like Heal rolls after an encounter which are limited
to one (p123), is there any similar mechanical cap to the number of Heal Tests to heal Wounds during combat?
On page 123, does "If healing during combat, Tests will likely be challenging (+0) at the very least." apply to
Heal Tests used to Heal Wounds? Can the field Dressing talent p138 be used for both Healing Wounds and
Healing Bleeding Conditions during combat? If you're interested in the discussions on this over at TRC:
https://discord.com/channels/449845411344154634/479275054023311362/759882177378254898
https://discord.com/channels/449845411344154634/479275054023311362/729237 423061598229
RAW, you absolutely can attempt to heal wounds in combat. However, I do think that kind of instant healing of
wounds stretches credulity a bit, and I'm not a huge fan of it in WFRP's otherwise fairly punishing combat, and
personally limit mid combat healing of wounds to the TB of the victim, max. However, it's allowed RAW and
might be essential for some groups, especially if f ortune runs low. I'd suggest that you limit Heal Tests to
recover wounds to one Test mid combat, and one test afterwards. You might like to have this mid-combat
counter 'reset' any time you take a critical wound, if you are feeling generous and don't mind the book keeping.
The field Dressing talent should work for both attempts to stop Bleeding and to recover wounds, that's fine.
Official information given by C7
Intimidate
Intimidating weak characters to make stron flee
Q: Do you can Intimidate a weak character with low Cool in order to make more important NPCs flee?
A: No. The intent is that the secondary targets who also flee should be similar or subservient to the primary
target. E.g., you can target a lord and then also make his lackeys scatter. But you can't scare a child as your
primary target and then target a lord as a secondary target. (A good rule of thumb might be to say that you can
only affect anyone with equal or lower Cool than your primary target.)
Q1: Is it possible that I may have Pigeons in a box? And choose them as a primary target (Or weakest target
among enemies) and then choose as secondary target GODS and give them the intimidated condition?
A1: No, and you should leave those pigeons alone. The intention of these rules was that you would be
intimidating a similar group of targets. Making a small child run away, and having noble lords follow as
'secondary targets' does not make sense. You could target the Lord's footmen and have several of those run -
the Lord and probably the higher ups in his retinue should be treated separately. Now if you intimidate the Lord,
or generally speaking the leader of an enemy group, then it makes perfect sense to have as many followers run
as you get in additional SL.
Official information given by C7 via email
Intimidation (RAW)
Q: How does Intimidate work?

A: You and your primary target make an Opposed Intimidate/Cool Test. If you succeed on your roll, you may
intimidate up to SB+SL targets, regardless of if you win or lose the Opposed Test. If you win the Opposed Test,
all targets are intimidated. If you lose the Opposed Test but succeeded on the roll (i.e., rolled below your
modified Skill), however, your primary target is not intimidated but everyone else is.
Q1: How Intimidate skill works and how can I intimidate my foes? We have this question because from the rules
it is not clear how exactly to use it.
We have two assumptions on it:
1. Player choose one enemy
2. Player roll opposed Intimidate test against target Cool.
3. If the Intimidate test was successful (Rolled below Intimidate skill) (Even if the opposed test was lost)
then the player can choose the number of targets to intimidate. (Strength Bonus + SL) (For example
Player made successful Intimidate test, has 3 SL. Enemy rolled 4 SL on the Cool test. Combined Player
has -1-SL, he lost opposed Intimidate test, but test was successful, So He adds SB to his -1SL and
chooses that many targets to Intimidate).
4. Chosen targets are intimidated without any tests.
OR
1. Player makes an Intimidate test
2. If the Intimidate test was successful, then the player may choose targets up to SB+SL to Intimidate.
3. Every chosen enemy makes Cool test against the player's Intimidate SL
Kind regards,
A1: The first one
Intimidation (RAI)
Q: How Intimidate should work (Andy Law contradicting uFAQ)?

A: A successful Test allows for a group to be Intimidated. Winning a Test will Intimidate an Individual. Those
Intimidated are subject to the rules listed after 'Each will react to Intimidate...'
@Zubus asks:
What is/was your original intent/design for how Intimidate works? especially in regards to 'secondary targets'? do
they get opposed rolls too? if so, what about Advantage if you only beat some of the targets?
Right. Deep breath. Here we go. I'm about to contradict the uFAQ. So, buckle up. The RAI (and, I argue, the
RAW, although the wording is a bit obscure, but not enough that I added it to the Errata) is…
Actually, let's get the rules themselves. WFRP4, p123, 'Intimidate':
The precise manner of initiating an Intimidate Test depends on context: while it is generally accompanied by an
overt threat, sometimes a subtle implication or even a look is enough. Intimidate is almost always Opposed by your
target’s Cool Skill; if successful, you can intimidate a number of targets equal to your Strength Bonus + SL. Each will
react to Intimidate based on their individual personalities and how successful you were in menacing them, but in all
cases, they will back down or move out of the way and will not speak out against you, or they will alternatively
accept combat is the only way forward, and prepare their weapons (for all few will do this happily).
So, let's break down what is supposed to happen. If you want to intimidate an individual or a group, you first
make an opposed Intimidate/Cool Test against your primary target. The primary target can be anyone. Big or
small. It will make no difference to the overall effect of your intimidation, but will make a difference to whether
you Intimidate your chosen target or not. As we shall see. The important point to note is this:
No matter if you Win the Test against the target or not, if you score a Success, you can also attempt to
Intimidate another SB+SL targets.
But, what does that mean? Rather than talk it out, let's put it into practice with an example. I will use Standard
SL here for the examples, as that's what most players use.
I am trying to intimidate some local bullies and their leader. I have Intimidate 55 and Strength Bonus 4. The
Head Bully has Cool 45. The other seven Bullies have Cool 35.
● Example 1: I win the Test, but roll a Fail.
I roll 59, scoring a Fail with -0 SL. The Head Bully rolls 63, scoring a Fail with -2 SL. So, as I have a
higher SL, I Win the Opposed Test, successfully intimidating the Head Bully, but because I scored a Fail
on the Test, not a Success, I do not intimidate any secondary targets. So, the Head Bully is subject to
Intimidate (the wording from 'Each will react to Intimidate...' onwards - meaning the Head Bully either
backs down/off or attacks), but the other Bullies are immune to it.
● Example 2: I lose the Test, but roll a Success.
I roll 41, scoring a Success with +1 SL. The Head Bully rolls 21, scoring a success with +2 SL. So, the
head Bully Wins the Opposed Test, and is immune to my Intimidate. However, as I scored a Success on
the Test, I can also Intimidate up to Strength Bonus + SL others, so that means up to 5 other bullies. I
now Oppose my +1 SL against 5 other bullies (you could roll these individually, or the GM may just
prefer to roll once for the lot as they all have the same Cool score). If the Bullies rolled say, 38, 48, 62,
45, 50 (the GM is a glutton for punishment and likes rolling lots of Tests), they would all lose the
Opposed Test against me, and be subject to Intimidation (time to back off, not speak out against me, or
attack!). So, the Head Bully and 2 Bullies are immune, the other five are subject to Intimidate.
In both examples, if an Intimidated target did attack me, then they would be subject to the full Intimidate in
Combat rules explained in WFRP4, p123, 'Intimidate', paragraph 2.
So, to sum. A successful Test allows for a group to be Intimidated. Winning a Test will Intimidate an
Individual. Those Intimidated are subject to the rules listed after 'Each will react to Intimidate...' Does
that clear it all up for you? As for Advantage? Well, that's just a bit of a mess. In short, it should be that only the
initial Test counts towards Advantage (so, the Opposed Test against the primary target). But, RAW, every
Test counts. Which is clearly crazy. So I don't suggest doing that. It's a known issue that I intended to clarify
with a rules update resolving multiple Tests from a single Action, as I mentioned in the Q&A before.
Language (Magick)
Q: I have been re-reading WFRP1 and noticed the abundance of Basic Careers outside the traditional
magical Careers that have access to Arcane Language - Magick. Scribes and Students have it for
example. I am now wondering, in WFRP4 how prevalent is the Skill Language (Magick) outside of the
arcane Careers?
A: It's not.
It's not. The nature of Arcane Language (Magick), and the lingua praestantia, changed significantly from
WFRP1 to WFRP4 (much as it did from Warhammer3 to Warhammer8). However, I wanted to ensure that the
WFRP1 version of the world was preserved to some degree so that players of WFRP1 were not in unfamiliar
territory. To guarantee this, Language (Magick) was not excepted from the Language (Any) slots, opening up
many Careers to potentially learn the skill if that suits your version of the Warhammer world, or it fits with the
character you are building. So, the option is fully retained in WFRP4, but it is not the focus as the setting had
moved on from where it was.
Lore
Lore (Apothecary) and Savant (Apothecary)
Q: Can we please get clarification re: Lore (Apothecary), which doesn't seem to exist, as well as Savant
(Apothecary) (which applies to a Lore that doesn't exist)?
A: Substitute for Lore (Medicine) or Lore (Herbs). There is a contradictory, though more recent, dev ruling which
implies characters should have Lore (Apothecary) but doesn't say which Skill this should replace. As such, the
first ruling seems to be more accurate.
Yeah, I think the easiest thing to do there, in both instances, is substitute for a more applicable Lore, like Lore
(Medicine) or Lore (Herbs) or something?
Q: Apothecary-General gets access to the Savant (Apothecary) talent but the Apothecary career doesn't get
access to Lore (Apothecary), so how do you handle that?
A: They should have access to that Lore.
Official information given by Tracey Bourke (C7) via email, 26.03.2021
Lore (Engineering) and Trade (Engineering)

Q: Since Trade (Engineering) specifically allows you to make lore checks with this skill alone, why
would you need Lore (Engineering)?
A: You may roll Trade (Engineering) with Intelligence to figure out general lore, but deeper aspects of lore are
reserved for Lore (Engineering).
Q: The Engineer career has Lore (Engineering) as one of its career skills, but page 131 says you can make
Trade Tests when you need to use Lore, so since Engineer also gets Trade (Engineering) (which can also be
used to make, repair, and invent things, unlike Lore (Engineering)), what's the point of Lore (Engineering)?
A: Trade and Lore have some overlap, but as a GM bear in mind that Trade is related to the practice of a
marketable skill, while Lore indicates a deeper knowledge of the subject matter, and judge which rolls to allow a
use of the Trade skill + lnt on, and reserve most deeper topics about a subject for the Lore skill. As an example,
if you are an Engineer, Trade (Engineer) Test plus lnt might be able to tell you that an acid dip method was used
to etch the runes on a particular blade, but that's it. A Lore (Engineer) Test could provide further information,
such as the regions where that type of dip is typically used, potential sources of the acid used, and so on. This
differentiation is important as otherwise, as you point out, there's less reason to improve both skills.
Official information given by Tracey Bourke (C7) via email, 16.12.2020
Lore (Medicine)
Q: What is Lore (Medicine) about?
A: Lore (Medicine) is specifically about drugs, curatives, tinctures, draughts, e.g., actual medicine.
Q: Both Apothecary and Physician get access to Lore (Medicine), but what exactly is it about? Is it about
medicines - cures, treatments, etc. - or is it about the profession of medicine, so you can use it to diagnose
diseases, know treatments, and know of medical professionals?
A: Lore (Medicine) is specifically about drugs, curatives, tinctures, draughts, e.g. actual medicine. The
profession of 'medicine' and diagnosing diseases, treatrnents and so forth, generally falls under Heal, though
there are tirnes when you could certainly make a Lore (Medicine) roll to know the various medicines that would
treat the superficial symptoms someone was showing (which may or rnay not help). The actual production of
medicine in the Ernpire (and many other places) falls under Trade (Apothecary). There are many Physicians
who know what to prescribe - but have little idea of how to properly make it (they have access to Heal and Lore
(Medicine), but not Trade (Apothecary).There are a lot powerful Physician Guilds in the Empire … and a lot of
bitter Apothecaries.
Official information given by C7 via email, 21.12.2020
Research
See also the Research Endeavour.
Sleight of Hand
Q: How I should test Pick Pocketing?
A: You test Sleight of Hand (WFRP4 p. 130)
@bluetardis asks:
What are your thoughts on dealing with Pick Pocketing. I was using Sleight of Hand as the Test.
Yup, that’s correct. WFRP4, p130, ‘Sleight of Hand’ makes it clear with its opening sentence:
Let’s you pick pockets…
The paragraph then explains some mechanics for doing this.

Talents
Alley Cat
Q: Why Alley Cat is so different from Rover and Tunnel Rat?
A: It was rewriten, in original Andy Law’s rules was similar to them
@Jaalib (he/him) asks:

Is there any particular reason why Alley Cat is so different from Rover and Tunnel Rat?
It was rewritten. The original wording of the Alley Cat Talent was lifted directly from WFRP [Andy Edition] (my
update to WFRP2, for those that don't follow the #wfrp-q-and-a) and pasted into the first treatment of WFRP4's
version of the Talents.
WFRPAE, 'Chapter 5: Talents', 'Alley Cat' (and be aware it references different Skills as this is for a different
game):
You are home on the shadowy backstreets of the Old World. When using Concealment or Silent Move in an urban
environment, bystanders do not get passive Awareness tests to detect you, only active Perception tests.
Arcane Lore
Q: The chart under the Arcane Lore talent establishes the cost of learning spells based on the number
of spells currently known. But Elves can take the talent multiple times — so does the chart refer to
spells known under the specific Arcane Lore, or all spells known across all Arcane Lores?
A: Each time you take the talent, it is, in effect, a different Talent, and thus only refers to itself — i.e., spells
under that specific Arcane Lore.
Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree on that, it's crystal clear, I know other parts of the book are not - believe me
I know - but this one is. It specifies the cost for Spells of that Lore.
Attractive
Q: Do you get the bonus SL from the 'Tests' entry of the Attractive talent (and similar talents) if you
choose to replace your SL with the result of the units die?
A: Yes.
You gain the bonus +SL on all successful Tests, including that one. The reason its separated is because there
was once a spell that inhibited any Talent's ability to add bonus +SL. But it was dropped.
Berserk Charge
Q: As written, Berserk Charge gives bonus SLs to 'Tests: Melee on a Round when you Charge'. That
seems to include Melee Tests to defend yourself that occur later in a Round, as long as you have
already charged. Is it intended to only apply to 'Melee on a Turn when you Charge'?
A: It's only on your Turn, not the whole Round.
BadJuJu#0604 Yeah, that's rubbish. It's also an unexpected error, as it's not in my original files, but is in the
pdfs. How odd. Regardless, you're interpretation is spot on, it should be Turn, not Round.
Combat Master
Combat Master and Outnumbering (RAW)
Q: If you take Combat Master 3, do you count as 4 people when outnumbered? So if 2 people gang up
on you, you outnumber them 2 to 1? In other words, if you are fighting someone 1v1 Combat Master
gives you no benefits? But if his friend Engages you as well, suddenly you count as outnumbering
them?
A: Yes. You count as four people for Outnumbering.
@Andy Law#7502 Q: Combat Master. Does it wording means the next? that if you take it 3 times and you fight
with 2 opponents. will you count as overnuber you opponents 2 to 1?
Ramman#4042
@Ramman#4042 - Three times? So, you count as 4 fighters for the purpose of out-numbering, when out-
numbered? So, yes, 2-1 against 2 opponents. As I recall.
Andy Law#7502
Will you have +20 against 2 opponents in this case?

Ramman#4042
@Ramman#4042 - Yes. And your opponents will lose 1 Advantage per turn, as I recall, for being out-
numbered.
Combat Master and Outnumbering (RAI)

Q: Does this mean that you are manoeuvring your opponents to your advantage somehow?
A: Yes, but only because that's how the RAW turned out. The original intent was for Combat Master to prevent
you being Outnumbered only (i.e., it wasn't supposed to help you single-handedly Outnumber others).
Could you explain the conceptual reasoning for the better combat ability with this talent, in particular the ability to
outnumber multiple opponents only applying when you yourself are outnumbered?
I could, yes, but it would be unsatisfying and perhaps dishonest, as the RAW does not match the original intent
for the Talent, which was to counter-act being out-numbered only. So, as you move on to ask:
Is it because the person with the talent is considered to be manoeuvring the multiple opponents some how to
his/her tactical advantage?
That certainly one way to justify it, and it's an argument I've made before when discussing the rule in the past.
However, to be clear, that isn't because it's what I originally wanted the rule to be. Outwitting one to
hinder/block the other for example? Indeed. This is a great way to justify it. But, as I say, that was not my
original intent, so it's not the reason I had when I was originally writing and balancing the Talent, as mentioned
above.
Concoct and Trade (Apothecary)

Q: Concoct seems like it should concern Trade (Apothecary) as it’s about making potions, not knowing
things?
A: It does concern Trade (Apothecary).
Cool. Seems legit.
Deadeye Shot
Q: If I have Deadeye Shot as a talent, and I roll a Critical Hit (via rolling doubles on a successful attack,
for example), can I pick the hit location of the Crit, or do I have to ignore the Talent and roll crit location
as normal?
A: As it stands, technically, RAW only allows the Hit Location to be chosen if it is determined by reversing the
percentile roll. As this is not how Hit Locations for Criticals are determined, it does not apply to Criticals.
Sure. For Deadeye Shot? I assume it's the reversal thing applying to Criticals? If so, it's a known issue and one
I had marked to be addressed. The Talent is written with an older version of the Critical Rules in mind (the Hit
Location rules and Criticals were, in general, a bit of a mess when I took over; for reasons). As it stands,
technically (as I recall), RAW only allows the Hit Location to be chosen if it is determined by reversing the
percentile roll. As this is not how Hit Locations for Criticals are determined, it does not apply to Criticals. This is
clearly a nonsense in terms of the intention (just read the description), but it is what the rules state. Deadeye
Shot should apply, and I would have changed the rules to make that clear, but that did not happen. So, if you're
a slave to the actual RAW until it's updated by C7, Deadeye Shot does not apply to Criticals. But that's not what
happens in my games. Even the ones where I've heavily modded the rules.
Dealmaker
Q: Does Astounding Success on a Haggle Test stack with Dealmaker Talent?
A: Yes, it does.
@joesmoke asks:
Does an Astounding Success on a Haggle Test stack with the Dealmaker Talent for a possible 30% price shift, or does
it cap at 20%?
So, let's check the rules for each part. First, Haggle.
Haggle is used routinely by consumers and vendors alike, typically with Opposed Tests. Haggling is expected and
most prices are marked up slightly to account for this. Winning a Haggle Test reduces the price by 10% (or possibly
up to 20% with an Astounding Success (6+) or with the Dealmaker Talent).
This seems clear. 20% discounts can be scored with an Astounding Success or the Dealmaker Talent. No
stacking is mentioned. So, does that mean the Dealmaker Talent doesn't stack with Haggle results?
Let's check the Dealmaker Talent and see.
When using the Haggle skill, you reduce or increase the price of the products by an extra 10%.
Well, that's categorical. The Talent simply modifies the price by 10%, so it does stack. Sure, in most cases with
skilled dealers, this 10% modification would be counteracted by the opposing Haggler also having the
Dealmaker Talent, but that's not the question here.
Does an Astounding Success on a Haggle Test stack with the Dealmaker Talent for a possible 30% price shift?
Yes, it does.
Dirty Fighting
Q: If using Test Line benefits still counts as cheating?
A: Yes, any usage of Talent
@joesmoke asks:
Can you settle this one for me; if I utilise the Test Line benefits of the Dirty Fighter Talent, am I subject to the 'You
will be seen as cheating' note?
Yes, this one is easy. The very rule you reference contains the answer. WFRP4, p136, 'Dirty Fighting':
Note: using this Talent will be seen as cheating in any formal bout.
So, using the Talent to gain bonus SL is, indeed, using the Talent, which means you are thus cheating, and are
using whatever dirty tricks you can to gain that bonus, disregarding what some fighters may regard to be proper
fighting etiquette.
Q: If I have knuckles, Strike Mighty Blow, and Dirty Fighting, I would get the +2 damage from the two
talents, AND +1 SL on Melee (Brawl) tests if I succeed?
A: In your example, you would deal your level of Strike Mighty Blow in extra damage with melee weapons (+1),
plus you may CHOOSE to deal your level of Dirty Fighting in extra damage with any successful Melee
(Brawling) hit (so potentially +1 if you succeed on the Test), plus the 'Tests' line of Dirty Fighting gives you +1SL
per level of Dirty Fighting on successful Melee (Brawling) Tests (so, +1SL if you succeed on the Test). So it’s +1
damage no matter what, and potentially up to +3 if the Test was successful (and you don’t mind being seen as a
dirty fighter!).
Very close but not quite. You cause +1 Damage, and on a successful Hit can optionally cause another +1
Damage. Further, on a Successful Test, you gain +1 SL.
Damage. Further, on a Successful Test, you gain +1 SL.
Doomed
Q: What was the thinking behind Doomed and Long Term Ambitions granting XP to next characters?
A: That was a starting point to GM Chapter that has never came into official rules. Andy Law recommend
ensuring that Doomed Talent does something if it takes Talent slot.
@joesmoke asks:
I'm curious what the thinking was behind Doomed and Long Term Ambitions granting xp to replacement
characters? The idea that new characters would start at 0 xp seems like rather more punitive, old school game
design than I would have expected.
Great question. Thanks for asking.

First, you are absolutely correct, it is punitive, but still more than has been offered in previous editions (officially,
at least). However, the RAW is not what I wanted as the last word on the subject. The Doomed and Long Term
Ambitions bonus XP options were supposed to be the starting point. The GM Chapter was then expected to
pick this up and run with it with tips for how to handle PC death, and different ways to resolve it, both using the
existing rules you highlighted or building upon them. However, in the end, I didn't write the GM chapter
(although I did insert some stuff later), so everything I planned for it didn't come to pass. Frustrating, but not the
end of the world, as Doomed and the Long Term Ambitions were still there, so I could still discuss them in a
later supplement, and that's what I planned next. That discussion was slated to go into the GM Screen, but I
resigned before I did my development pass of rewrites and additions for that, so it didn't happen there, either.
So... well... we have what we have. Not what I wanted as the last published word on the subject, but little I can
do about that now beyond loosely suggest you see those rules as a starting point for your own house rules for
player death. But, whatever you decide, I recommend you ensure that Doomed Talent does something in your
game. It does take a Talent slot.
Q: What did Andy Law has in mind for the GM section he mentioned?
A: Tips duscussing different ways of handling PC death, and how the Doomed Talent could be used to
foreshadow it, different ways of adding characters, etc.
@Zisse asks:
Following up on Q99 concerning the Doomed Talent. While I personally like the idea of having completely
unbalanced groups from 0XP to x thousand in one group, I understand not everyone likes that. Even having half the
XP may not be to every player's liking. Now my question: what did you have in mind for the GM section you
mentioned?
My thoughts:
● make the XP gap between dead and new character smaller, even smaller when the dooming was fulfilled,
e.g. 70% and 90%.
● reduce the gap, if the PC still had fate left, maybe to the point of having more XP than the dead character.
That might make the whole thing real fun.
● when the dooming was fulfilled, provide more room to select careers for the new one.
What did I have in mind?
Well, everything you suggest and maybe more?
I never wrote the section, I just had it planned as an outline, so I can't really talk to specifics, just to generalities.
Loosely, I was going to discuss different ways of handling PC death, and how the Doomed Talent could be used
to foreshadow it, could help mitigate the sting of PC death, and could also be changed to provide different
bonuses on death. I was also going to discuss XP in general, and different ways new characters could be
added to an ongoing game, including moving Henchmen (WFRP4, p309) from NPC to PC status, and also
including combining Doomed and Long-term Ambitions for a 100% gain of XP or a similar alternative (you have
to be careful about min-maxed PC building over organic PC development through play). Retiring PCs was also
to be covered there, and that's where I intended to discuss Long-Term Ambitions in more depth. But, inevitably,
if I had written it, much more would have bubbled to the surface through the process of the writing.
Dual Wielder
Declaring Dual Wielder
Q: Do you have to declare you are using Dual Wielder before making your first attack?
A: No, but you need to declare you are using it before you calculate the SLs on your first attack, as you can
only add bonus SLs from the Tests line if you attack with both weapons. This means you're not forced to use
DW if your first roll will be reversed to give a really bad result.
That leaves us with this process (stripping out any irrelevancies)
- Declare you are using the Talent for your Action.
- You may attack with both weapons.
- Roll to Hit with the first weapon.
- Decide if you are taking the bonus SL from the Dual Wielder Talent if the roll is a success.
- If you take that bonus SL, you must resolve the second attack.
- If you do not take that bonus SL, you can choose to resolve the second attack or not after the first attack is
resolved.
So, how's that?
Q: How does the Dual Wielder Talent test bonus apply to the first strike?
"Melee or Ranged when attacking with two weapons"
1) Do you have to wait and see if you're going to attack with the offhand to then retrospectively add the
+1SL to the first roll?
2) Does it just never apply to the primary hand because you're not attacking with two weapons yet?
3) Does it apply to both hits all the time because you've declared a dual wield action, even if you don't
follow up with the offhand?
A: No on all counts.
I've discussed the rules concerning this question in detail in Q49. So, let me link to that (read both parts of the
answer there), then answer the questions.
1) No. To gain the bonus you must declare you are using the Talent first and must also attack with the second
weapon.
2) Again, no. You gain access to the bonus when you declare you are using the Talent, which gives you the
option to attack with both weapons. If you use the bonus, you must attack with both weapons.
3) Again, no. You must follow up with the second attack to gain the bonus, which is predicated on 'attacking
with both weapons'.
I hope that clears it all up.
Dual Wielder and Advantage

Q: Dual Wielder specifies that you only gain advantage if both attacks hit, but it doesn't say it modifies
how much advantage you gain, so do you still gain 2 advantage for winning 2 opposed tests?
A: No, you gain 1 Advantage total if both attacks hit.
Just 1.
Dual Wielder and reversing the dice

Q: Why does Dual Wielder reverse the dice, rather than simply calling for a second d100 roll?
A: The version in the core rulebook was an earlier draft. It should have been more like Furious Assault in the
end. But as the existing version still works, it was left as is.
LongShadow#4934 asks:
What was the design choice behind reversing the attack roll in Dual Wielder, rather than simply rolling d100 again?
Other Talents that give extra attacks don't do this and also do not require any special rules to account for critical
hits.
It's an early draft of the Talent. The second draft, written just after criticals were changed, was far closer to
Furious Assault, but it never hit the printed rules. Because the rule worked, it was left to stand as is.
Using Dual Wielder with Knuckledusters

Q: Can you use Dual Wielder when using Knuckledusters, Unarmed and other Brawling Weapons?
A: Yes, to all Brawling Weapons except Unarmed. The Skaven Eshin may have Talents that cover Unarmed
attacks (Art of Silent Death, Vicious Fist, etc).
You can certainly use the Dual Wielder Talent with Knuckledusters and other Brawling Weapons. While you
could decide to use it with 'Unarmed' that is not the intention of that Talent. Fighting efficiently 'unarmed' seems
to beg it's own Talents. (The Skaven Esh in used to have a couple of Talents back in the day to represent their
'Cathayan' training. Art of Silent Death, Vicious Fist, etc.)
Official information given by TS Luikart (C7) via email, 20.02.2021
Dual Wielder RAI?

@LongShadow asks:
You have mentioned a few times that it was planned that Dual Wielder would be more like Furious Assault. What
would that rewrite look like and what would make it different from Furious Assault?
So... well... it's like this... I wrote that rule about three years ago, and as mentioned in Q139, I no longer have
the 'Fix It In Post' file on my PC, so I have no copy of the rule. The reason I've been vague with my answers
concerning this is because, well... I don't remember the rule I wrote, but do remember it was like the Furious
Assault Talent. In some way. Kinda. So, any answer I gave here would be just made up off the cuff.
Sorry that's not more useful.
Stacking Dual Wielder, Frenzy and Furious Assault

Q: If you have Dual Wielder, Frenzy and Furious Assault, how many attacks do you get in total?
A: Andy Law says four (Dual Wielder triggers off your Action only, not Free Actions such as free attacks; see
also the answer below this one). TS Luikart says six (because Dual Wielder applies to your basic attack and
your Free Action attack from Frenzy).
Sure, easy to answer as I'm passing. Both these are pretty explicit in the RAW. RAW, Dual Wielding costs your
Action. Frenzy is an additional attack that costs a Free Action. So, no they cannot combine. Obviously, you can
House Rule to taste.
Yes, in theory you could manage 6 attacks. Do consider the following though: You are, presumably, frenzied to
start. When you make your first attack, as you Dual Wield if you fail to strike successfully with both attacks, you
do not gain Advantage - if you miss with either attack (e.g., fail the opposed roll) you lose all your Advantage.
You could then take your 'free shot' from Frenzy - once again Dual Wielding, under the same conditions. No
Advantage, no Furious Assault. So 6 is the theoretical upward limit. Note that Furious Assault is a Talent you
generally need to be a 4th Career character to take (the Slayer & the Flagellant can get it at 3). Personally, I
would keep a very close eye on a PC trying to put the above combination together. If they abused it too often, I
would definitely make them pay for it. Probably with a bunch of folks that spew plague infested blood about if
they get hacked to pieces.
Official information given by TS Luikart (C7)
Q: The Frenzy Talent gives you an extra attack. May I use this attack with the Dual Wielder Talent? For
example: As my first Action, I declare an attack with two weapons, then when I use my bonus attack
from Frenzy, can I attack with two weapons again?
A; No. Frenzy creates one Free Action but Dual Wielder requires your core Action, not a Free Action.
I was certain I'd answered this one here already, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so let's do so nice and
clearly so that there is no doubt here. First, Frenzy, let's take a look at the important part of that rule:
WFRP4, p190, 'Frenzy':

Further, you may take a Free Action Melee Test each Round as you are throwing everything you have into your
attacks.
So, Frenzy activates as a Free Action. Now let's check the important part of Dual Wielder:
WFRP4, p136, 'Dual Wielder':

When armed with two weapons, you may attack with both for your Action.
So, Dual Wielder activates from your Action, not a Free Action, so does not stack with Frenzy. The RAW is
clear. If you have both Talents, you have a potential of 3 strikes in one Round, not 4. Of course, if you wish to
house-rule that, or change the rules, that's up to you.
Etiquette
Q: Does Etiquette (Cultists) apply to any and all dedicated followers/clergy of the main religions, like
Vereneans, Sigmarites, etc?
A: Yes
BadJuJu#0604 Yup
Q: Does Etiquette (Guilder) also apply to all Guilds, or do you need to take a specialisation (e.g.,
Etiquette (Rat Catchers)?
A: It applies equally to all Guilds. You don't need to select a specialisation.
Q: Is Etiquette (Guilder) its own specialisation or is it something you fill in such as with Lore (Local)? Boatmen
and Lawyers both get Etiquette (Guilder) and I'm unsure if that helps them communicate with one another or if
Etiquette (Guilder) only helps with those of their own guild.
A: While all Guilds have their own concerns, Etiquette (Guilder) means that you generally know how to 'speak
the language'. You understand Guild etiquette, have respect for their craft / services, the slightest (veiled)
contempt for nobles, etc. Correspondingly, there is only a single Etiquette (Guilder) - which applies to all guilds
in the Empire.
Official information given by TS Luikart (C7) via email, 30.03.2021
Fast Hands
Q: Could you clarify whether the Fast Hands Talent gives a bonus to regular Melee (Brawling) Tests, or
only those Tests where you seek to touch, but not harm? For instance, a tap on the shoulder vs giving
someone a dead arm.
A: The bonus only applies to taps and touches, not to hits that may cause Damage.
Let's grab the relevant part of the Talent so we know what we're talking about:
WFRP4, p137, 'Fast Hands'

Further, attempts to use Melee (Brawling) to simply touch an opponent gain a bonus of +10 × your level in Fast
Hands.
So, the words 'simply touch' make the intention clear. The bonus only applies to taps and touches, not to hits
that may cause Damage. In practice, this means a successful Test will result in an opponent being touched, and
that's it. Beyond potentially being just creepy, if you then have a spell or another effect that requires an
opponent be touched, you're good to go.
Fast Shot
Q: Can Fast Shot use your next Action even if you've already acted this Turn?
A: Yes. If you have high Initiative, it effectively means you can act twice in a Round by forsaking your Action
and Move on the next Round. If you keep using Fast Shot on subsequent Rounds, you can keep bringing
forward your Action and Move from the next Round.
He can do exactly what he wants to do here. Say the tum order goes:
Han Solo, Evil Wizard, Thug
Round 1
● Han Solo > Shoots first, hitting the Wizard, using his action from round 1
● Evil Wizard > Channels Magic
● Han Solo> Uses Fast Shot to shoot the Wizard again, consuming round 2 action
● Thug> Attacks Han
Round 2
● Han solo > Has no Move or Action, as he used them earlier
● Optional - At this point, if he has another loaded weapon ready to use, Han could again use fast shot,
consuming his round 3 action
● Evil Wizard > Bleeds to death from being shot twice
● Thug> Attacks Han again
And so on...
It's a little bit to keep track of, but essentially Han;s player just needs to know whether or not he has used Fast
Shot before his next action. This interpretation means that fast shot is always useful, even to Characters with a
very high initiative (if you are already going first in combat — say you have a high I and the GM is using static
initiative — Fast Shot would be useless if it didn't let you jump the queue in some other way.)
Best put this in an Errata somewhere if it's causing this much confusion.
Official information given by Kieran Murphy (C7) via email
Q: How exactly does Fast Shot interact with the normal Initiative Order?
A: You can act whenever you like to make your shot, including interrupting others. In this case, ‘before anyone
else reacts’ means no one can stop you interrupting them.
On Fast Shot, if it says before anyone else reacts, not acts, that simply means no-one can stop you interrupting
them, not that you have to go first.
Feint
Feint Criticals
Q: When using Feint, if you score a Critical on the first roll, does it still apply (as you aren't causing
Damage)?
A: Yes, it applies as usual.
You don't lose your ability to cause a Critical hit when you Feint as you are still performing a Melee Test. So, if
you pass the Melee (Fencing) Test with a double, you score a Critical no matter how well the Feint attempt fairs,
no matter if it's an attempt to score Damage or not. Nevertheless, is the bonus SL the Talent then offers worth
it? Very rarely. The only time the rule works relatively well as written is when facing an opponent with a very
high Toughness Bonus and Armour. In that instance, you can likely score more Wounds if you win both Tests
(and you are likely to win the second test as you have a bonus to the Test's SL). But, beyond that, it's an edge-
case Talent that desperately needs to be readdressed.
Feint Errata
Q: Why is Feint restricted to Melee (Fencing)?
A: It shouldn't be. Later supplements were to add additional Feint types for other schools of fighting. As a quick
fix, let players buy Feint as a new Talent for each Melee Skill specialisation (e.g., Feint (Brawling), Feint (Parry),
etc). Or use the fixed version below.
An additional Feint question for you. Why is it restricted to Melee (Fencing) when it's associated with other forms of
combat in real life (boxing springs to mind).
Really, it shouldn't be. In terms of its history, the Talent was originally written with the Diestro school in mind
(which became the Duellist Career), hence the limitation. The Talent was intended to be opened up to other
schools of fighting as those schools were covered in later supplements. Pugilism, for example, taught by the
Circle of Unmarred Flesh or similar. Or fighting with Zweihanders like the Carroburg Greatswords. That kinda
thing.
Q: How would you fix Feint?

A: New Talent below:
FEINT (Specialisation)
Max: WSB
Tests: Melee (Specialisation) to Feint
You can make a Feint for your Action. This is resolved with an Opposed Melee (Specialisation)/Intuition Test against
one of your opponents. If you win, your opponent gains a Surprised Condition that is not removed at the end of this
Round. You may not attempt more than one Feint per opponent per encounter. Each Melee Specialisation taken
with Feint (Specialisation), counts as a separate Talent — for example: Feint (Basic), Feint (Fencing), and so on.
Field Dressing
Q: Does this Talent only apply to staunching bleeding, or can you also reverse your dice on a Heal Test
provided you used bandages?
A: The latter.
Q3: Can I use bandages for Heal Test to heal wounds and reverse Heal Test results with Field Dressing talent?
Or this talent was conceived only to Staunch a Bleeding Condition with bandages and I can reverse the result
only while frying to stop blood?
A3: RAW you certainly can, and I think it's quite a reasonable use of the Talent in any case.
Frenzy
See Ulric's Fury (Frenzy does require a Willpower Test to activate).
Furious Assault
Q: Can more than one Advantage be scored when attacking in a Round when Furious Assault is used?
A: Yes, but it can also cost you an Advantage to activate.
Clarification: Furious Assault can still only be used once per Round. This answer relates to using multiple
attacks from various sources, one of which is Furious Assault.
AoE spells don't cause multiple Advantage. Furious Assault can, though. But it can often cost one, too.
So, that Talent is 100% clear here: 'Once per Round'. Furious Assault may not be used more than once in
each Round. So, what the hell is the Q&A talking about? Let's look at that question:
Can multiple Advantage be gained when using Furious Assault to make extra attacks?
So, the original question I answered wasn't asking if multiple attacks can be made in a single round with
Furious Assault, it was asking if more than one Advantage can be scored when attacking in a Round when
Furious Assault is used. And the answer is yes. More than 1 Advantage can be claimed for attacks when using
Furious Assault. Because each attack is handled individually and each accrues Advantage separately.
However, it's also worth pointing out that activating Furious Assault may cost you 1 point of Advantage, too,
which was also mentioned in the answer.
Is that clearer?
Gunner
Q: Is the Gunner Talent intended to work with Engineering weapons as well as Blackpowder weapons?
A: It works with all handheld weapons using blackpower, which includes some (or even most) of those in the
Engineering and all those in the Blackpowder groups. The description should have referred to 'blackpowder'
weapons with lowercase.
joesmoke#0464 asks:
Is the Gunner talent intended to work with Engineering weapons as well as Blackpowder?
Kinda. It is supposed to work with all hand-held ranged weapons that use blackpowder. So, that includes all
Blackpowder weapons and some (perhaps most) Engineering weapons. For the Talent to work as intended,
replace 'Blackpowder' in the second sentence with 'blackpowder'.
Implacable
Q: With the Implacable Talent, does the first level ignore two wounds from Bleeding? The last sentence
of the Talent seems like it should be 'each additional level in this Talent…'?
A: Yes
<sigh> Certainly bloody should. And it is in the original document. Also: <sigh>
But, onwards and upwards, eh? Clarity, here, is pretty easy to determine from the words there. Each level of the
Talent ignores Wound loss from 1 Bleeding Condition. Sorted.
In-fighter
Q: If +1 SL and +10 to hit both apply when in-fighting?
A: Yes
Robak#1097 asks:
I have a quick question about In-fighter Talent. WFRP4 says you gain a bonus of +1 SL on successful tests of ‘Melee
when In-fighting, or to enter In-fighting" and +10 when hitting opponent if using the optional In-fighting rules. Do
both of this modifiers apply, or +10 = +1 SL in this case?
Both of the modifiers apply and are discrete from each other; i.e. the +1 SL on a Successful Test is not the
same as a +10 bonus to the Test.
Iron Jaw
Q: Does Iron Jaw gives another chance to avoid Stunned and if character ignores Fatigue from
removing Stunned
A: Yes and yes
@Martin asks:
The Iron Jaw Talent gives +1SL per rank to successful Endurance tests when resisting Stunned, all good so far. In the
text description, it also allows an immediate Challenging (+0) Endurance Test, successes result in not taking the
Stunned Condition.
1. Does this stack (in effect giving a second and easier chance to avoid being Stunned) on top of the initial
Opposed Strength/Endurance Test?
2. Does the wording of 'not take' mean the character ignores the usual Fatigue Condition resulting from
removing Stunned?
Great question, and easy to answer for the RAW:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
And RAI?
1. Kinda. I wanted to remove/reword all potential Talent double-ups as they were confusing. But that
wasn't done. So, this was marked to be clarified later.
2. Yes.
Linguistics
Q: Does the Tests line of the Linguistics Talent apply to Language (Magick), or does it, like the rest of
the Talent, exclude magic?
A: No. It does not work with Language (Magick) in any way.
Q: Will talent “Linguistics” (p 140) give +1 SL on a successful use of Language (Magick) (p132)? Talent has a
note in it that it won't work with Language (Magick), but, at the same time Talent's “Test” is tied to all languages.
Does “note” only refer to the description of the talent itself and after month's i can't use Language (Magick) as a
Basic skill, but still can add +SL on a successful Language (Magick) test (If i spend xp and have advances in
skill Language(Magick)? Or Language (Magick) doesn't work with this talent at all? We don't know how to
interpret this.
A: The Linguistics Talent has no interaction with Language (Magick) at all, I'm afraid. You will not gain a +1 SL
Bonus or be able to count the language as a Basic skill. The Talent only works with languages that are
commonly used to communicate.
Magic Resistance
Magic Resistance and Overcasting
Q: If I have +8SLs on Bolt (CN 4), I can pick two extra targets as my Overcasts. But what would happen
if one of those extra targets had Magic Resistance?
A: On attempting to target the character with Magic Resistance, you would immediately lose 2 SLs from your
total, thereby also losing one of your Overcasts and reducing any Damage inflicted (as well as other effects that
depend on SLs). In other words: don't select Dwarfs as secondary targets!
Q: #1 EXAMPLE
1. I cast Bolt spell (CN 4). Primary target didn't have Magic resistance talent and I got a total of 8 SL I
overcasted a spell and now may choose 2 additional targets.
2. I have chosen 2 additional targets and one of them has Magic resistance (-2SL lo a casting lest SL).
3. At this point I have 8-2=6SL and what happens with my additional targets from overcast?
a. Damage is reduced to all targets, because I have less SL?

b. Right now I have less SL, so I have less overcasts? Do I need to re-choose additional targets (If i have less
overcasts then i have less additional targets, so i need to choose which targets I keep)? And what happens if I
re-choose the target and don't choose the target with MR?
#2 EXAMPLE
1. I cast Bolt spell (CN 4). Primary target didn't have Magic resistance talent and I got a total of 8 SL I
overcasted a spell and now may choose 2 additional targets.
2. I have chosen 2 additional targets and one of them has Magic resistance 3 (-6SL to a casting lest SL).
3. Al this point I have 8-6=2SL?
c. Can Magic Resistance from secondary targets totally cancel my spell (Because i don't have enough SL)?
A: The additional targets (indeed, the additional SL) are lost! In attempting to spread the spell's effect to
additional targets, your Character will feel their control of the winds of magic diminshed by the effects of their
new targets Magic Resistance. Damage is reduced to all remaining targets, and you now have less SL for
reasons of Damage calculations, etc.
Official information given by Cian Whelan (C7) via email
Magic Resistance and Religion

Q: Does the Magic Resistance talent affect Blessings & Miracles?
A: No, except that taking Magic Resistance means you can never take Blessings or Miracles. Despite what
some Elven Wizards might claim, prayers are the direct manifestations of a God’s power through their servant.
Magic Resistance does not affect Blessings and Miracles, only spells. Blessings and Miracles are not magic,
despite what some supposedly educated Elven Wizards might claim, but direct manifestations of a God's
power. Magic resistance does restrict taking these talents as the Gods do have a relationship with the Aether,
and cannot easily manifest their will through individuals without a reasonably strong connection to it. Blessings
and miracles are not otherwise affected by the Magic Resistance talent, nor can they be counterspelled. They
are a thing apart from spells of any sort.
Official information given by Pádraig Murphy (C7) via email
Q: How does Magic Resistance work if the character with this Talent is not the primary target (e.g., if
they are targeted by an Overcast or an Area of Effect spell)? Are the total SLs rolled reduced versus all
targets in such an instance, or only the SLs versus the target with Magic Resistance?
A: If any target has Magic Resistance, the caster's SLs are reduced versus all targets, because Magic
Resistance affects the initial Language (Magick) Test.
Q3: How does Magic resistance work (p. 140) when a target with magic resistance isn't the primary target of a
spell? We have that question, because this moment isn't clear for us, For example:
We have a Wizard and 3 enemies, human, human and dwarf with “Magic resistance” talent. (-2 SL on any spell
affecting him). The Wizard casts a Dart spell and the primary target is human. Making Language (Magick) test
and roll +4SL Spell should make 4 (SL) +Willpower bonus damage and he overcasted a spell (p. 238) and may
choose 2 additional targets. As an additional target he chooses one more human and Dwarf. But Dwarf has
Magic Resistance and the spell should take -2SL How will it work? Reduced SL means reduced damage. WII
all enemies now take less damage? (4 (SL) + Willpower bonus -2 (Magic resistance). Also reduced SL means
reduced overcast. Should Wizard now choose less targets for overcast? And what happens if he doesn1
choose a dwarf now?
A3: The penalty generated by the talent applies to the spellcasting roll, so if the spell got off it would affect
everyone, but the talent would make it harder to get off in the first place.
Q3: Can you make clarification about this “if the spell got off it would affect everyone”? So if my secondary
target from overcast has Magic resistance talent, then i just ignore it? Because I already made a roll on the
primary target and now just choose secondary targets from overcast? Is it possible that I may have Pigeons in a
box? And choose them as a primary target and then choose as secondary target GODS and just ignore their
“Resist Magic 10” talent?
A3: Apologies Boris, let me explain. If a Dwarf (for example, or anyone else with magic resistance) was
included in the target area or list of targets due to an overcast, their magic resistance would affect the spell,
reducing the SL on the Casting Test. So in your pigeons in the box example, if you are casting it on the pigeons
but include a God as your secondary target, the God's magic resistance talent applies to the Test to cast the
spell.
Noble Blood
Noble Blood and interacting with other people
Q: If you have the Noble Blood Talent and are interacting with someone without the Talent, what Status
Tier should you have?
A: The Status Tier granted by your current Career.
Q: What Status Tier are you considered of when you have Noble Blood and you're interacting with someone
without the talent?
A: Whatever you get from your career.
Official information given by Cian Whelan (C7) via email
Q: Does Noble Blood only affect Tests that have a non-zero modifier attached (like a +10 or -10), or to
any Test that COULD be be subject to a modifier by Status (all Leadership tests for example, unless the
target's indifferent to Status)?
Let's take a look at the wording WFRP4, p141, 'Noble Blood'

Tests: Any Test influenced by your Status.
So, to take effect, any associated Test needs to be influenced, not just potentially influenced. In practice, that
means the test needs to actually be modified, not just potentially be modified.
Noble Blood and “being true noble”

Q: How to conceive the Noble Blood talent?
A: The point is that Noble Blood means that you are simply noble, either by blood or actions.
@Mrak asks:
How did you conceive the Noble Blood talent?
The rules are as clear as they need be on this. So, I'll quote them. P141:
You are either born into nobility, or otherwise elevated to it by in-game events.
It's that and nothing more. You are a noble, either by blood or by action. That brings social advantages as explained by
the rules: Assuming you are dressed appropriately, you are always considered to be of higher Status than others unless
they also have the Noble Blood Talent, where Status is is compared as normal.
Is that enough to explain it?
I perceived him as "noble blood flows in your veins", in Russian it is called "thoroughbred appearance".
If you wish. It could mean that. But that's not what the rules say.
That is, he is not necessarily a direct nobleman who grew up in a noble family, but, if necessary, he will evoke a feeling if he
should be properly presented to people.
Again, that's not what the rules suggest. You seem to be describing a Talent closer to, say, Commanding Presence,
p135.
But my friends pointed out to me what I missed while translating - this means that you grew up in a noble family, among the
nobles.
Not necessarily. You could have noble blood, but been raised by peasants. Perhaps you are a bastard? Or were stolen
as a child? What's important is that if you have the Talent, you know your pedigree, and it can be enforced. Another
alternative is that you may have been raised to the nobility by your deeds. Perhaps you saved an Elector Count's life
and he ennobled you? In that case, you would be a noble, and likely can access a Career with the Noble Talent, but
you would not have been raised by nobles, or even understand them, per se. That requires, as a start, Etiquette
(Nobles).
And so it caused some controversy. How we feel about this. And then a noble-rat-catcher or a noble-peasant is rather
strange. But literally, it turns out that way.
Yes, it can turn out that way. And there are many possibilities for why that could be the case. Should it occur, it's for
you, your GM, and maybe your group to come up with the story that explains it in your unique circumstance.
Q: If you have the Noble Blood Talent and gain Gold Status without ever taking the Noble Career, would
you be considered a true Noble?
A: Yes. The Noble Blood Talent is all you need to be a noble.
Jay Dako#7395 asks:

If someone has the Noble Blood Talent and becomes Gold status without actually ever taking the Noble Career,
would they be considered a true noble?
RAW, the Noble Blood Talent means you are a noble, either recently elevated or from an existing noble
bloodline. It's as simple as that. There is no 'true noble' or not that relies on your Career, social standing, or
anything else, beyond how you express the concept of nobility in your games. I'm not sure how helpful that is as
an answer, though.
Nose for Trouble

See Sixth Sense.
Petty Magic
Q: If you increase your WPB, do you get extra Petty Spells for free? E.g., if you have WP 39 (WPB 3) and
raise your stat to WP 40 (WPB 4), would you get a free spell?
A: No, but your GM might let you, if they feel it's appropriate.
Q2: If you buy Petty Magic when you have a Willpower Bonus of 3 and then later gain a Willpower bonus of 4,
do you gain a petty spell for free or are the free spells only when you purchase the talent?
A2: I'm afraid not, as the text reads 'when you take this Talent'. This is in keeping with the lore, as in general
once you begin to practice any form of formal magic studying less controlled petty magics is not encouraged.
However, I would ask your GM, it's not an unreasonable request to get one additional Petty Magic spell for 'free'
in this case.
Pure Soul
Q: How you define Corruption in case of that Talent wording?
A: Corruption with capital C is game term and it’s connected with rules on page 183 'Corrupting'. In other words
this Talent allows you to gain more Corruption points before having to test for corruption.
@Jay Dako asks:
Pure Soul
Max: Willpower Bonus
Your soul is pure, quite resistant to the depredations of Chaos. You may gain extra Corruption points equal to your
level of Pure Soul before having to Test to see if you become corrupt.
This talent's wording is causing some issues. First, it does not give a bonus to tests. That's fine. The issue is that it
says to see if you become corrupt. Being corrupt is not defined. Does it mean to test for mutation?
So, first, you are correct, no bonus to Tests is given for this Talent. This isn't uncommon, and is directly
referenced in the rules. WFRP4, p132, 'Talent Format', 'Tests:':
If the Talent is tied to one or more Tests you character can make...
'If'. It is not always the case. Regarding your second point, the Talent is clear, and references 'Corruption' with a
capital 'C', meaning it is a game term. Referencing the Index for that term sends you to page 182, the
'Corruption' rules, where you will find the rule for Corruption points, and what happens when you corrupt, which
is covered in WFRP4, p183, 'Corrupting'. The benefit of the Talent should be very obvious if you read that
section, as it allows you to gain more Corruption points before having to test for corruption, as defined under
'Corrupting'.
Reaction Strike
Q: Why does the Reaction Strike 'Tests:' line benefit Initiative Tests, when those are Simple Tests (and
therefore don't benefit from increased SLs)?
A: It should say 'Melee Tests' instead.
Q: I have a really quick question about the Reaction Strike talent in WFRP 4e. The Tests line says “Initiative
Tests concerning this Talent”, but as Initiative Tests are Simple Tests (you either pass or fail) it gives no bonus
as SLs aren't a factor. Should the line instead read “Melee Tests concerning this Talent” or something similar, or
should it just be removed?
A: Our WFRP producer has confirmed that it. This should be “Melee Tests concerning this Talent”
Robust
Q: Does the Robust Talent mitigation apply to the Wounds caused by Critical Tables?
Let's read it!

WFRP4, p143, 'Robust':
You are as tough as old boots and just soak up damage. You reduce all incoming Damage by an extra +1 per time you
have taken the Robust Talent, even if the Damage cannot normally be reduced, but still suffer a minimum of 1
Wound from any Damage source.
So, the answer is yes.

Roughrider
Roughrider benefits
Q: What is the benefit of the Roughrider Talent?
A: Ordinarily, the Action and Move taken on horseback are both yours (even if you use the mount's Movement
rating). Roughrider allows the mount to take its own Action in addition to yours. In the example above, if you
charge (using your Action+Move), this would still allow the mount to take its own Action.
The rules here are clear: You have to Test the Ride skill when doing something out of the ordinary. Charging is
listed as 'out of the ordinary'. So, a Ride test is required to Charge. You have to force the animal to do
something outside its normal preference, so it requires a Test from the rider. This situation is not contradicted by
the Roughrider Talent. That Talent simply allows your Mount to take an Action. That's it. Nothing more. No Ride
tests are required to be able to access this Action, but Tests may still be required as a consequence of taking
that Action. [...] Nevertheless, if you want your horse to Charge into combat, it still requires a Ride test from the
Rider - that's hard-coded into the rules. But, this does not use the Horse's Action. Why? Because, in most
instances, it was your Action and Move (using the Horse's Movement Attribute) that activated the Charge
Action, not the Horse's. So, the Horse will still have its free Action remaining from Roughrider Talent after the
Charge is completed. Handy.
Roughrider and Charging

Q: If using Roughrider, does the Ride Test for charging also use up your Action (meaning only the
mount can attack at the end of the Move)?
A: It doesn't use up your Action, so both you and the mount can attack (or you can attack and it can take
another relevant Action).
So, generally, testing a Skill uses up your Action, but this is not universal, it’s just a loose guide to help the GM
make a call. And one example of when a Test does not use up an Action is the Ride Test required to Charge
when mounted.
Q: Roughrider allows you to 'make an Action as well as a Move' without a Ride test. Would charging on
a riding horse with the Roughrider Talent require a Ride Test, since charging is considered an 'unusual
action' in the Ride skill?
A: Yes but this doesn't use up your Action (see follow up questions for more details).
Yes, it would
Roughrider and Test Difficulty
Q: What Difficulty is the Ride Test used with Roughrider for unusual actions?
A: It is modified by the animal's temperament. If attempting to charge a Draught Horse into battle this might be
a Hard (-20) Ride Test; if charging with a Warhorse, this might be Easy (+40).
Further, the Ride skill specifically calls out that Ride Tests are often modified by the temperament of the steed
(page 129):
A Ride Test may be modified by environmental conditions, and the temperament of the mount.
So, forcing a Draught Horse to charge into combat? That's probably going to be hard. (say, -20%). Forcing a
trained Warhorse to charge into combat? That test is going to be relatively easy. (say, +40%). Further, in both
instances, the horse will not be able to attack unless the rider has the Roughrider Talent. Phew! Did that all
make sense? The answer ended up being far longer than anticipated!
Rover
Q: Do you need to roll Stealth Test when sneaking past some people.
A: Yes
@joesmoke asks:
If you're sneaking past some people and have the Rover Talent do you still need to roll a Stealth Test?
Yes…As I recall, RAI, as originally written, was that a Test was required, and if it failed, a passive listener then
Opposed that Test, possibly becoming aware of an intruder in their midst depending upon the results.
Q: Does Rover giving nigh invisibility intended?
A: No, but Andy Law suggest using some common sense
@Smiling Tom asks:
Is the nigh invisibility provided by the Rover Talent intended, or just a colourful description? Not allowing
characters a Perception Test unless specifically searching intruders is such a free "ambush" card.
This one is tricky. The problem here is the lack of rules for Passive and Active Tests, which clarified this issue. It
wasn't a big section - about 100 words each, but it covered when passive Tests become active according to the
situation and GM appraisal, but it isn't in the final text. So, no, invisibility wasn't intended. But RAW, that's not
far from what we have. I suggest just applying common sense here. Obviously, the Talent is simply supposed to
show you're at home wandering the wild, and find it easy to take advantage of the local terrain. So, not invisible,
but if largely out of sight, folks won't notice you unless they really look.
Seasoned Traveller
Q: How does Seasoned Traveller work? It's a tad confusing as written.
A: A revised version of the Talent follows:
We agree with your observations that this Talent is a touch confusing. We are considering changing to read in
the following way.
Seasoned Traveller
Max: Intelligence Bonus
Test: Any Lore Test concerning local detail
You are an inquisitive soul who enjoys travelling far and wide, absorbing local customs and colour as you go.
Given a month's exposure to any locality, you may count the associated Lore (Local) Skill as a Basic Skill with a
successful Intelligence Test (which can be attempted once per month). In addition, you gain a +10 bonus lo any
Fellowship related Tests with someone from a locality you have gained knowledge of using this Talent, or for
which you have advances in the appropriate Lore (Local) Skill.
Q. A couple of questions cropped up regarding the Seasoned Traveller Talent.

1. Can you pick a different Lore (Local) each time you change career?
2. If Lore (Local) is in Career, does the XP reduction apply to both instances.
3. What happens if you are in a Career with more than one Lore (Local) already, or Lore (Any) and you
choose Lore (Local)? Does the XP reduction apply to all instances of the Skill?
1. Yes. This could also be a reason to re-enter the same tier of a Career: so you can reselect the optional Skills.
But that can be expensive in XP.
2. Yes.
3. It applies to every instance of Lore (Local), but not to Lore (Any), even if you used it to purchase a Lore
(Local) option.
1. Yes. This could also be a reason to re-enter the same tier of a Career: so you can reselect the optional Skills.
But that can be expensive in XP.
2. Yes.
3. It applies to every instance of Lore (Local), but not to Lore (Any), even if you used it to purchase a Lore
(Local) option.
Sixth Sense
Q: What's the difference between the Sixth Sense and Nose for Trouble Talents?
A: Nose for Trouble is mundane Talent that represents your ability to sense when trouble is a-brewing from
others. Sixth Sense allows you to magically sense when you are in danger.
@Andres asks:
What's the difference between the Sixth Sense and Nose for Trouble Talents? They both seem to tell you when
someone's about to attack you.
So, Nose for Trouble is a mundane Talent that represents your ability to sense when trouble is a-brewing from
others. There is nothing magical about it. It relies upon what you can see in the world around you. If you pass
the associated Intuition Test, the GM will point out which NPCs are likely to cause trouble, and will allow you to
ignore any Surprise if they launch a surprise attack.
Sixth Sense is completely different. It is a magical Talent that represents your ability to sense when you are in
danger. It has nothing to do with what you can empirically see in the world around you. It's a feeling. You don't
know where it's coming from. Your hackles are raised and you know you're in danger. It could be from NPCs,
poison, a rock tumbling over a cliff, or anything else, really. Further, any time you are Surprised, no matter the
reason, you can have an Intuition Test to avoid it as you sense the immediate danger.
In short, two very different Talents, for all they do some similar things.
Strike to Stun
See also Pummel clarification
Q: Is a Strike to Stun subject to the Size rules for Opposed Strength Tests?
A: No, unless the GM rules otherwise.
@joesmoke asks:
Is a Strike to Stun subject to the Size rules for Opposed Strength Tests? I.e. does a Halfling trying to Stun a Human
automatically lose unless they Critical the Strength Test?
The answer is: no, unless the GM rules otherwise. Why? Well, WFRP4, p341, offers us this:
During Opposed Strength Tests (and similar), if one creature is 2 or more steps larger, it automatically wins. If one
creature is 1 step larger, the smaller creature must roll a Critical to contest the roll. If it does, SL are compared as
normal. All other results mean the larger creature wins.
So, why 'no'? Because Opposed Strength means Strength/Strength only. An Opposed Strength/Skill would
be marked differently in the rules. So, why 'unless your GM rules otherwise'? Because of the '(and similar)'
which means the GM could apply the rule on any similar Strength vs Test if that was considered correct by the
GM at hand. Perhaps a Halfling trying to stun a Dragon was seen as daft, then ping the optional part of the rule.
Lastly, this situation also pings the 'No Skills barring Melee and Ranged can Score Crits' issue I discussed in
Q110, so the RAW is a bit messy.
Q: 1) Was the intention for the 'Tests' modifier to apply to the initial Opposed Melee Test to hit or the
resulting Opposed Strength/Endurance Test on a successful hit?
2) Can you attack with Knuckledusters as an improvised weapon and gain the Pummel quality?
3) If a successful attack from an improvised weapon causes 0 wounds (due to Undamaging) does it still
trigger the Opposed Strength/Endurance Test?
A: 1) RAW: both Tests, RAI: On Melee Test
2) RAW: Yes, RAI: Yes
3) RAW: Yes, RAI: It’s complicated
@Martin asks:
For the Strike to Stun Talent, RAW states the 'Tests' modifier applies to all 'Melee Tests when Striking to Stun', and
allows any improvised weapon to have the Pummel Weapon Quality.
1. Was the intention for the 'Tests' modifier to apply to the initial Opposed Melee Test to hit or the resulting
Opposed Strength/Endurance Test on a successful hit?
2. Can you treat an attack with Knuckledusters as an improvised weapon (reducing damage to SB+1, and
gaining Undamaging) and therefore gain the Pummel quality?
3. If a successful attack from an improvised weapon causes 0 wounds (due to Undamaging) does it still
trigger the Opposed Strength/Endurance Test?
1) The RAW here is unclear, largely because a planned 'Striking to Stun' set of rules were removed, so the
referenced rules do not exist. I marked these rules to be reinstalled before print, but that didn't happen.
RAI: it's the Melee Test that gains the Tests modifier, but that was planned to couple with a slightly different
Striking to Stun ruleset.
RAW: it's open to interpretation as it refers to a ruleset that isn't in place: i.e.: 'Striking to Stun'. Given the rules
we have, RAW suggests both Tests benefit from the modifier, but that definitely wasn't the intention.
2) This used to be very clear in the rules. All weapons had a brief description in WFRP4, 'The Consumers'
Guide', but these were removed for space reasons, leaving us with just the 'Hand Weapons' and Blackpowder
Ammunition' box on p296. The tiny write-up for 'Improvised Weapon' made it clear almost any weapon could be
used as an improvised weapon, which is the source of the Lance's rule at the bottom of WFRP4, p294, for
example.
RAW: Unclear, but common sense suggests 'yes' given the inclusion of Improvised Weapons, and how the
Lance is handled on a Round when you have not Charged.
RAI: Yes.
3) This is super easy
RAW: Yes. Pummel makes it clear that it activates on a Head hit, not when Wounds result. WFRP4, p298:
If you score a Head hit with a Pummel weapon, attempt an Opposed Strength/Endurance Test against the struck
opponent. If you win the Test, your opponent gains a Stunned Condition.
RAI: Yes and no. Again, this is complicated, as Striking to Stun does not have the planned ruleset in place.
Strong Back
See also Pummel clarification and Strike to Stun
Q: Do Strong Back Talent gives +1SL per rank to Strength Vs Strength Tests or Strength Vs Anything
Tests.
A: RAW: only Strength vs Strength, RAI: it’s should be revised before release.
@Martin asks:
The Strong Back Talent gives +1SL per rank to Opposed Strength Tests, RAI is this only supposed to be Strength Vs
Strength or does it apply to Strength Vs Anything?
● RAW: No. With the same reasoning as given in Q124: 'Opposed Strength' means 'Strength/Strength'
only. An 'Opposed Strength/Skill' would be marked as such in the rules.
● RAI: The same answer here as Q123 and Q124: the intention here was for Stuns to be revised before
release.
Surgery Talent
Q: Are the Wounds inflicted by Surgery soaked by TB?
A: No.
joesmoke#0464 asks:
Are the wounds caused by Surgery supposed to be soaked by the victim's Toughness Bonus or not?
Easy. No.
Trapper
Q: How does the Trapper Talent description work in case of traps from DotR and THR?
A: Andy Law suggests that you remove the free passive Tests from traps or make them 1 or 2 steps harder
without it.
@skyperbole asks:
How does the Trapper Talent description work?
Now, the way that traps have been described in DOTR and THR is that any character gains a Perception Test to
notice them before activating. So, what then is the mechanical bonus of this Talent. I get that it's leaning towards
some sort of passive perception mechanic in a way, but not sure how to resolve it.
It works exactly as described. If the traps listed in Death on the Reik and The Horned Rat didn't realise that a
Talent was supposed to be required for the traps it lists, there is little I can say to that as I did not develop the
rules in those books. If I had done, and they are deployed as you suggest, I would have had the rules changed.
It seems there was a simple lack of familiarity with the rules here. The intent for the Talent is that passive Tests
are allowed for situations where such Tests are normally not allowed. However, if all traps have passive Tests
automatically hardcoded into them, it invalidates the utility of the Talent. To resolve this, I suggest that you
remove the free passive Tests suggested in those books unless the character in question has the Trapper
Talent, or, as an alternative, you make those traps 1 or 2 steps harder to spot without the Talent.
Witch!
Witch! and Dwarfes
Q: How would you handle a Dwarf getting the Witch result from the Mental Mutations table in EiS
Companion?
A: Dwarfs and magic don't mix well, so you may need to add a general Dwarf-facing rule to reflect that. (Or you
could re-roll…)
However, loosely, Dwarfs and magic don't mix well - just look at the Chaos Dwarfs - so I'd likely add a general
Dwarf-facing rule to reflect that.
Witch! and casting spells
Q: The Talent errata says you may 'immediately cast' any spell. Does that mean casting is automatic?
A: No. You learn the spell for free but still have to roll.
You may spend 1 Resilience point to immediately cast any spell as if it were one of your Arcane Lore spells; you also
instantly memorise that spell as one of your Arcane Lore spells for 0 XP. You can do this a number of times equal to
your level in this Talent.
So, using the errata, you are given the opportunity to cast the spell using the normal rules for doing so. There is
nothing automatic about this. So, RAW, there is no automatic casting.
Witch! and Arcane Lore spells
Q: Does that mean spells learned by Witch! also gain the Lore effect of your own Arcane Lore instead of
the effect from their original Lore?
A: Yes. Healing spells used with Aqshy can cause the optional Ablaze Conditions as a Lore effect if you want
them to (though you probably wouldn't). Such spells also look like they belong to your main Lore, so
Shadowsteed would appear like a stallion of fire instead.
Going back to learning a Lore of Beasts spell as if it were Lore of Fire, it would look different to a regular Lore of
Beasts spell. So people might just assume you're a bad ass wizard that has learned a thing or two and can
transform into a flaming bear!
LongShadow#4934
Yeah, it depends. Like, if you cast Shadowsteed, but with say Lore of Fire, then big burning steeds presumably
rock up. If you've got the chutzpah to pass that off as a Lore trick, you'll be fine.
Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358
If you are important enough that is probably totally how a bunch of famous wizards developed unique spells
HidaOWin#8946 (Rat Catchers’ Guild, 01.08.2020)
Q. How would Witch! work for anyone that doesn't have an Arcane Lore? Be it because they haven't
picked one yet, or because of getting the talent via Mutation? Would the base rules answer be any
different to the errata one?
A: RAW? It isn't covered. You could simply count it as an Arcane Lore (Witchery) spell, and you're off for when
you learn that Lore for real (assuming you ever do). If gaining the Talent as a Mutation, it may be best to
randomise the Lore you can learn, because it's Chaos, and allow for the related Channelling Skill to be learned
to ensure the spell can be cast in future.
RAW? It isn't covered. But, we can draw some inferences from the RAW. The Talent is only available in the
Witch Career, so it seems obvious to tie any results to that Career if you purchased the Talent from there. So,
simply count it as an Arcane Lore (Witchery) spell, and you're off for when you learn that Lore for real
(assuming you ever do). As for gaining the Talent as a Mutation, I can't really talk to that as I didn't add those
rules. If I had, I would have created an extra rule for its implementation, probably involving randomisation
because it's Chaos, but also allowing for the related Channelling Skill to be learned to ensure the spell can be
cast in future.
Q: Question about talent 'Witch!'. You can take any arcane lore spell. Can you take a spell from any
colour list? And if you cast a colour spell, do you suffer a –1 SL penalty if you are dressed
inappropriately for the Wind of Magic?
A: The spell gained via the second paragraph of the Witch! Talent actually becomes part of whatever Arcane
Lore you currently possess when you manifest and memorize it, meaning it uses all rules for that Lore (and not
its original one).
Update: Contradicting the original ruling a little, we now have confirmation that spells which become part of the
Witchcraft are still illegal but spells which become a part of a Colour Lore you have a licence for are technically
legal — though they may not be recognised as such by jealous or sceptical rivals.
@Andy Law#7502 Just to clarify, let's say I have Arcane Lore (Metal) from the Wizard career. I later go into the
Witch career and take the Witch! talent, and spend 1 Resilience Point as per the talent. I then get to pick ANY
spell in the book and instantly memorise it as one of my Arcane Lore spells for 0XP. And from then on it counts
as belonging to Arcane Lore (Metal)?
BadJuJu#0604
@Andy Law#7502 On p. 335, the Bloodletter of Khorne still has W 19 instead of W 17 as specified in the errata.
That's everything I've found from the original errata that's still incorrect in the v3 corrected PDF. I haven't been
through all the new errata yet, though.
trystero#5216
BadJuJu#0604 By those rules, yes. But it would be a spell from the Witch! Talent, and would be highly illegal.
So, cast on!
Legality of Witch! spells

Q: If all spells learned from the Witch! Talent are considered witchcraft?
A: They are counting as Lore that you are casting it from, and can be legal if you have the appropriate magic
license.
@LongShadow#4934 asks:
When you learn a spell from the Witch! Talent by spending a Resilience point is it considered witchcraft and
therefore illegal when you use that spell?
This is one that was purposefully left in the place that it is, and was going to form the grounding, and
foreshadowing, of the spell creation rules I planned for the Realms of Sorcery equivalent for WFRP4. So, if you
use the Talent to cast and learn Crown of Flame (p247) as a Lore of Witchcraft spell (p255), it now counts as a
Lore of Witchcraft spell in all ways, including how it appears to other spellcasters, how it manifests, and so on.
Basically, the new spell is handled in the same way as an Arcane Spell (p242). Equally, if you use Witchery! to
cast and learn Crown of Flame as a Lore of Shadows (p252) spell, it now counts as a Lore of Shadow spell in
all ways (so presumably manifests as a dark, shadowy crown full of menace), and, assuming you have a
licence to cast Grey magic, is 100% legal by the technicalities of the Articles of Magic. However, it is also super
noteworthy as an innovation of the Wind of Magic at hand, especially as it did not involve prolonged,
painstaking research or anything similar. You are a magical prodigy, and some will like that. Others will hate it.
Some will be jealous. Some will call foul. Others will try to reproduce the effect. What that means for your game
is left for you to decide.
CHAPTER 5: RULES
Simple Tests
Automatic Successes
Q: 01-05 (during both a Dramatic and an Opposed Test) is an automatic success, not a Critical/Critical
Success, correct? And 96-98 is an automatic failure, not a Critical Failure/Fumble, right (obviously 99
and 00 are Fumbles because they're doubles and automatic failures)?
A: Yes.
Q1 yes, you are correct (as per the, very clear in this instance rules).
Tests and Actions

Q: Do Actions have to be Tests? Can you take Tests without using an Action?
A: No and yes.
So, generally, testing a Skill uses up your Action, but this is not universal, it’s just a loose guide to help the GM
make a call. And one example of when a Test does not use up an Action is the Ride Test required to Charge
when mounted.
Dramatic Tests
Failed Tests and adding SLs
Q: Can adding SLs to a test (such as from the Defensive or Practical quality, or via the use of a Fortune
Point) turn a failed test into a successful test?
A: No, but… In game terms, a successful Test is one that rolls equal to or below your modified Skill. If you rolled
over your Skill, it counts as a failed Test. Adding SLs to the result won't change that, and this also means you
don't apply bonus SLs from Talents. But you may score positive SLs in the end, even if you didn't succeed on
the Test.
Hola. OK, quick post before I go to bed. I'm going to preface this with a disclaimer: I'm not trying to sound nippy,
so apologies if I do. But...not everything that people think is unclear, is unclear. And, I'm sorry, but this one is
crystal clear. Roll the test, applying modifiers. If you pass and roll a double: crit. If you fail and roll a double:
fumble. Then, if using SL, calculate SL. If you have sources of bonus SLs, then you add those bonus SLs if
applicable. As noted under Talents, bonus SLs from the 'Tests' listed under the Talent only apply if you passed
that test. Other sources that simply 'add SLs' add them, whether you pass or fail. So, if you have Melee 54, and
you roll 55 when defending with a shield, you fumble. Resolve the fumble. But Defensive gives you +1SL
(assuming the fumble didn't cause you to drop the shield). You rolled 0SL, so your total SL is 1 for the test.
Done. RAW. I know there are parts of the mechanics that aren't clear, I do. But this one really is. Here endeth
the tome.
Awesome! Thanks mg
ultrajosua#8810
So, you can fail in a test with positive SL, is what i'm getting.
Moo Man#7518
Fail with positive, you mean? Yes. Doesn't happen often - Defensive and Menacing are the only ones I can
think of, off the top of my head.
Yeah, figured that'd be the case, also Fortune Points add SL
Moo Man#7518
Now, how you apply that in game, of course, depends.
I feel like that possibility is what makes it unclear
Moo Man#7518
If you're using SLs for Dramatic Tests, or Opposed Tests, then you may end up 'winning' or 'succeeding' in the
end, but that doesn't change the fact that you failed the roll, if that makes sense.
Q: What is the difference between a failed Test with negative SLs and a failed Test with positive SLs?
A: The first is a failure in all senses, meaning you cannot add Talent bonuses and you fail the task at hand too.
The second is only a failure when it pertains to bonuses reliant on succeeding on your Test (such as from
Talents). You still get the benefits of your positive SLs and may, therefore, complete the task at hand or win an
Opposed Test. Also see the answer directly above.
My understanding was that while you cannot change the succeed/fail result, you can make the outcome a
success rather than a failure. Sso you can fail the task with a successful result, thanks to being fortunate, but
doing so will not allow you to apply SL from talents.
Nuku#0420
This may have been put to bed, but Nuku is right here.
Fast SLs clarifications

Benefits of Fast SL
Q: What is the main benefit of Fast SLs?
A: It helps prevent the Advantage spiral that may occur with standard SLs. It also keeps SLs more balanced.
Fliptop_23#5121 asks:
What are the pros and cons of Fast SL vs Normal SL?
This is a question that comes up many times, often because I make it no secret that I play with Fast SL, the
Optional Rule found on page 152. So, why do I do that? Simply, because I prefer a grittier, 'more balanced'
game. Now, does that mean that the core 'Normal SL' rule (as also explained on page 152) is unbalanced?
Kinda. Fast SL hard-bakes a maximum SL that can be scored into the rules. As a single example: If I have 5
Advantage and a Skill of 70, I have a modified Skill of 120. So, I can score, using the normal rules, between
+12 SL (a % roll of 01-09) to +3 SL (a % roll of 90-95). With Fast SL, the maximum is +0 (a % roll of 06-09) to
+9 (90-95) SL. This makes an enormous difference, not just to casting numbers (and similar), but to combat,
where even a character with +20 Advantage, for a seemingly game-breaking +200 bonus, can easily roll 01-29
on a 1d100 (indeed, is likely to, as that’s almost a third of all rolls), scoring just +0 to +2 SL. As is immediately
obvious to any WFRP4 player, that is a relatively easy total to beat, even by a lower Skill Character. In short:
Combat is always dangerous, even for the skilled or those that have a silly Advantage total. For this reason and
many more, I use Fast SL in my games. Indeed, most of the rules of a ‘balanced’ game are predicated upon
using them. However, the core book is not ‘balanced’. Instead, it is built around more heroic play, representing
the Warhammer games as a whole. WFRP is a Warhammer game, after all. So, 'Normal SL' is great for your
Gotrek and Felix dungeon bashes, where Fast SL has the heroes, and everyone else, be stabbed, maimed,
and maybe even killed a good bit more often. To drill home why that's the case, let’s drop two example rolls on
three Advantage amounts to show what each option does in different circumstances. I’ll also add a crude Total
for each as a rough measure of each rule. So, for our example let’s use rolls of 06, 50, and 95 on Advantage
amounts of 2, 4, and 10 with a Skill of 50. Let’s go!
CORE
● 2 Advantage: +7 SL, +2 SL, -2 SL (Total: +7)
● 4 Advantage: +9 SL, +4 SL, -0 SL (Total +13)
● 10 Advantage: +15 SL, +10 SL, +6 SL (Total: +31)
FAST SL
● 10 Advantage: +0 SL, +5 SL, +9 SL (Total: +13)
So, the above kinda shows how Fast SL is much less 'heroic', or more 'balanced', than the Core rules using
those numbers. That said, many prefer the swingy, massive Advantage plays of the Core rules. And that's cool,
too. WFRP4 uses that as its core presentation, after all. Neither system is 'better', beyond what works best for
your game being the 'better' option. So, Fast SL for a more balanced game, and 'Normal SL' for potentially
crazy outcomes and massive Advantage chains.
is there a reason besides the speed aspect that fast sl's gets recommended a lot?
HerrBommel#2199
Yes. It balances Advantage and ensures it doesn't spiral.

Andy Law thoughts on FastSL

@MizuDevil asks:
There was some discussion in the Rat Catchers Guild server about Fast SL and your explanation about this optional
rule.
Alrighty. Sounds good. What's the issue.
I agree that fast SL makes all rolls of skills above 100 (Modified or Not) less heroic. Because you can't score as many
SL as with core system.
Yup. It makes an enormous difference up there. So far so good…
But I disagree that skill rolls below 100 become fundamentally different from the main system (Which you show
with your example). In fact, there is almost no difference.
I never really said they were fundamentally different in this instance, although my examples certainly could
have been skewed differently. Indeed, my opening example in my original answer used a character with 70 Skill
and 5 Advantage, for a total of 120. The examples I provided after that were after I'd made my central
argument, and were fast and loose extras offered to paint the broadest of pictures only. Those examples were
much less important than the central point: the core SL rules are swingy and allow for massive Advantage
plays. Fast SL mitigates that. So, to your point, I agree that the maths are very similar at the low end. It's the
other end that bothers me. The example with the +10 Advantage (which could just as easily be +60 for Difficulty
combined with 4 Advantage, for example - same outcome, and not uncommon in play for, as a single example,
Ranged Combat). Beyond that, the primary differences are small: Fast SL is quicker to calculate (there is no
calculation), it's more naturally aligned to the Auto Success and Failure rules, and it's also aligned to the impact
of increasing your statistics, meaning each +1 increase gives you a +1 increase of scoring your highest SL
possibility (which also ties to a marginally smaller top-end for scoring the best SL) However, low-end Tests are
rarely where the rules lie if you are playing a campaign like, say, the Enemy Within. The sweet-spot is higher
Tests, and very soon the numbers increase as a few Advantage stack, Difficulty, Traits, or Spells apply more
modifiers, and you find yourself with large bonuses that create enormous power disparities. And the huge
swings begin. Nothing wrong with that. After all, it is super awesome to be super awesome. The game is
designed to allow that. However, it's not the preference for my table. I don't want high skills or modifiers to
dominate my games, becoming unbeatable. I prefer jeopardy, even for high skill characters, which the core
rules don't allow. So, I choose grim and perilous Fast SL where even high-skill PCs can score low SLs, even if
they have, for example, 4+ Advantage and all the modifiers. It's no more or less complicated than that.
People are listening to your rule explanations and I would like to hear from you an clarification on this moment.
Sure. What needs [to be] clarified?
In your example you take tested skill as 50 and use rolls 06, 50 and 95. Without advantages there is big difference,
because 06 is maximally good roll for core system, 50 maximally good for Fast SL and 95 bad for both. With one or
more advantages roll of 06 still is the best for core system, but 50 alredy isn`t. If use maximally good rolls than there
will not be difference between those two systems until 100+ skills. Only statistical difference is that, best roll in core
system have always 9% chance (result from 01 to 09) to be rolled. With fast SL you have same chance for best roll if
your skill ends with 8 (For example skill is 58, to get best roll you need result from 50 to 58), but if you have skill
that ends with '9' you have 10% for best roll. For each point of skill less then 8 you have 1% chance less for best roll.
Which will result to only 1SL difference from core system.
Loosely, that's correct, and I have no issue with any of that at all. Fast SL isn't about being a fundamentally
different system - it's simply a different way to calculate SL. An optional rule that's the following:
1) Faster (hence the name!)
2) Also effective at controlling the mid- to late-game play...
3) …because it's effective at controlling Advantage and other modifiers.
4) It's also more in synch with the supplementary systems, with the auto success and failure rules
standing as quickest example to offer, but it also works better with other subsystems. Not much better,
mind. But it's the little things that I focus upon.
Hope for your answer, thank you.
I'm not sure if my reply is what you were looking for, but I hope I helped.
Cons of Fast SL
Q: What is the main benefit of normal SLs over Fast SLs?
A: It gives more heroic results. Fast SLs lead to more dangerous combats, generally.
'Normal SL' swings wildly, allowing for Gotrek-like moments where entire armies of Goblins can be hewn,
creating almost indestructible heroes once a few Skills are at mid-level and care is taken with combat
encounters. Fast SL does not allow for that. It's tighter, combat is always dangerous, and individual Skill levels
matter more. In general. There is much more to it than that (spellcasting alone!), but that's a good starting point.
Fast SL and Talents

Q: Doesn't FastSL substantially privilege Talents (giving straight SL bonuses) over circumstantial
bonuses (like Outnumbering) and thus actually make experienced 'heroic' characters more powerful?
A: To a degree, yes. This is as intended and designed, so you can build your Gotreks, Teclises, and Nagashes.
To a degree, it does. And this as intended and designed. It was determined early that the ruleset had to be able
to build your Gotreks, Teclises, and Nagashes, and that they had to be properly scary, regardless of which
optional rules you use. The Talents ensure this, but are also prohibitively expensive in XP to be an easy first
choice (or, indeed, a second) for PCs unless you are playing a long-term campaign. That said, you can still reap
the spoils of dedicated specialisation if you do drop all your XP in one area.
Fast SL and Tests over 100
Q: The optional rule for Tests over 100 breaks some of the maths with Fast SLs. Are the two intended to
work together?
A: Not as written. There was an earlier version of this optional rule where the bonus SLs are only added for
unmodified stats over 100. The example provided in the rulebook actually works with this method rather than
the one described there.
In my games, I do not do this. Instead, I use a modified version of the Optional rule I mentioned above if I'm
using RAW Advantage:
Options: Tests Above 100
A successful Test gains a bonus of +1 SL for each full +10 an unmodified Characteristic or Skill you are testing
exceeds 100.
That was the original intention of the rule, and it was written to combine with Fast SL. You can see this if you
look at the example, which uses the Countess's unmodified Charm Skill, and makes no mention of modification
changing her +1 SL bonus.
Fast SL and balancing encounters

Q: Does Fast SLs make it harder or easier to balance encounters?
A: They're about the same. However, you should carefully consider which Talents you give your NPCs, as these
have greater impact with Fast SLs. That said, balance isn't such an issue in WFRP because of Fate and the
general tone of the game.
Andy outlines making NPCs here: https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/02/lets-build-some-wfrp-orcs.html
There is an issue with Talent totals if you are building NPCs with Talents (and if you are playing against
experienced groups, it is wise for core protagonists to use Talents). With Fast SL, those Talents can make a big
difference, so make sure they are chosen carefully and with that NPC's actual capabilities in mind. And with
'actual capabilities', we hit a controversial point regarding balancing, but it's one that dominates my personal
games: screw balancing. When it comes to my games, a big Troll is big. If you are stupid enough as a PC to
face the thing without being hard as nails, you get everything you deserve thrown at you. WFRP has Fate
Points. Time to use them. Equally, a group of experienced bandits will nail your average PC group. And that's
okay. PCs have brains and coin and other things they can use to avoid those bandits. There is a reason folks
turn to banditry: it works. That all said, the article I linked to and the Enemy in Shadow's advice includes
suggestions for how to build NPCs comparable to your group's PCs, but that doesn't mean they are balanced
equally to the PCs. After all, a scholar through 5 careers is not going to be 'balanced' against a Slayer through 5
careers. One will out-think the other. The other will... out-slay? And that's cool in my book. I'm not playing D&D
when I'm playing WFRP.
Difficulty
Modifiers and Advantage caps
Q: Is there a cap for modifiers? Is Advantage included in this maximum?
A: Advantage is separate.
Hey andy, while you’re here I have a question. Does the +60 bonus cap include advantage? Or do you get +60
from stuff and then advantage can take it higher? I’m guessing the latter
Unknown Author
Yeah, IIRC that's right: the maximum for modifiers are 60, Advantage is separate.
Standard Difficulty
Q: What should be the standard difficulty of Tests, assuming a character is not under duress or time
constraints? +0 or +20?
A: +20. Stressful situations, such as combat, use +0.
Jaalib#2203 It's a very important rule. All Tests should be at +20 if taken outside super stressful situations, like
combat. It is the standard Difficulty.
Opposed Tests
Opposed Tests and adjudicating ties
Q: In an Opposed Test, does a successful roll with +0 SLs win over a failed roll with -0 SLs? Or is it
considered a tie off SLs (both got 0 SLs) and resolved by comparing highest Skill/Characteristics?
A: +0 SL vs. -0 SL in an Opposed Test is a tie, with the winner determined the same way all Opposed ties are
(by whomever has the highest Tested Skill/Characteristic).
I'm out all day so not available for rules stuff. But yes, you are probably overthinking things. Opposed Tests,
IIRC are clear: compare SLs, so 0=0. Whereas in Dramatic Tests, +0>-0. Don't have book to check, but pretty
sure that's what it says.
Highest Tested Skill or Characteristic in Opposed Tests

Q: When resolving ties in Opposed Tests, how is ‘highest Tested Skill or Characteristic’ defined? Does
it include any and all situational modifiers, such as those gained from Advantage, Conditions, etc?
A: You compare the base number of the Skill/Characteristic that each participant Tested, without modifiers from
Advantage, Conditions, situational modifiers, etc.
It does not. 'tested Skill/Characteristic' only refers to the Skill or Characteristic being tested. The 'tested'
modifier simply makes it clear that you refer to the Skill being tested, and not to another Skill. Nothing more
than that. The Fast SL rule was edited. Rather annoyingly in this case.
Opposed Test and Criticals

Q: You MUST succeed on your Test in an Opposed Test in order for a result of doubles to count as a
Crit, correct? I.e. If you fail your Test, a double is always a Fumble, regardless of who wins the Opposed
Test? And if you succeed on your Test, a double is always a Critical, regardless of who wins the
Opposed Test?
A: Yes and yes
Q1 yes, you are correct (as per the, very clear in this instance rules).
Q2 - ditto. Succeed in Test vs win Opposed Test. I got your back, bro. :)
On Q2, you resolve the crit before the Opposed Test. So that's doubly clear (if, I will allow, not necessarily
intuitive).
Extended Tests
Q: Is it a good idea to put a floor on Extended Tests, so a fail never deducts successes?
A: Yes.
A thousand times this. I have mentioned it several times online, and wholly agree with this suggestion.
Q1: Let’s say I roll an 11 when attacking my target, thus scoring a Critical, and I also win the Opposed
Test. The Critical causes 4 Wounds, taking the target down to 2 Wounds. Then, after the Opposed Test
is resolved, the target takes another 6 Wounds, so definitely into ‘negative’ Wounds. Does the Opposed
result cause a second Critical from going below 0?
A1: Yes.
Q2: Or is this another iteration a Crit can’t lead to a second Crit?
A2: No.
Super easy. The Crit didn't take you below 0, the strike did, so...
1) Yes.
2) No.
Can all questions be this easy in future please! smile
Combat
The Oops! Table
Q: On the Oops! Table, if you gain a Stunned Condition, do you also take damage?
A: No, you only suffer the Stunned Condition
@LongShadow asks:
On the Oops! Table, if you hit yourself in the face and gain a Stunned Condition, do you also take damage as per the
previous line in the text?
In each instance, the entry on the table explains every rule to be used. With that in mind, WFRP4, p160, ‘Oops!
Table’ says:
You completely mess up, hitting 1 random ally in range using your rolled units die to determine the SL of the hit. If
that’s not possible, you somehow hit yourself in the face and gain a Stunned Condition (see page 169).
So, the answer is no, you do not also take Damage. You only suffer the Stunned Condition.
Initiative Order
Q: What happens if multiple characters have weapons with the Slow Flaw?
A: Use the same rule as with the Fast Quality: 'Two opponents with Slow weapons fight in Initiative order
(relative to each other) at the end of the Round.'
Quick check on this - does that mean you roll and figure out if you hit and how hard in your normal action [for Slow
weapons], but just delay the damage until the end of the round? Or don't roll melee until the end of the round?
RAW, you roll it after all other characters without a weapon with the Slow Weapon Quality have rolled their
attacks for the Round, which is not strictly at the end of the Round. This is clumsy, but it works. Note also that
the extended set of rules found in the Fast Weapon Quality are also removed from Slow, meaning that there is
not an explicit rule to handle multiple Slow weapons in a single combat. However, the rule under Fast still
stands, so I suggest using that. I.e.: 'Two opponents with Slow weapons fight in Initiative order (relative to each
other) at the end of the Round'.
Q: Do the Fast and Slow Qualities separate your Action from your Move (i.e., you use your Action to attack in
the order determined by Fast or Slow, but your Move stays on your normal initiative turn)?
A: Andy Law and the current devs offer slightly different answers here. The current devs say yes and Andy says no
(sort of). For sanity's sake, you might consider ignoring both answers and just take the Action and Move together, in the
order determined by Fast or Slow. For an official answer, see below:
Option 1 (current devs): You attack on your modified Initiative turn but must Move on your standard Initiative. This
may affect weapons with, for example, the Tiring and Impact Qualities.
This question has been discussed on the Ratcatcher Discord, but I thought I'd pose this to you all. Under the combat
rules, there's no mention whether or not Move and Action can be separated from each other on your Turn, although it's
imp lied with the Fast/Slow rules. Characters with a Fast weapon may attack at any point in the Initiative order, while a
character with a S low weapon always attacks last regardless of Initiative order. Does this mean that their Action is
separate from their Move? Not-so-hypothetical scenario:
- Laurice rolls first in the Initiative order, but she wields a Warhammer - which has the Slow Flaw (strikes last).
- Waldemar rolls last in the Initiative order, but he wields a Great Axe - which has the Tiring Flaw (negates Impact
unless Charging).
So:
A) If Move is separate from Action, then Laurice charges Into combat against Waldemar, but he gets to strike first.
Since his weapon is Tiring and he wasn't able to Charge, then he no longer gains the benefit of the Impact Quality.
B) However, if the Turn is a single entity such that Move and Action should b e taken at the same time, then Waldemar
is able to charge at Laurice, gaining Impact and a much stronger blow.
Which is the intended interpretation: A or B?
For the weapon order, I think A makes more sense. Laurice would have the drop on Waldemar in terms of making the
manoeuvre, because the slow flaw only applies to the strike.
Option 2 (Andy Law): Only the attack resolution occurs after everyone else, and your Move and Action are declared
and initiated on your turn as normal. This means that you may Engage your opponent on your turn, even though you
don't roll for the attack itself until after everyone else. This is an important distinction. It allows you to Charge or move to
attack without easy interruption (and therefore take advantage of weapons with the Impact Quality and the Tiring and
Slow Flaws) because it means that your opponent must Disengage if they want to move out of the way before your
strike lands. You're less likely to waste your Action as a result.
1) On your Initiative, you take your Turn (page 156).

2) You have 1 Move and 1 Action (page 157).
3) You spend your Move to Charge - or just move up to your opponent (page 165).
4) You now spend your Action to make an attack.
5) As your opponent is the target of a melee attack, your opponent is now Engaged (page 159).
6) If your weapon has the Slow Weapon Quality, it strikes last in the Round.
Note: Your Action isn't last in the round, just the attack coming from your Action because of the Slow Weapon Quality.
So, even if the weapon you use has the Slow Weapon Quality, and you strike last in the Round, you still Engage an
opponent at the point when you spend your Action.
And would the opponent similarly be able to move away during their Move if it is after the attackers move but before the
attack action?
Yes, they could, but they would count as Engaged, and that brings penalties for moving out of combat, as detailed in
Disengaging on page 165.
Taking Your Turn

New Action: Hold
During your turn, you may choose to hold your action. If you do so, you may Move as normal, but may not take
an Action this Round. Instead, you may state what you intend to do when a certain condition is met. So, for
example, you may state that you intend to fire your Crossbow at the first Cultist to walk into the room, use your
Intimidate Skill on the next bandit to move, or that you intend to cast the Light spell as soon as the room is
plunged into darkness. When using this action, you effectively interrupt your opponent's turn, and your Action is
resolved before any other. If there is a conflict between several hold actions, resolve them in the usual initiative
order. Due to the quick and hurried nature of your Action, any Skill Tests are made at a -10 penalty.
It is intended that you may break your move up as you wish, la king actions before, alter, or during your
movement To accommodate the sort of situation you're worried about, the following Action should be added to
your games of WFRP. We hope to include this option in a future release. New Action, Hold During your tum,
you may choose to Hold your action. If you do so. you may move as normal, but may not take an action this
round. Instead, you may slate what you intend to do when a certain condition is met. So. for example, you may
state that you intend to fire your Crossbow at the first cultist to walk into the room, use your Intimidate Skill on
the next bandit to move, or that you intend to cast the Light spell as soon as the room is plunged into darkness.
When using this action, you effectively interrupt your opponents turn, and your actions resolved before any
other. If there is a conflict between several held actions, resolve them in the usual initiative order. Due to the
quick and hurried nature of your action any Skill Tests are made at a -10 penalty.
Attacking
Q1: Is the definition of Opposed Melee that you test Melee vs Melee only?
Q2: I know that it is possible to oppose an incoming attack with other skills than your Melee Skill (page
159), for example, Melee vs Dodge, but would that count as an Opposed Melee Test?
Q3: The reason I'm asking is that I've found insights that an Opposed Strength Test is just Strength vs
Strength, and not Strength vs Skill, so might this mean that an Opposed Melee Test is also just Melee
vs Melee?
Q4: At last, I'll bring the Reversal Talent into the mix. It states that you can use this Talent when winning
an Opposed Melee Test.
a) Would you say that dodging as a way of opposing the incoming attack would fill the requirements for
using the Talent?
b) Or only while defending with a weapon and your Melee Skill?
A1: Yes.
A2: Only Melee v Melee.
A3: Yes
A4a: No. (But Andy suggests a house rule. See below.)
A4b: Yes
This is potentially a long and complicated question to answer, largely because it strikes to the core of how the
first drafts of the core rules were built and how later drafts changed things. And, if I need to cover that, I may do
so in a later answer. But, I think the core of this question is simple enough to answer straight without a great
deal of explanation. However, the answers I provide may spur further questions and that's where the essays
may need to be deployed. We'll see… That aside, let's get to the answers. Given this is a large question, I'll
break it down and answer it bit by bit:
Is the definition of Opposed Melee that you test Melee vs Melee only?
Yes
The reason I'm asking is that I've found insights that an Opposed Strength Test is just Strength vs Strength, and not
Strength vs Skill, so might this mean that an Opposed Melee Test is also just Melee vs Melee?
Again, yes.
At last, I'll bring the Reversal Talent into the mix. It states that you can use this Talent when winning an Opposed
Melee Test.
1) Would you say that dodging as a way of opposing the incoming attack would fill the requirements for using the
Talent?
2) Or only while defending with a weapon and your Melee Skill?
Let's look at the Text in question.
WFRP4, p143, 'Reversal':
If you win an Opposed Melee Test, instead of gaining +1 Advantage, you may take all your opponent’s Current
Advantage.
So, it's definitely an Opposed Melee Test, which is Melee vs Melee and nothing else. The only way around this
would be to have a special rule that said something like:
'You may use the Dodge Skill to replace Melee in Opposed Melee Tests.'
So…
1) No.
2) Yes.
Ranged Combat
Ranged Combat and Advantage
Q: If you fail to hit with a Ranged attack or magic missile, does this count as opposed, making you lose
all your Advantage?
A: No. But if you didn't gain any Advantage that turn, you lose 1 Advantage from your total, as usual.
When you fail an Opposed Test in combat you lose your Advantage. What happens if you fail a ranged or magic Test?
Does it still count as opposed for purposes of losing Advantage if your opponent could have opposed, but didn't
need to?
No. Instead, as you have done nothing to gain Advantage that Round (presumably), you lose 1 Advantage, as
explained on p164 under 'Losing Advantage'.
Failed Ranged attacks and Opposed Tests
Q: If you roll -1SLs on a Ranged attack, but the defender rolls -2SLs, do you still hit?
A: No. As per the rulebook, Ranged attacks are unique in that the attack must be successful first. A poor Dodge
roll won't make a failed Ranged Test hit. A successful defence may further reduce the outcome to a potential
miss, and the net SLs are used to calculate damage.
Note that the intent was for this also to apply to Dispelling, so that you can't make a failed Casting Test hit
by rolling worse than your attacker to defend. This didn't make it into the RAW, however. See Dispelling for
more information.
But, hey, it'll do. A Ranged shot specifically misses if the Test fails. That's the RAW. It doesn't matter what an
opponent may or may not roll in opposition. The Magic rules work differently, though. That's the RAW, but not
the RAI, where I made an edit, but it never hit the final book. So, Ranged shots need to succeed, magic does
not.
Andy Law#7502
So for a ranged attack: Attacker rolls -1 SL, defender with a shield rolls -2 SL : even though the outcome of the
opposed test is a win for the attacker with +1 SL, this a miss?
FBV#2439
Yes.
Andy Law#7502
would it be sensible to treat counterspelling the same way

FBV#2439
It was my intention, but it is not what the rulebook says.

Andy Law#7502
Got it
FBV#2439
Ranged attack success or fail. you hit or you dont. What happen if you hit and the opposite roll pass a dogde
test?
danil0#8120
Exactly as you'd expect, the final SL is lowered to a potential miss.

Update: In addition, Andy Law has clarified that he had initially intended that failed Dodge or Melee Tests (if
using a shield) wouldn't increase the damage done by a Ranged attack either.
Now we're talking about RAI. That was always supposed to be the case (or, at least, a variation of that). It was
once part of the bullets discussing Ranged Combat on page 160-161. However, I presume it was removed
because it was unlike other opposed combat situations.
Opposing Ranged attacks at Point Blank with Melee
Q: Why can you only dodge Ranged attacks at point blank range?
A: Because it was fast and is likely accurate. It also adds balance. There would have been a special Talent for
Elves to dodge projectiles at greater range further down the line.
Loosely, the following influenced the decision.

1) It's faster at the table (I know, I know, that's a rubbish reason, but it did form part of the thinking).
2) In the middle of hot, grunting, hack-and-slash melee, with clouds of smoke, magic, dust, trees, or what-have-
you, people just don't see arrows, bolts, or anything similar coming their way unless they are in very close
proximity to the attacker and can literally see the shot being line up. Or so YouTube told me. Apparently, the
only way to realistically dodge arrows coming at kill-speed is to be standing there ready, waiting, prepared to
dodge (or similar) without doing much of anything else. And it usually takes practice and preferably someone
not trying to actually kill you. Then it's pretty feasible, but that circumstance was a fringe enough case not to
cover in the core rules of a game that was supposed to be gritty, so it was left for later GM advice and advanced
ranged combat rules.
3) Having no ranged dodges also left space for adding a Talent later for PCs (likely Elves) to do the unlikely
arrow-grabbing, bullet-dodging, bolt-parrying nonsense that we all love in fantasy - the less grounded stuff. That
was always planned as an upcoming extra that would look 'special' and cover the hole.
4) It also gave ranged weapons a place at the table, and justified taking those skills.
6) And helped balance some of the absurdities of Advantage with a method of stopping Advantage trains in
their tracks.
7) Oh, and all the boring bits about maths, probabilities, damage outputs, and yaaaaawwwnnnnn…
Damage of ranged attacks

Q: Does the difference in SLs count when working out damage, or just the rolled SLs of the attacker?
A: Opposed SL (difference in SL between attacker and defender)
It's the Opposed.

Using Ranged weapons while unskilled

Q: If using a Ranged weapon unskilled, do you still take advantage of the Ammunition Qualities (as
distinct from Weapon Qualities)?
A: Yes. Ammunition Qualities are separate from Weapon Qualities and do not require training.
Andy Law#7502 When you use a crossbow without the skill, you do not get the weapon qualities but you get
the flaws. Do you still get the ammunition qualities or do they count as part of the weapon, meaning you would
not get the crossbow's impale?
Jay Dako#7395
As intended, the ammo qualities are separate from the weapon qualities, so they still apply. Lucky you caught
me on.
Increased damage when targeting crowds
Q: How did the planned fix for the issue of increased damage when targeting crowds work?
A: It didn’t. It was marked to be revisted.
@Paid â bod yn dwp asks:
How did the planned fix for the issue of increased damage when targeting crowds work?
It didn't. It hadn't been finalised. As I mentioned in this answer:
This outcome was a known issue that I had marked to revisit as it wasn't part of the original design.
So it was marked to be revisited, but I stopped being responsible for the rules before I did that. As I mentioned
in this post: https://discord.com/channels/667161573499863040/842527264948224000/843093122061172797
The 'Fix It In Post' file was a collection of broken or opaque rules in the core rule book that needed to be fixed. I
intended to address them all in the book that's now called Archives of the Empire. I was down to write an optional
rules update in that book that fixed all the irregularities. ... But, I resigned before that came to pass, leaving us with
what we have today.
So, in short, I was going to fix this, but left before I did so.
Point Blank
Q: When attacked at Point Blank Range, can you use Melee Skills to oppose the attack even if you do
not have a shield? The text on p. 160 states 'Ranged attacks cannot be opposed with Melee Skills
unless you have a large enough shield, or if they are at Point Blank range…'
A: No. In this instance, use of Melee Skills requires a shield (i.e., you are blocking the ranged attack with your
shield). You cannot parry bullets or arrows with a sword, for example. You may use Dodge, however.
This is an artefact from an earlier version of the rules were Dodge was included under an umbrella term 'Melee
Skills', which were Skills that had special use in Close Combat. In the original version of these rules, the Melee
Skill, as presented in the WFRP rulebook, did not exist. So, the sentence said:
1) Ranged attacks cannot be opposed with skills with specific use for close combat (Melee Skills) unless...
2) ...you have a large enough shield (see the shield rules for an explanation on that) or...
3) ...if you are at Point Blank Range, where you can also use the Dodge Skill (an additional option to the use of
a shield, should you prefer).
This paragraph was marked by me as requiring an edit to match the newest rules. However, my suggested edit
was never installed. For reasons. Fortunately, the RAW are still clear enough, just, to be understood for their
intention. Just. But let me mark the intention below, and I'll reword it a little to help avoid ambiguity, and also tap
in another rule that's often misunderstood. You cannot use the Melee Skill to Oppose Ranged attacks unless
you have a large enough shield (p. 298). If you use that shield, you can Oppose the incoming Ranged attack if
the Test to hit you was successful. If you are at Point Blank Range, you may instead use the Dodge Skill to
Oppose the incoming Ranged attack; again, only if the Test to hit you was successful. This means, somewhat
obviously, that a sword cannot act like a lightsaber and parry bullets at Point Blank Range (or any other Range).
Does that need reworded at all? Just tapped it out quickly around eating a snack.
Q: Why is Point Blank calculated as a percentage?
A: This was based on an early version of the rules. Andy was going to replace it with a fixed distance in all
cases, but the book was signed off before he could.
This one was a mistake. Pure and simple. To keep building ranged weapons and range bands quick during
development, I made all ranges have a single number with percentages used to determine range bands. It was
simple and effective and became the core rule after it was tested. However, through testing, the PBR issue
popped up more than once, and I drafted an alternative that made PBR a fixed number regardless of the
weapon used. It was reductive, and not reflective of such things as Size, weapon capability, or similar, but it was
intuitive and worked very well in practice, especially at the digital table, so I was happy with it. However, the
rules went gold before I installed that rule, and the text was all sent to layout. So, I sat on the rule, and hoped I'd
have a chance to install it later, but, given it was a tiny issue, it wasn't a priority. There were much deeper
problems in the core text that needed to be addressed, and I headed out to fix them first when I was given the
opportunity. So, the PBR issue fell by the wayside.
Q: What would fixed Point Blank Range have been?
A: 4 yards.
Paid â bod yn dwp#4390 asks:
What was the fixed Point Blank range you settled on, but never published?
As I recall, it was 4 yards (2 squares).
Ranged attacks and No Opposition
Q: If you refuse to oppose a Ranged attack when you can (either with a shield or using Dodge if at point
blank), do you count as Helpless under the No Opposition rule?
A: No. No Opposition is a suggested tool for GMs when players don't want to engage in Opposed Melee Tests.
It doesn't usually apply to Ranged attacks at all (see the description of Helpless Targets on p.162). This is a
contradiction to earlier rules clarifications but means having a shield or knowing Dodge gives you a choice to
defend or not. In the case of Melee, No Opposition can apply, but is only a suggestion, not a hard rule.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Using the RAW, you never count as Helpless against Ranged Attacks. It's
as simple as that. It is stated in the rules. Helpless only applies to Melee Combat. However, if a target has the
Unconscious Condition, then there is a benefit for Ranged Attacks, as stated on page 169. The rules state that
Ranged Combat gains the Unconscious bonuses for targetting an unconscious target when the 'shooter is at
Point Blank range' of the attacker. But, the target needs an Unconscious Condition for that rule to activate, and,
as mentioned, Helpless Targets never activates for Ranged Combat. So now we can answer the question
directly, and perhaps controversially:
Do characters count as Helpless for the No Opposition rule if they choose not to oppose a Ranged attack from longer
than PB range?
No, because, using the RAW, No Opposition does not apply to Ranged Attacks. Further to this, if you are using
the RAW, No Opposition is in the 'General Advice' section of 'The Gamemaster chapter, not in the rules, so is
not a rule; instead, it is a piece of advice for GMs to deploy if they so wish. So, at best, it is an Optional Rule,
not an actual rule.
Criticals while Opposing Ranged Attack
Q: What happens when a shield crits in defense against a ranged attack? What about with long reach
weapons like the pike?
A: Shields do nothing as not in Melee. Weapons with long reach crit as normal.
Shield: Nothing, as it's not in melee.

Reach: RAW, a Critical is scored as normal.
Opposing Blast Weapon

Q: Can you oppose a Blast Weapon attack if you aren't the primary target (i.e., if you are next to them
but still within the blast's range)?
A: Not usually, no. It's usually an automatic hit. Only the primary target may oppose it, if that would usually be
possible. However, the GM may allow secondary targets to use a Shield if they can see the attack coming in
rare circumstances. Additionally, you may choose to re-roll the Hit Location for each additional target, if you
want to.
I understand that it takes a successful Ranged test to hit a target point with a Blast weapon, but Blast says that
everyone within (Rating) yards of that target point takes SL+Weapon Damage. It doesn't say that everyone
within that Area of Effect is targeted by the weapon, just that they take damage. Does that mean that people hit
in the area of effect of a Blast weapon can't oppose it and are automatically hit?
Short answer - yes, they are all automatically hit by the Blast {one of the few cases in which I sometimes re-roll
hit locations randomly for different folks as well, ymmv).
Slightly longer answer — in most cases, you cannot oppose a Ranged Attack - all but the rnost outlier Blast
weapons are Ranged - so yeah, no opposing, auto hit, sucks to be you; however, this is a very rare instance
when a Player could make an argument that if they - say, had a big shield ready and the attacker in question
lobbed a bomb at them - they could crouch behind it. This is the equivalent of a modified Dodge, but I'd be
careful about being too lenient with this, or you'd swiftly get arguments about how “oh, I see him going to throw
and I leap behind the wall”, e.g. everybody will argue they can Dodge / oppose - which is certainly not the
intention here. Explosives are very dangerous, both to targets and to wielders (a fumble and it blows up right in
your hand!)
Official information given by TS Luikart (C7) via email
Combat Difficulty
Pistols, Engaged and Close Combat
Q: When attacking with a weapon that has the Pistol quality while Engaged, do you benefit from the
ranged combat modifiers (i.e. +40 for Point Blank)?
A: No, because it counts as a close combat attack rather than a Ranged attack.
Also, you don't get the Ranged Combat bonus if using it in Close Combat. No +40 for you!
Wintermute#3030 Regarding the pistol quality: it doesn’t allow you to make a ‘ranged attack while engaged,’ it
says ‘You can use this weapon to attack in Close Combat.’ It could certainly be clearer, but it means that you’re
making a Close Combat attack and therefore use the melee modifiers, not ranged ones.
Q: If you oppose a Ranged attack when your opponent is beyond Point Blank and wasn't Engaged with
you before shooting, do you count as Engaged afterwards?
A: If you Dodge, you are not Engaged. If you use Melee to oppose the Test, then arguably you make yourself
Engaged in doing so (as opposed to simply jumping out of the way).
QUESTION 1
Will I still get the point Blank range bonus to ranged attacks against enemies engaged with me into melee? Or
do I switch ranged bonuses to attack to melee bonuses?
QUESTION 2
Me and the enemy are not engaged in close combat.
I can go adjacent to the enemy to shoot him with point blank range bonus and he can defend with any melee
skill rather than dodge my attack.
Will we count as engaged in melee combat after such an attack or I can freely go away from him?
Answer 1&2:
Though not specified, you're correct, and should use melee bonuses when using a Pistol (or other suitable
ranged weapon) while Engaged.
This is tricky. RAW, you're not engaged unless one o f you attacked the other in Melee, and that's not what has
happened (the Pistol quality lets you attack in 'Close Combat' - it does not mention it being a Melee attack).
However, I would rule that i f they defend with a Melee skill, then they are effectively knocking your gun away
with a sword, shield, or their bare hands, and thus you are now effectively Engaged. Indeed, if they have riposte
they might actually hit you and do some damage by Parrying, which definitely feels like you're now Engaged. If
they dodged, however, I would say that you're not engaged, as they're just leaping out of the way. I imagine
you're hoping to get good use out of a short ranged weapon like repeating pistols, which have a Point Blank
range of 1 yard.
Q: How is Close Combat defined in regards to the Pistol Quality? Is it the same thing as melee?
A: Yes. From Andy Leask:
It should say melee, not close combat, but rules terms were in flux during the writing, which is part of the issue
with inconsistent terminology.
Helpless clarification
Q: Can you refuse to oppose an attack to avoid adding to your opponent's SLs?
A: Yes, but you become Helpless. This means you are subject to the I Will Not Fail rule, so your attacker
essentially gets a free crit (they can choose 11, for example).
If the character is aware of the incoming shot, they would have to Dodge it (or otherwise oppose it), or count as
helpless if you use the RAW.
Size Modifiers Clarifications
Q: When you shoot at larger targets (like a Human with a Crossbow shoots at an Ogre) do you get the
+10 from attacking a larger target and the +20 for shooting at a Size (Large) target, or do you only get
one or the other?
A: You get both. The modifiers in the Combat Difficulty table are absolute; the +10 bonus from the Size rules is
relative, based on difference. So two Ogres shooting at each other each get +20, but a Human shooting at them
gets +30.
Additional clarification: The +10 modifier was originally supposed to be for Melee only, but this distinction was
removed during editing.
the reason i asked that cause i thought i saw an example either on C7's website or in here about a halfling
shooting a human and getting the +10, but that was awhile ago i believe. Oh wait yea i found the example, the
article Little but not Overlooked on C7's site
chaosbringer28#4024
Modifier in the table is absolute: I.e. flat bonus for size of target. The +10 is relative, based on difference. So,
Ogres shooting Ogres get+20. Someone smaller shooting an Ogre gets +30 (+20 & +10).
Looking at the size rules and considering the combat difficulty modifiers (p161), was it RAI that the +10% bonus to
attack from being smaller (p341) should be applied as well as the ranged attack modifiers for size on (p161)?
No. RAI, it was supposed to be a Melee modifier. However, that distinction was lost at some point during
development. When I spotted this after becoming producer for the line, I marked the rule to be revisted in a later
Bestiary.
Q: The screen implies the bonus only applies to attackers smaller than Average attacking larger foes,
rather than anyone smaller attacking anyone bigger. Is that the case?
A: RAI, the +10 was always supposed to be relatjve rather than absolute.
Also the change of wording on the GM screen for Creature Size - “If smaller then average” , suggests a different
criteria for applying the rule. Is this rule just supposed to apply to halflings & Gnomes and such, or is it relative size
difference as the core book suggests?
I can't really talk to the final text on the GM Screen as it was partway through creation when I resigned from the
WFRP production job, so I did not do the final review of that text. I will say that the core book RAW is relative,
as you suggest.
Mounted Combat
See also the Roughrider Talent.
Q: Can you use a Ride Test to force a mount to take an Action, as is suggested by the wording of the
Roughrider Talent?
A: RAW: no. RAI: yes, but it probably uses your Action.
That implies that without the Roughrider Talent, you can force a mount to take an Action if you take a Ride Test,
presumably for your Action. Sure, that’s not in the Mounted Combat Rules on page 163. But, it was always
intended to be, hence the odd-in-isolation wording of Roughrider.
Damage
Minimum Damage Clarifications
Q: On pg 159, is there any official statement on whether the following statement means that someone
who gets hit always takes 1 damage even if their TB + AP is greater than the amount of damage taken?
'If this is a 1 or less, your opponent has shrugged off the worst of the attack and only loses 1 Wound.'
The summary's formula below that paragraph makes it seem like that wouldn't be the case.
A: A successful attack always does a minimum of one Wound after soak, unless the attack had Undamaging.
Always a minimum of 1 Wound caused on a successful hit, as the rule states. It is different to WFRP1 and
WFRP2. The exception to this is Undamaging weapons, on page 299, which also reiterates and reinforces the
rule.
Q: Does the ‘minimum 1 damage’ rule apply to Falling, Magic Missiles, Ablaze Conditions, etc?
A: Yes for combat damage (including Magic Missiles), yes for Ablaze, but no for everything else.
Strictly, RAW, the rule is only applied for Damage suffered in combat, so would apply to Magic Missiles, but not
Falling or Ablaze. However, Ablaze has it's own rule stipulation marked that a minimum of one Wound is
suffered on page 168, so does follow the rule, but not for the same reason.
Moving
Moving During Combat
Difficult Terrain
Q: What were the original rules for difficult/arduous terrain? The existing rules seem very lacking (i.e.,
they appear only as modifiers in the Combat Difficulty Table on p.161).
A: Originally, difficult terrain would have reduced your Movement.
As for the rules in the core book… Yes, you're correct, the RAW is lacking here. Terrain rules were written,
aimed for the 'Moving' section, but were cut for reasons. The Talents (such as Strider) and Creature Traits (such
as, err... Swamp-strider) that referred to those rules were retained and edited. This was so when the cut rules
were reinstalled at a later date, or expanded in a different direction, then the Talents and Traits would already
be in place to receive any expanded rules. The rules themselves were super simple, as I recall (a reduction to
movement according to terrain type, mitigated by certain trappings and Talents), so their loss was not
considered to be significant at the time, especially given they were planned to be added again in some form
later.
Fleeing
Q: How do you catch up to a fleeing opponent?
A: It should be resolved, but it wasn’t. If you want a simple fix, you can count him as engaged when the attacker
catches up with the fleeing one.
@Andres asks:
How do you catch up to a fleeing opponent? If they spend their Move and Action fleeing, that's about 32 yards of
movement. If you use your own Move+Action to catch up, you have no Action to attack them with, which prevents
them from getting Engaged.
This is a hard one to answer directly. I am aware of the issue. I wanted to resolve it. But I was not in a position
where I could. So, to help mitigate the problem, I added the Pursuit rules in WFRP4, p166. This allowed for the
issue to be, at least loosely, resolved. The final version of the Pursuit rules isn't quite what I wanted, but at least
it tackles the issue to a degree. If you would prefer a fix, then we need to change the RAW. Which brings me to
Q166…
@LongShadow asks:
If you run and then sprint as your action with the intent of catching someone that is fleeing, do you count as
engaged if you catch up, but cannot attack?
RAW. You do not, as mentioned in Q165. Would I prefer it was that way?
Hmm, probably not. I'd rather just rewrite how Engaged works on WFRP4, p159, and how Disengaging works
on WFRP4 p. 165. But, for a very simple hack, your suggestion works well enough.
Running (AKA ‘Sprinting’)

Q: Is a character able to use the Run action to consume movement followed by an attack, or does run
automatically count as a sprint?
A: Run is not an Action, but a distance you may use using your Move. Sprinting is an Action that allows you to
move further.
You have a Move and an Action. A Move allows you to Walk or Run a distance as shown on the Movement
Table (page 165). Using the Athletics Skill for an Action allows you sprint a little farther as described under the
Running header.
Q: Is it possible to break your Move up to take an action (e.g., run, attack, keep running)?
A: Not RAW, but the developers suggest you can house rule this. If you allow it, another player should be able
to sacrifice the rest of their turn to get in a quick attack at the drive-by assailant.
UPDATE: See the suggested Hold Action New Action: Hold
Q: Is it intended for characters in WFRP 4E to be able to use part of their Move in a combat, then perform an
Action such as attacking, and then continue moving? For melee this doesn't really present a problem if allowed,
as hit and run seem sensible and Advantage needs to be spent to do it in most cases.
The issue comes up with ranged combat. Say you're in a town, and you have a bow and a building to hide
behind Can you pop out, shoot a shot off, then go back into an alleyway and be untargetable by opponents
down the street? Heavy cover makes sense if they just stand by the corner, by it is easy enough to run 4yds
down the alleyway and be completely hidden. With no way to ready an Action to attack when a condition is met
(i.e. I hold my Action to fire my crossbow when the archer next comes round the corner), it becomes quite hard
to kill clever ranged combatants.
A: It's certainly an argument for what bendunno is calling a hold action - but we will have to think about how to
implement such a thing. In the meantime I would say that as a very quick and dirty house rule, if a character is
in the situation, they may decide to miss their turn in order to take a quick shot at an opponent acting in this
way, with a penalty of -1 SL to hit them as they duck in and out of cover. What do you reckon Padraig?
Dave Allen (C7)
It's an old question about any kind of turn based combat system You need a hold action mechanic, which many
people have already house-ruled in. So you get away with you pop out and shoot on the first turn, they
everyone lines up shots waiting for you to stick your head up again. I'd say that solution is fairy elegant, but I
don't know if you even need the -1 SL. They have given up their turn, and won't be taking any additional
actions.
Padraig Murphy (C7)
Official information given by Dave Allen (C7) and Padraig Murphy (C7) via email
Conditions
See also the Entangle spell under Magic
@LongShadow asks:
Does 'suffer any Conditions' mean you lose Advantage only when you first acquire the Condition, or does it prevent
you from gaining any Advantage while the Condition remains in effect?
Let's look at the rule in question. WFRP4, p164, 'Losing Advantage':
If you lose an Opposed Test, suffer any Conditions, or lose any Wounds, you automatically lose all Advantage.
So, it's an if/then trigger. When an event happens, another event is triggered, and you move on. In this case,
this means...
● If you suffer one of the Conditions, you lose all Advantage, and the event is resolved.
● It does not mean...
● If you are currently suffering from any Condition, you lose all Advantage and cannot gain any more
until you are no longer suffering from any Conditions.
That being the case, you can gain Advantage when you are already suffering from Conditions. The alternative
would be extraordinarily debilitating, and not close to what the RAI was.
Stacking Conditions and Combining Difficulties

@Drangir asks:
Do the penalties from Conditions apply to Combined Difficulty rules, limiting conditions effects to -30 using core
rules?
WFRP4, p162, 'Combining Difficulties' applies to combining Difficulty modifiers only. So, 'Combining Difficulties'
only applies to modifiers to the 'Difficulty of the Test'. 'Difficulty' is one type of modifier to a Test (and I can
explain this at length if needed). But it is not the only modifier Tests receive. Many situations can cause
penalties or bonuses, and these are likely not a part of the 'Difficulty' rules. Indeed, some modifiers have
completely different rules for combining, such as WFRP4, p236, 'Limitations' describes for spells:
Further, spells providing bonuses or penalties do not stack.
Thus, generally, modifiers have no suggested maximums (but there are rules for auto success and fail, partly to
account for this). Heading over to Conditions, none of the modifiers sourced from them (WFRP4, p167-169)
change the Difficulty, they instead impose penalties to related Tests. Therefore the answer, RAW, is no,
penalties from Conditions are not limited in the same fashions as modifiers from the Difficulty of the Test.
However, also note that the core rules also allow for larger modifiers than -30 or +60, anyway.
WFRP4, p153, 'Difficulty':

GMs may choose to assign greater bonuses or penalties then those shown on the table, but such modifiers should
only be used in extreme circumstances.
Also, WFRP4, p162, 'Combining Difficulties':

...guidelines…
Bleeding
Q: If you have more than one Bleeding Condition, do you lose more than one Wound every Round?
A: Yes
if you have more than one Bleeding condition, do you lose more than one Wound every Round?
FBV#2439
Yup.
Q1: When do you roll for dying or resolving one Bleeding Condition? Is it when you reach 0 Wounds or
every Turn?
A1: RAW: if you have a Bleeding Condition, Test for sudden death every Round. But that is clearly bonkers!
RAI: The sudden death rule is only supposed to activate when you are at 0 wounds.
Q2: Do you need to reach 0 Wounds to be able to stop Bleeding without medical assistance?
A2: RAW. No. RAI. Yes.
So, let's pull up the important sections of the Bleeding Condition first, as that'll be useful.
WFRP4, p168, 'Bleeding':

Lose 1 Wound at the end of every Round, ignoring all modifiers. ... If you reach 0 Wounds, you no longer lose
Wounds and instead fall immediately unconscious (gain the Unconscious Condition). At the end of Round, you have
a 10% chance of dying per Bleeding Condition you have; so, if you had 3 Bleeding Conditions, you would die from
blood loss on a roll of 0–30. If a double is scored on this roll, your wound clots a little: lose 1 Bleeding Condition.
So...
1) Let me start with an apology here. The Bleeding Condition changed significantly in Development. When I
received the finished text for the alpha release of the game, it was clear the Bleeding rules no longer worked,
so I immediately dived in and edited the Condition back to a similar place to the original submission. However,
my edits were not correctly installed, and that left a minor issue. I should have spotted that, but didn't (I was
checking over 5K edits that day), so I'll put my hand up and claim this one is my fault. So, let me address it now.
RAW
According to the RAW, at the end of every Round, if you have a Bleeding Condition, you have a 10% chance of
dying per Bleeding Condition. So, RAW, if you have a Bleeding Condition, Test for sudden death every Round.
But that is clearly bonkers!
RAI
The sudden death rule is only supposed to activate when you are at 0 wounds. That error was spotted just after
the file was sent to print, but as it was so small, and the RAI could be inferred for the rules in the core book, it
was not added to the errata. Obviously, this doesn't still upset me several years later, and I'm over it.
<GrindsTeeth>
I posted about this on social media in a few places when I was producer, as I wanted the RAI to be clear. But,
we can make changes in this unofficial environment, so let's do that. Make the following change to the Bleeding
rules, and you're back to the RAI, such as it stood at that point. The new section is in bold.
If you have 0 Wounds at the end of Round, you have a 10% chance of dying per Bleeding Condition you have; so, if
you had 3 Bleeding Conditions, you would die from blood loss on a roll of 0–30. If a double is scored on this roll,
your wound clots a little: lose 1 Bleeding Condition.
2) EDIT!
RAW. No.
RAI. Yes.
Q: Bleeding Condition: Is it the intention of the rule that in the same End of Round you can be reduced
to 0 Wounds from bleeding, suffer immediate Unconciousness, and thus trigger the death save?
A: Yes.
Short answer: yes.

Long answer: it's complicated, but yes. But, really, the Bleeding rules should be different if we're talking about
original intentions.
As I mentioned back in Q258, the Bleeding Condition changed a lot in development. As I explained in that
answer, the rule we currently have is a patchwork of intentions.
But, no matter the origin of the Bleeding rules, the words themselves are pretty clear.
WFRP4, p168, 'Bleeding' (with the small amendment included from Q258, marked in bold):
Lose 1 Wound at the end of every Round, ignoring all modifiers. ... If you reach 0 Wounds, you no longer lose
Wounds and instead fall immediately unconscious (gain the Unconscious Condition). If you have 0 Wounds at
the end of Round, you have a 10% chance of dying per Bleeding Condition you have; so, if you had 3 Bleeding
Conditions, you would die from blood loss on a roll of 0–30. If a double is scored on this roll, your wound clots a
little: lose 1 Bleeding Condition.
So, the process at the End of Round:

1) Lose 1 Wound per Bleeding Condition
2) If you reach 0 Wounds, you gain the Unconscious Condition.
3) If you have 0 Wounds, you also test to see if you bleed out and die.
I hope that helps.
Andy Law#7502, The Rookery, 17.02.2022
Entangled
Q: Does the penalty from the Entangled Condition apply to Melee Tests?
A: Yes.
Does the penalty from the Entangled Condition apply to Melee Tests?
BadJuJu#0604
It was supposed to.

Fatigued
Fatigue and Broken
@Andres asks:
When you lose all Broken Conditions, you gain a Fatigued Condition. What's that Fatigue Condition supposed to
represent? Shock? Physical exertion from running away? Something else?
Loosely, it's the mental stress from having been completely broken, but it could be more if you wish. As the
Fatigued Condition makes clear in its opening sentence, it's not simply about physical exhaustion.
WFRP4, p169, 'Fatigued':

You are exhausted or stressed, and certainly in need of rest.
The stress on stressed here.

How Much Rest?

Stan#4208 asks:
I am unable to find any information on what constitutes a rest and a long rest. This is mostly for removing Fatigue
Conditions suffered as a result of removing Bleeding Conditions etc in combat. Is this left vague for the GM to
interpret or was there something planned but left out?
This is covered in WFRP4, p169, 'How Much Rest?'. There it's made clear that different groups will have
different preferences for what a 'Rest' means. The following sentence sums how the rules handle this, and
makes it pretty clear that Fatigue management is left firmly in the hands of individual groups and the style of
game they may wish to play.
It's up to you and your group to decide how much rest you need.
So, your assumption that it was 'left vague for the GM to interpret' is 100% accurate, with some suggestions
offered before that sentence as guidelines. However, was there something else planned here but left out the
final ruleset?
Yes. I originally wrote a section on resting and recovery that explained the ins and outs of Fatigue recovery and
more, and also integrated with the rules for Healing and Travel. Like the 'How Much Rest?' box hints, it allowed
for different styles of play, with a default 'realistic' set of recovery rules, and an 'Options: Faster Recovery'
alternative. However, this complexity was lost in development — as were the Travel rules I wrote, although
'Travel' was incorporated again and completely rewritten into a different form in 'Chapter IX: The Gamemaster',
a chapter I didn't write (although I did add some bits to it). So, as you may have guessed, the aforementioned
box on WFRP4, page 169 is the remnants of a previous, more detailed ruleset.
Stan#4208 asks:
To follow up on Q136, do you happen to still have the document regarding fatigue, rest, and how to remove these
conditions?
I do not. I no longer have any unreleased files pertaining to WFRP4 on my computers. I do have chunks of my
old WFRP AE rules (Andy Edition - as has been mentioned in several answers), but they did not include a
detailed fatigue system, so are no good here at all, not even as a jolt for my memory.
Poisoned
Q: When do you test to resist a Poisoned Condition, when exposed to the poison and again at the end
of the Round, or just at the end of the Round? And does the Test to resist the poison at the end of a
Round before or after other effects, such as Wound gain?
A: When poisoned and then again at the end of every Round. The end of Round Test is made after any other
effects (Wounds, etc) are applied.
Some confusion has recently come up in discussion on the Ratcatcher Discord regarding when to resist
Poisoned Conditions.
1) In short, do you also Test to resist when you are first Poisoned, or only at the end of each Round? RAW
suggests only at the end of each Round, but this would mean that those with the Resistance Talent would suffer
the Test penalties at least until the end of the Round when they can automatically pass the removal Test.
2) When you Test to resist at the end of the Round, does this happen before or after the Condition inflicts
Wounds? In short, is the removal Test last? There is currently some confusion about the general order of
operations for “End of Round” penalties and removal Tests (ie, Bleeding Conditions Wounds and
Unconsciousness). Clarification would be most welcome.
1) You Test to resist when you are poisoned, and then again at the end of each round. So you have a chance to
suffer no ill effects if you succeed.
2) You suffer all the ill effects, including lost wounds, and then roll to resist. Agreed about the confusion
Surprised
Q: When does the Surprised Condition resolve? After the first time you are attacked (even if
unsuccessfully) or at the end of the Round?
A: The latter. You are Surprised for one Round.
Luikart was saying the RAI was for Surprise to be removed after the first failed attempt to attack you. I wanted
to bring it to you/Andy's attention as potential Errata or maybe even an addition to the fabled Q&A. Alternatively,
if you just remove those eight words entirely, the Condition works like how (I imagine most of us) think it should
work, where you can't act at all during the Round you are Surprised
BadJuJu#0604
Yeah, it'll get clarified/fixed. RAI, I believe, is that you're surprised for the Round, as you've surmised. Certainly,
that's how we've been playing it!
Other Conditions
Q: What other Conditions were planned?
A: Afraid, Charmed, Corrupted, Diseased, Doomed, Envenomed, Frenzied, Frozen, Immobilised, Invisible,
Numbed, Paralysed, Petrified, Restrained, Silenced, Starved (though some of these appear to have been
replaced by other rules in the game).
@skyperbole asks:
Were there any other Conditions considered for inclusion in core? If so, which ones and maybe a rough idea of the
rule? For instance, a Silenced (or Muted) Condition would have been great for some sort of Silence spell.
The short answer? Yes. Many of them, and the ones WFRP4 currently has went through several different
versions and names. Indeed, they weren't even originally called Conditions - they were, as I recall, originally
called 'Statuses' or 'Status Effects'. But then I decided to include the Social Status rules. So, that changed.
The longer answer? Yes, and all manner of Conditions were considered - far too many to recall from the top of
my head (and all the WIP for WFRP4 is no longer on my PCs). The original list was really long, and I whittled
that down to about 20 or so, which I further pared down to 11, often by combining similar Conditions. The
process ended up with Ablaze, Bleeding, Blinded, Broken, Entangled, Fatigued, Poisoned, Prone, Surprised,
Stunned, and Unconscious. Late in the day, Deafened was added creating a list of 12 Conditions. The inclusion
of Deafened won back some space in both the Magic and the Critical sections of the book as it allowed me to
remove duplicated rule summaries, and space was at a premium at that point. It was also consistent with
Blinded.
Of the many Conditions cut or combined, as I recall, others included things like Afraid, Charmed, Corrupted,
Diseased, Doomed, Envenomed, Frenzied, Frozen, Immobilised, Invisible, Numbed, Paralysed, Petrified,
Restrained, Silenced, Starved. But, I'm listing those from memory - the actual original 'Status Effect Design
Document' I wrote could have contained all manner of other things - but I no longer have a copy to check.
The plan was always to leave the option open to add to the list as required by other writers moving forwards.
So, need a Condition for being Drenched for some rain rules? Sure, we can do that. But that was never my
preference if such could be avoided.
Fate & Resilience

Fate and Fortune
Q: If you use up a point of Fate or Resilience, does that immediately reset the maximum Fortune and
Resolve?
A: Yes.
@skyperbole asks:
If you use up a point of Fate or Resilience, does that immediately reset the maximum Fortune or Resolve
respectively, thus potentially causing you to lose 1 of those secondary points (assuming you have more than
the new total, obviously)?
Yes. If you have more Fortune or Resolve points than your Fate or Resilience total plus Talents allow, you lose
1 point. The RAW states that the upper limit of your Fortune and Resolve pools are directly limited by your
current Fate and Resilience.
WFRP4, p170:
Fate is directly related to your Fortune points. ... Fate determines how many Fortune points you can have.
WFRP4, p171
Like Fate, Resilience is directly linked to a pool of points, this time called Resolve. ... Resilience determines your
upper limit of Resolve points…
That leads to the next part of your questions.
Or do you provide a buffer time, say beginning of next session?
So the answer here is no as no buffer is mentioned in the RAW. The RAW is pretty clear here. You can't have
more Fortune than Fate (without Talents) as Fate is directly linked to Fortune and tells you how many points
you can possibly have. Equally, like Fate, Resilience sets the upper limit to Resolve. If the upper limits are
lowered, the points in the directly related pools are lowered too. However, as always, add a buffer if you prefer
for your own games.
Q: Can you spend Fortune to reroll a successful Test in order to increase your SLs?
A: No. But you can use a Dark Deal.
Especially when you take into account that Fortune Points can't be used on successful rolls. Dark Deals only for
that.
Q: Can the GM spend Fortune if making a secret roll on behalf of the player?
A: The GM should give the player the opportunity to spend the Fortune without telling them what the roll is for
(just that they have failed it).
Tell the player that their PC has failed a roll. But don't tell the player what the roll is, and do not explain if the roll
is important or not. The choice is then put in the player's hands as to whether to spend the Fortune point or not
according to the circumstances.
Q: If you use 'I Will Not Fail', you just get 1 SL since you don't roll, but do you add the SL based on the
number you pick?
A: You can pick a number that gives the most favourable result, with a minimum of +1 SL. (11 will give the best
result if using standard SLs. Using Fast SLs, the highest double under your Skill will.)
CrispyDM#6136 - you always win Opposed Tests by AT LEAST 1 SL. You don't only get 1 SL. So if you can
choose a number that would give you a more favourable result, go for it.
Q: How many Fortune Points can you spend per Test? I assume you can use each 'option' once? i.e.
you can reroll a failed Test, then you can add +1SL to a Test, but you can't use X Fortune Points to add
+XSLs, right?
A: Conflicting answers. Go with your gut.
RAW, 1 at a time… So, theoretically you could reroll, then add +1 SL. No adding +6SL!
No... so, what, you can spend 3 Fortune to give yourself +3 SLs if you want?
BadJuJu#0604
Reroll? Once. Page 150.
Andy Law#7502
What about the other uses, Andy?

BadJuJu#0604
Or use Dark Deals? That's what they are for.

Andy Law#7502
@BadJuJu#0604 There is no limitation for additional SL.

Resilience and Resolve

Q: Can I use Resolve to ignore Conditions given by a Critical Wound for 1 Round or do I have to remove
them one by one?
A: Modifiers aren’t Conditions, so one by one.
WFRP4, p171, 'Spending Resolve'
- Ignore all modifiers from all Critical Wounds until the beginning of the next Round.
- Remove one Condition; if you removed the Prone Condition, regain 1 Wound as your surge to your feet.
So, can you use Resolve points to ignore Conditions given by a Critical Wound for 1 Round?
No, you cannot. It seems you are trying to mix the two rules, there.
The first rule allows you to ignore negative modifiers gained from a Critical Wound. That means any modifier
marked in the rules for the Critical Wound in question. It has nothing to do with Conditions. The second rule
allows you to remove Conditions. Not for a Round. Permanently. And, yes, one-by-one.
Q: Can you resolve any Condition with a Resolve Point (even Blinded or Bleeding)?
A: Yes. But if the cause of the Condition is not itself resolved (e.g., you're still in complete darkness), the
Conditions may come back next turn.
Conditions can be removed with Resolve. So, in your example where you are hit with a stun, you can spend a
Resolve and ignore that Stunned Condition at the cost of 1 Resolve point. Or, if you wish, you could spend 4
Resolve to lose all of those 4 Bleeding Conditions you mentioned (erm, unlikely). However, that doesn't stop
you from gaining more Conditions later. So, to address your 'common sense' application, if you were in
darkness and given 3 Blinded Conditions by the GM, and then you spent a Resolve to remove 1, you would
only have 2 Blinded Conditions for your Turn, as the RAW allows you to lose 1 of those Conditions when you
spend your Resolve point. However, the 3 Blinded Conditions for the environment would be back in place by
your next turn assuming you didn't move somewhere brighter. After all, it's still just as dark. And, yes, this
means Elves are often knocked down and out while the other species carry on. Sucks to be an Elf. It also
means you need to ensure the Resolve economy flows fairly consistently. So, sort your Motivations out.
Q: When spending Resolve to ignore the effects of Psychology, do you still make the Cool Tests for
Fear and Terror for the duration (i.e., to determine whether Fear and Terror apply once the Resolve point
has worn off)?
A: No. Spending Resolve overcomes that need. You should get two full Turns without needing to make any
Psychology Tests. You will then resume Psychology Tests as normal.
See Psychology clarifications for more information.
Q: After you spend Resolve to become immune to Psychology until the end of the next Round but before that
effect ends, do you still roll Cool to overcome Fear and Terror to potentially be free of either after the immunity
ends?
A: No, spending resolve overcomes that need.
It puts it on hold. When the Resolve effect wears off, you will need to continue testing to resist Fear.
Injury
Wounds, Critical Wounds and Death
Q: What happens if a character falls to 0 Strength, such as from Critical Wounds?
A: They are prone and cannot move, essentially. They are not dead, however.
He is prone and therefore can’t move, essentially. He is not dead.

Q: When is a Critical Wound considered to have been ‘removed’? Do Critical Wounds like cosmetic
scars need to be treated with the Heal skill in order to be considered removed?
A: When the effect attached to it is removed or resolved.
To be clear, you count as 'having' the Critical Wound if you still have effect. So if it's something like a Stunned
Condition, once that's gone, the Critical Wound is gone.
Q: Does the -20 modifier to Critical Table results only come into play once you’re out of Wounds?
A: Yes.
Because you don't get the -20 penalty on a rolled crit, UNLESS it takes you negative, but not negative enough?
Knight#9480
So, you roll a crit. Resolve that crit (no modification to the table, roll as is, because that's the rule for rolled
crits). Then apply damage. If damage takes you to negative wounds, but less than TB, then apply -20 on the crit
roll. Is that what you mean?
Is that how it works, @Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358?

Knight#9480
How I posted there, aye.

Q: The wound damage for a 100 is listed as 'Death'. Since you ignore all effects but the extra Wounds
when you use Critical Deflection, does this mean can't deflect a roll of 100 on a critical table?
A: No. 'Death' counts as an effect, even though it's in the Extra Wounds column. You simply take no extra
Wounds if you deflect Death.
I think it's just bad templating? I suspect Andy Law#7502's answer would be "no wounds listed, so no wounds
taken"
BadJuJu#0604
You suspect correctly.

Q1: What ‘immediate’ means in Critical Wound rules

A2: Andy suggests to immediately determine the Critical Wound, but apply it after Opposed Test is resolved.
Q2: Shouldn’t the effect of the Critical Wound be resolved at instant?
A2: No, that would be needlessly complicated.
Q3: What if it the 100 resulting death of the attacker is rolled by the defender?
A3: Resolve Test normally and apply the death after it.
Q4: Do you still resolve the Opposed Test so the attacker can still score a hit despite receiving the
killing blow?
A4: Yes
@Quor asks:
1) How to interpret then the 'immediate' in the 'If you score a Critical, your opponent receives an immediate Critical
Wound as your weapon strikes true.'?
I suggest you immediately determine the Critical Wound, but that its effects are not suffered until after the
Opposed Test is resolved.
2) Shouldn’t the effect of the Critical Wound be resolved at instant?
Really, no. That was never the intention. The Critical Wound is determined immediately, but don't apply its
effects until the Opposed Test at hand is finished. The alternative is needlessly complicated.
3) What if it the 100 resulting death of the attacker is rolled by the defender?
Resolve the Opposed Test and then see what happened to each combatant (hint, at least one died).
4) Do you still resolve the Opposed Test so the attacker can still score a hit despite receiving the killing blow?
Yes. That was always the intention.

Q: Does Opposed Test still apply if character A score a Deadly Crit while losing Opposed Test.
A: Yes
Doesn't this line of thought mean that in a scenario where character A loses the opposed melee test but scores
a critical that kills or otherwise incapacitates character B, that character B does not have the ability to damage
character A? If a critical is resolved immediately, as per the rules, then its results would take precedence over
the results of the greater opposed test at large
bearjuden113#2327
You have already rolled the Test though, so it's results will also apply.
Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358 (The Rookery, 29.12.2021)
Q1: Does a Critical Wound affect an already rolled attack resolution?

A1: No. All results of Opposed Tests are applied after the Opposed Test is completed.
Q2: If one side (or both) is wounded with the Critical Hit, does that take away Advantage in this attack.
Q2: No, advantage is lost after this attack.
Q3: What if the defender scores a Critical that causes a Condition with the penalties to the attacker’s
Melee?
A3: The Conditions are applied after the Opposed Test is completed.
@Quor asks:
Rule question. A basic one, but you have surprised me before with your rulings.
1) Does a Critical Wound affect an already rolled attack resolution?
No. All results of Opposed Tests are applied after the Opposed Test is completed.
2) As an example, if one side (or both) is wounded with the Critical Hit, does that take away Advantage, thus will it
change the SL of the ongoing Test where the Critical was rolled? I assume it does not, and both Critical and Damage
from the normal attack are resolved simultaneously, but I am not sure.
No. Advantage is recalculated after the Opposed Test is completed.
3) What if the defender scores a Critical that causes a Condition with the penalties to the attacker’s Melee? Are they
considered in the same Opposed Test.
No. The Conditions are applied after the Opposed Test is completed.
Q: If I score rolled Critical Hit and the damage from that Test make enemy goes under 0 Wounds would
that means two Criticals for him?
A: Yes
@skyperboke asks:
@Andy Law (he/him) Somehow I don’t think this one has come up previously, at least not that I’ve seen, and we;ve
been debating it in light of previous answers here. Let’s say I roll an 11 when attacking my target, thus scoring a
Critical, and I also win the Opposed Test. The Critical causes 4 Wounds, taking the target down to 2 Wounds. Then,
after the Opposed Test is resolved, the target takes another 6 Wounds, so definitely into ‘negative’ Wounds. Does the
Opposed result cause a second Critical from going below 0? Or is this another iteration a Crit can’t lead to a second
Crit?
In this situation there would be two crits: the rolled one, which is applied immediately, then you resolve the
Opposed Test, apply damage, which results in a crit. I don't know if it's been asked per se, but I think it's implicit
in one of the other UfaQ answers.
Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358 (29.12.21 The Rookery)
Q: What are "modifiers from Critical Wounds" exactly?

A: Injuries.
@Robak asks:
What are "modifiers from all Critical Wounds"? Critical Wounds don't give plain modifiers, they give Conditions
and/or Injuries. If Conditions are different thing than modifiers, shouldn't Injuries be treated in the same way?
This time we are skirting close to RAI over RAW here as the layout choices impacted how the rules link, and
some sections here were edited heavily after my submission.
The 'Critical Tables' have explanatory text attached to explain the effects of the 'Critical Wounds' they cause as
a selection of sub-headers starting with 'Broken Bones' and 'Torn Muscles' (WFRP4, p179), and ending with
Amputated Body Parts (which was shortened to 'Amputated Parts' in the final version presented in WFRP4,
p180). So, all those 'Additional Effects', those 'Injuries', are a part of the Critical Tables rule section (or, at least,
they should be), whereas the 'Conditions' are their own block of rules found earlier in the book starting on p167,
and have a discrete rule for how they interact with Resolve. So, the Injuries are a part of the Critical Wound
rules, and thus their modifiers are ignored if you spend a Resolve point.
Now, should this be clearer? Yes, and it originally was. The 'Critical Wounds' rule on WFRP4 p172 used to
directly reference Conditions as being attached to some Critical Wounds, not as a part of their modifiers, but
that distinction was removed at some point, which had the knock-on effect of muddying what 'Critical Wound'
meant.
Andy's alternate Critical Wounds system

Q: Andy previously hinted there was an alternate Critical Wounds system. What was it?
A: Very briefly, the tens digit of the Critical Hit would have determined the Critical Wound taken. So a a roll of 22
would trigger a +2 Critical Wound. You then reroll the d100 and add the SLs to the total Wounds taken (this
replaces the 'Wounds' column), reversing this result to get the Hit Location. If you went below zero Wounds, this
would also increase the severity of the Critical Wound taken (up to a maximum of +15 Wounds). This would
have worked with the Fast SLs system.
The Critical Wound system I was building is based around the one I've used for years for d100 games. +1 - +15
Critical Wounds reminiscent of WFRP1/2, but broadened. Further, if you scored a Critical Hit (i.e.: a double in
combat), that translated straight to an appropriate Critical Wound, so a roll of 11 scored +1 Critical Wound, 22,
scored a +2 Critical Wound, and so on, up to a maximum of +8 for Critical Hits (a roll of 88, the maximum
Critical Hit roll). Obviously, dropping down below 0 Wounds is where the real bad stuff came in, up to a
maximum of a +15 Critical Wound.
Easy. Criticals 'explode'. I.e.: you reroll the 1d100 and add the new SL to the ongoing total. You reverse the new
roll for the hit location struck as normal. This roll replaces the 'Wounds' column in the Critical Tables. So, if you
rolled 22, you score a crit, take the +2 SL, then roll again, scoring, let's say 35, for an extra +3 SL, totalling +5
to be added to the Weapon Damage and SB. That's not the full rules, but it's enough to answer the question.
Exploding dice are fun.
Q: How would Critical Deflection have worked with this system?
A: There would have been no Critical Deflection.
KingClinton#1039 asks:
Could you give a little more insight into how your new critical system worked with critical deflection and hits taking
you to below zero wounds?
Another easy one. There would be no Critical Deflection at all.

Q: Does Andy use any house rules for Critical Deflection when playing RAW?
A: No, but the optional rules for Quick Armour on page 301 streamline things for NPCs.

You’ve mentioned you don’t use critical deflection when using your alternative critical hit system, but when you’re
playing the core rules do you favour a house rule for critical deflection, if so what is it?
I do not. I play it RAW. However, the optional rules on page 301, Quick Armour, are definitely worth using for
NPCs to keep things running smoothly.
Healing
Q: Is it possible to lose wounds when making the Endurance Test to recover after a sleep?
A: No
@joesmoke asks:
As a follow up to Q102, is it possible to lose wounds when making the Endurance Test to recover after a good night's
sleep? My assumption is that you can't as it's not stated as a possibility, but I've been surprised by your answers
before.
Great question. Let's look at the rule. 'Healing Wounds' in WFRP4, p181 states:
Without medical attention, you may attempt an Average (+20) Endurance Test after a good sleep once a day. You
heal Wounds equal to the SL + your Toughness Bonus. For each day you spend taking it easy, you also heal an extra
number of Wounds equal to your Toughness Bonus.
The rules here only heal Wounds, they do not cause Wounds as there is no mention of that possibility. This is
the RAI and RAW, and it compares to the rules found under the Heal skill in WFRP4, p123:
A failed Heal Test can potentially cause Wounds if your Intelligence Bonus + SL totals less than 0.
So, the Heal Skill badly applied can cause Wounds, as discussed in Q102, and this is explicitly stated. By
comparison, having a good sleep does not carry a similar potential outcome.
In short: no surprises here. This time…
Corruption
Gaining Corruption
Dark Deals
Q: Is there a limit to how many Dark Deals you can take on a single roll?
A: No. But the GM might have weird things happen nearby (see 'Encroaching Darkness' (p.182)).
Fliptop_23#5121 asks:
How many Dark Deals can you take on a single roll? Does anyone know if there is a definite answer for this?
There is no limit with the RAW (p182). All dark deals are left in the hand of individual players to resolve, in a
rare moment of complete player agency in an otherwise GM-leaning ruleset. Originally, there was extra
information on the box, 'Be Very Careful' on p184 discussing this, with a suggestion for limitations if required for
new players or for GMs seeking more control. But, that was cut for space. So, RAW, if a player wants to make a
dark deal atop another dark deal. And maybe even another. And another. The rules don't stop that. However, if I
was the GM in such a situation, I'd use the 'Options: Encroaching Darkness' suggestions (p182), and make all
manner of awful things happen in the local area. Probably. Depending upon the situation at hand and the
player's intentions.
Corrupting Influences
Q: What counts as a Mutant for the purposes of Corrupting Influences?
A: A Mutant is an overtly mutated NPC who can no longer function in society (a la the Bestiary statblock) rather
than a character with only minor mutations.
For purposes of gameplay this would mean an overt mutant enemy, such as the mutants who attack the party at
the outset of The Enemy Within or Death on the Reik, rather than any character that has picked up a mutation
and interacts with the party. Perhaps there is room to discuss what it means to be a mutant who has given
themselves over to chaos (and is therefore corrupting) as opposed to some poor soul who has developed a
mutation but is still trying to retain their sanity and place in society. 'Mutant' in this case means a person with
such severe mutation that they can no longer f unction in society, and have fled to the wilds, to be depicted by a
mutant statblock from our bestiary as opposed to an NPC with a minor mutation. Exposure counts as you
fighting them, and one roll per encounter is sufficient (so if you stab 3 mutants, just the one roll for the bunch is
fine). A PC, or NPC, with a mutation who is capable or hiding it and going about their normal lives is not a
source of corruption outside of circumstances that would very directly and physically expose you to that
mutation for example, if you keep shaking hands with someone's exposed tentacle, treat that as a minor
exposure. Equally, meeting or talking with someone with a mental mutation is certainly not enough to count as
an exposure in normal day to day life, so if you purchase some ale from a bartender with Awful Cravings, that's
fine. However. If that bartender is a trusted friend, lover, confidant, or whatever, and you start joining them in
Indulging those Awful Cravings, that is a minor exposure. Chaos is insidious. In all of this, keep in mind the box
Be Very Careful on page 184. Overuse of corruption will wreck games - it's better as an occasional risk, as
many rolls on the mutation table are effectively game enders for playable PCs.
Q: Was it always your intention for mutants to have compulsory Corruption (Minor)?
A: Yes
Was it always your intention for mutants to have compulsory Corruption (Minor), or was it an error that got left in?
Because making all Mutants cause mutation is an instant mutation spiral and death sentence for everyone who is
exposed to corruption; and also implies that all Mutants are just a source of evil and should be killed under all
circumstances, like an unavoidable plague. It seems to be somewhat lacking nuance? As if the witchhunters were
right all along and killing Mutants is always right?
...in WFRP2 the rules changed your species to Mutant when you developed a mutation. And after that, you
were over the edge of the slippery slope. More mutations just came and came and came until it was all over.
...Now, back in the WFRP2 days I resisted this black-and-white line pretty hard.
...Was the RAW intentional? Absolutely.
Was it supposed to be a plague of corruption?
Yes. Kinda. But a slow one. With limitations, as determined by the GM. […] I planned to discuss the nuances
implied by the rules in the GM Section, explaining how to use Corruption as a storytelling tool, and how Players
eventually become Mutants as they gained Corruptions.
Q: If a spell mutates you or gives you Corruption points do you lose the Corruption and mutation if you
dispel it?
A: No
@Andres asks:
If a spell mutates you or gives you Corruption points (such as Mindfire and Bolt of Change from Enemy in Shadows
Companion), do you lose the Corruption and mutation if you dispel it, possibly even after it's ended? Mindslip
(WFRP, page 253) seems to let you dispel spells that have already ended and have permanent effects.
If a Spell is cast, its effects are permanent unless the Spell specifically says otherwise. So, if a persistent Spell
is later Dispelled, and had earlier caused Damage, that Damage would not be suddenly regained or healed by
the target because the Spell was Dispelled. Equally, any suffered Corruption Points or Mutations are not lost if a
Spell inflicting them is somehow Dispelled. Unless the Spell in question says otherwise, that is.
Q: Does Mental Corruption replace the old Insanity rules?
A: No, it replaces 1e's Disability rules. There currently are no Insanity rules (although Andy Law did draft them,
they were never commissioned).
This one is easy. I was not requested to write them. So, I didn’t. I had an entire treatment ready, and had a
variety of Talents to support those rules - Strong-minded and War Weary are the first two that come to mind –
but these were not needed. Obviously, it’s worth noting that there are Mental Mutations in WFRP4, but they are
not, at all, a replacement for, or a representation of, mental health. They are exactly what they are described as
and nothing more: mutations made manifest in the mind. Anyone trying to use the Mental Mutations as a
substitute for mental health are straying far from what the rules were intended to represent. As a single point of
reference, the mental corruption rules are akin to the Disability rules from WFRP1 (page 138), not the Insanity
rules (page 83).
Disease and Infection

Symptoms
Q: Wounded says 'Every day, take an Easy (+20) Endurance Test or gain a Festering Wound if you do
not already have one'. Does this mean it's an Easy (+40) or an Average (+20) check?
A: It should be Average (+20).
It should be Average (+20).
Official information given by Tracey Bourke (C7) via email
Psychology
See also Metacurrency Clarifications
Psychology at character creation

Q: Previously, the devs suggested you could buy extra Psychologies at character creation (in addition
to the optional ones listed in the Bestiary). How would that work?
A: As for the rules that were cut: loosely, page 311 shows you what Psychologies all the PC species started
with as an option. In addition, you can take the following:
Humans: Choose up to 2 more Prejudices for +20 XP each. You can also take a single Hatred or Animosity to
support your background, but gain no XP for this.
Dwarfs: Choose up to 3 more Prejudices for +10 XP each. And 1 Hatred for 10 XP. Animosity (Elves) is an
optional free extra (but only if there are no Elves in the party). Can take 1 extra Hatred to support your
background, but gain no XP for this.
Elves: Choose extra Prejudices (no limit - sniffy Elves) and another Animosity, all to support your background,
but gain no XP.
Halflings: Cannot choose Prejudices, Animosities, or Hatreds at all at chargen. You can add Love,
Camaraderie, or similar Custom Psychologies, but gain no XP for this.
You should be careful not to create tensions within the party (e.g., a Dwarf who hates Elves in a party with
Elves is a bad idea).
● Humans: Choose up to 2 more Prejudices for +20 XP each. They could also take a single Hatred or
Animosity to support their background, but gained no XP for this.
● Dwarfs: Choose up to 3 more Prejudices for +10 XP each. And 1 Hatred for 10 XP. Animosity (Elves)
was optional free extra (but only if there was no Elves in the party). Can take 1 extra Hatred to support
their background, but gained no XP for this.
● Elves: Could choose extra Prejudices (no limit - sniffy Elves) and another Animosity, all to support their
background, but gained no XP.
● Halflings: Could not choose Prejudices, Animosities, or Hatreds at all at chargen. They could add
Love, Camaraderie, or similar Custom Psychologies, but gained no XP for this.
The rules were optional (so GM permission required), and it was advised not to allow party tensions of any kind.
Also, this is all from memory… Lastly, if you intend to do this, I suggest having a selection of about 20 or so
samples on hand so the players can have inspiration for how to use the Psychologies.
Psychology Tests
Q: When and how often do you Test for Fear and other types of Psychology?
A: The rules here appear to have been garbled in editing. The RAI below make for a much less burdensome
approach.
RAW: At the start of each turn, you must Test against each source of Fear individually. If a Creature arrives
mid-Round, however, you also Test at the end of the Round. If you fail the Test, you are subject to Fear (or
Hatred, Animosity, etc). You can spend Resolve to ignore all Psychology, including Fear, until the end of the
next Round; this gives you two full Turns without Testing.
RAI: Make a single Psychology Test when you encounter one or more sources of Fear at the start of your Turn.
Success enables you to ignore all present sources of Fear with a Rating equal to or lower than your SLs for the
remainder of the scene. (The Test is always on your Turn and not at the start of the Round. You only Test once
for all sources of Fear.)
If you didn't roll enough SLs, you are subject to Fear from all sources with a Rating higher than your SLs. You
can spend Resolve to ignore Fear until the end of the next Round, which means you go two full Turns without
Testing.
The RAW requires the following:

- Make a Psychology Test for Fear at the beginning of the Round for every Fear-causing source you are
exposed to. (Yes, this requires many potential Psychology Tests! 10 Skeletons, 10 Fear Tests. Very messy. To
make it worse, there is also a loophole in the rules where a fear-causing source arrives mid-round and doesn't
trigger the 'beginning of the Round' condition, meaning you can only test at the 'end of the Round' as listed in
Fear (Rating) - that means you can't resist a Fear-causing arrival mid-Round. Not really ideal.)
- If a test does not score a high enough SL to pass the Fear Rating for the fear-causing source, you are subject
to fear to that source.
- You can spend a Resolve Point at any point to be immune to Psychology until the end of the next Round. This
means that you don't take any Psychology Tests as you are immune to all the Psychology traits. It also means
you are not subject to fear (or any other Psychology).
- At the end of the Round after the Resolve Point was spent, you are no longer immune, and are subject to
Psychology Tests again, so have to start rolling again.
- This usually means you get two Turns free of Psychology when you spend a Resolve Point.
Compare this to:
RAI (and I'm writing this fast from memory, so apologies if I make any errors here - an edit may come
later if someone spots a mistake)
- Make a single Psychology test when you encounter one or more Fear causing sources at the beginning of
your Turn. A success ignores all fear-causing sources with a Fear Rating of your SL and lower for the rest of the
scene.
(Note: the Psychology test doesn't come at the 'beginning of the round', but when the sources of fear arrives on
the scene; note also that only a single test is required to face off against all Fear-causing sources).
- If the test doesn't score a high enough SL to resist the highest Fear Rating, you are subject to fear to all
sources with a Fear Rating above the SL you scored on the test.
- You can spend a Resolve Point at any point to be immune to Psychology until the end of the next Round. This
means that you don't take any Psychology tests as you are immune to the Psychology traits. It also means you
are not subject to fear (or any other Psychology).
- At the end of the Round after the Resolve Point was spent, you are no longer immune, and are subject to
Psychology Tests again, so have to start rolling again.
- This usually means you get two Turns free of Psychology when you spend a Resolve point.
So, in the RAI: one test for all Fear-causing sources is taken when you encounter a Fear-causing-source, not
one test for each fear-causing source as the RAW requires. Further, any Psychology Tests are certainly not
arbitrarily taken at the beginning of the Round.
Psychology Traits
Q: If you are Immune to Psychology, can you opt to keep one or more Psychology Traits active? E.g., if
you Frenzy, which makes you Immune to Psychology, can you choose to keep your Hatred, so you can
benefit from it when attacking that particular event?
A: RAW: no. RAI: yes. Immunity to Psychology makes all Psychology effects optional. You can choose to retain
Hatred, Love, etc, if you want to.
Ah, good spot. This one still annoys me a little. I added an optional box that detailed what 'Immunity to
Psychology' meant to the CRB. It, to be concise, made all Psychology effects optional. But it never hit the final
print. V. annoying. I remember chatting with Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358 and Tyritha#3792 about it (and
all the other oddities) at the time, but there was nothing I could do. So, RAW, no Hatred for you if you are in
Frenzy. And no Love either. But, that's not the case in my games. The Grand Theogonist may have Immunity to
Psychology because of his Jade Griffon, but he still Loves Sigmar if I have anything to do with it. Or, at least, he
claims it's Sigmar…
Frenzy
Q: When you gain +1 SB due to Frenzy, do your Wounds also increase?
A: Yes. In fact, anything else based on SB will also increase. This is RAW, not RAI, however. The RAI was that
your Wounds are based on your unmodified Characteristic Bonuses.
Originally, the Wound calculation rules on page 34 included a clause making it clear that Wounds were
calculated from the Characteristic Bonuses of your unmodified Characteristics. This meant spot modifications to
Characteristic Bonuses or Characteristics did not impact your total Wounds. This original wording was
presumably simplified during development, which had unintended consequences, such as allowing Strength,
Toughness, or Willpower increases (or increases to their bonuses) to grant extra Wounds.
Insanity
See also Corruption.
Q: Why is there no system for Insanity in 4e?

A: Andy was never asked to write them (although he did develop some). Mental Corruption replaces the 1e
Disability rules instead; it should not be considered a replacement system for mental health.
This one is easy. I was not requested to write them. So, I didn’t. I had an entire treatment ready, and had a
variety of Talents to support those rules - Strong-minded and War Weary are the first two that come to mind –
but these were not needed. Obviously, it’s worth noting that there are Mental Mutations in WFRP4, but they are
not, at all, a replacement for, or a representation of, mental health. They are exactly what they are described as
and nothing more: mutations made manifest in the mind. Anyone trying to use the Mental Mutations as a
substitute for mental health are straying far from what the rules were intended to represent. As a single point of
reference, the mental corruption rules are akin to the Disability rules from WFRP1 (page 138), not the Insanity
rules (page 83).
CHAPTER 6: BETWEEN ADVENTURES

Endeavours
General Endeavours
Q: Can you use Fortune or Resilience on failed Endeavour Tests? What about Dark Deals?
A: Yes and yes. Just ensure you describe what that means narratively (e.g., taking a bribe on an Income
Endeavour).
Q: When I have Endeavour (p195) and a test is required, can fortune be spent to reroll a failed test (p170)? Can
Dark Deals (p182) be used to reroll Endeavour's failed test? Same about Resilience and “I Will not Fail”. (p171).
We assume that if Fortune points are left after a session and Endeavour is activity between sessions, then
fortune points may be spent to reroll failed tests. But we are not sure about it.
A: I think this is fine - if you actively saved some Fortune points then using them to reroll a Test associated with
an Endeavour is reasonable. I think it is also reasonable to use the Dark Deal to do so if you are will ing to take
the point of corruption, and the same goes for spending resilience. My only suggestion would b e that, if you do
make a Dark Deal or spend a point of Resilience, take a moment to describe how that might have worked
narratively. If it was on an income endeavour, for example, did you take a bribe to ensure you made enough
money? Smuggle some Warpstone as a favour to an old friend? As these events are happening outside of the
normal flow of the game's narrative it may be worth describing how and why you spent such a valuable
resource or became just a touch more corrupt while no one was around. This is just a suggestion, of course,
but it might be fun for your group.
Crafting
Q: Can you use the Crafting Endeavour to make a work of art?
A: Not without GM permission. RAW, it's for the Trade Skill. Art should therefore usually be a Dramatic or
Extended Test.
So, if you want to use the Crafting Endeavour for that, you would need GM permission (which you need for all
rules in Chapter 6, I suppose, as it's all optional, but the point stands). The Art rules are built around Extended
Tests for finished pieces and Dramatic tests for simple sketches of various forms. The GM determines what
each roll of an Extended Test for Art represents, as explained in the example on p119 and in the Extended
Tests rules on p154. If we're talking loosely, each Test usually takes a week to perform (and can be handled
around the Endeavour system if your GM prefers), and the number of SLs required to finish the work is set by
the GM according to the job at hand. So, a massive canvas work may take 100+ SLs (eek!), a small cameo
may take 10 or so. The SL scored on the final roll determines the quality of the final piece. There is a push your
luck element here, as well: so, if your final roll scored only +1 SLs for a piece requiring many weeks of work,
you may decide to keep working for another week to polish off the final product by making another test, hoping
to score a better SL. But you could Fumble, ruining it all…
Reputation
Q: What the Reputation Endeavour really do?
A: Higher Status than anyone else in your Career level so
- +10 to Intimidate
- Earn more coins
- social capital extra Standing brings (be the best blacksmith)
@Andres asks:
Does the Reputation Endeavour work as intended? At Brass 5 and Silver 5 it's useful, but otherwise it looks near
useless, given the only skill affected by different Standing (as opposed to those affected by different Status Tier) is
Intimidate.
[Yes.] Reputation offers a potential bonus of +1 or +2 Standing.
...it's covered in WFRP4 on p49-52 'Status'. In short, higher Tiers outrank lower Tiers, and higher Standing
outranks lower Standing if you have the same Tier.
So, when successfully using the Reputation Endeavour, you are now higher Status than anyone else in your
Career level. That sounds... pretty good actually.
What bonuses do you get for being higher Status than your peers?
These are covered in WFRP4, p50-51, and boil down to, as noted in the original question, a +10 bonus to
Intimidate targetting those of a lower Status. That's... fine, and easy to track.
Next up is Earning (WFRP4, p51-52). You earn more coin when you have a higher Standing.
This can happen as many times during an adventure as your GM deploys it. For some games, this will be an
extraordinary bonus. As an example, let's say you're on a barge travelling up and down the Reik, and you have
frequent skips of a week for travel, trading, upkeep of your barge, and similar. That means your Earning roll for
each of those weeks will be higher, and this could ping many, many times during a single adventure. By
comparison, if you are playing night-by-night through the warren of streets in Middenheim, this benefit may not
ping at all, because you're too busy adventuring and not 'doing your job'.
And are there any negatives?
The 'Cost of Living' on p289 and 'Keeping Up Appearances' on p51 rules makes it clear that if you don't spend
half your Status in coin on maintaining your lifestyle at least once a week, your Status will drop.
And do you gain any other benefits?
...there is much more to Status than a bit of extra coin and an Intimidation bonus.
Those systematic extras pale into insignificance beside the social capital extra Standing brings. You are,
simply put, the highest-ranked individual of your career in the local area.
So, if you are one of 10 Blacksmiths (Artisan - Silver 1), but you enact a successful Reputation Endeavour, you
are seen to be the best in town (Silver 2, or maybe 3!). Everyone comes to you first. Because you have the
Status, and folks flock to that.
At Brass 5 and Silver 5 it's useful, but otherwise it looks near useless…
You have it wrong here. At Brass 5, if you increase standing, you go to Brass 6 (or 7). At no place does the
Endeavour tell you it can increase your Status Tier.
Research
Q: What is the use of the Research Skill if the Research Endeavour relies on Lore?
A: There were going to be more involved Research rules which would've been handled in much the same way
as the Rumours on p.15 of Death on the Reik.
Jay Dako#7395 asks:

When is the research skill actually used? The Research Lore Endeavour never uses research and instead just wants a
lore check.
The rules on p128-129 are clear enough, I think. Beyond that, it's down to individual GM preference. On my
side, I intended to add a whole slew of Research Skill usages to the Enemy Within campaign once we moved
past the intro sections presented in Enemy in Shadows and the PCs started showing interest in what the hell
was going on, but I wasn't able to do that for obvious reasons. They would have been handled in much the
same way as the Rumours on p15, and would have been similarly deployed to foreshadow future events.
Training
Q: The costs for the Training Endeavour are unclear. Is the +1d10 cost added per advance, or for all
advances you want to learn?
A: The cost is for all advances you wish to purchase at once. So if you want to buy the first five advances in a
Basic Skill, the cost would be 50+1d10 (rather than 50+5d10). An Advanced Skill costs twice as much, and so
the same example would cost 100+2d10.
Hi Mike,
It's your second example. If a character wishes to learn 5 advances in a Basic Skill in which they started with 0
advances, it costs the Character 50 XP - then the cost for that training is 50+1d10 Brass Pennies. An Advanced
Skill would cost 100+2d10 BP - so a Noble+ e.g. 9 shillings and some shrapnel. Obviously, the higher the level
the Character wants to learn, the more experienced a tutor would have to be with corresponding increases and
as the Endeavour notes, eventually, just money won't be enough. (I do feel the need to point out the Training
Endeavour is specifically for Skills and Characteristics outside of your Career. The notion is you don't have to
pay a Tutor for a Skill / Characteristic within your Career as you 'learn by doing'.)
Unusual Learning
See also Career Skills and Talents.
Q: Can you spend Fortune on Unusual Learning Tests?

A: Yes, if you have any left from your last game, but Fortune doesn't regenerate until the start of the next
session.
Yes, you would. But be aware of when those points regenerate. Fortune Points regenerate at the start of a
Session. Endeavours are Between Sessions which is, well, between Sessions, meaning your Fortune Points
will not have regenerated after your last Session, and you very likely may have none. Resilience are just super
rare, so always be careful with those.
Q: Can you use the Unusual Learning Endeavour to learn Skills and Talents from higher up in the same
Career?
A: RAW: no, but your GM may allow it.
It says "outside of your Career", not outside of your current career level. Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358 Can
you confirm or deny if you can use the Unusual Training endeavour to learn talents from higher Career levels
within your current Career?
BadJuJu#0604
I'd assume it'd be up to the GM, but I'd probably only allow it if there were an exceptionally good reason to.
Knight#9480
If the GM agrees, then sure? I mean, I probably wouldn't, but YMMV.

Q: When using the Unusual Learning Endeavour, does a failed Test mean you lose the money and XP as
well?
A: Yes.
WFRP4, p199, 'Unusual Learning':

There is no guarantee this attempt will be successful, meaning there is a good chance you will fail to learn the Talent
you hope to acquire, expending XP and money to no avail.
So, the XP (and money) is spent whether you succeed or fail here.
But at least the XP cost isn't doubled.
CHAPTER 7: RELIGION AND BELIEF

The Cult of Manann, God of the Sea
Q: What would you say is the relationship, if any, between Bögenauer (and Old Man Stir or other river
gods) and Manann, in both a "canon" sense and from the perspective of the various Manannite orders?
A: There is none.
Really, as good as none in both instances as far as my work is concerned. Sure, there is a hell of a lot of what
would appear to be crossover, but huge salt-water oceans (and the mega god attached to those) are not
freshwater rivers (and the many smaller gods seen there).
Rivers are not the Sea, and I would be loath to combine them as it both makes Manann a very different God
(he's now a god of everywhere, pretty much, and no longer a coastal and sea deity), and it also diminishes the
River Gods, of which there are many, all of whom have a fair bit of individual personality.
Indeed, when 2E's Tome of Salvation was being written, the general view was that rivers fell under the sway of
Taal and/or Rhya far more than they did under Manann. But, that view was slowly pushed aside for lesser
deities instead.
Lastly, combining them into one also largely eradicates the conflict you would potentially see rise where rivers
hit seas, and I love conflict. It's the source of all our adventures, after all.
But, again, your world may go in a very different direction, and that's 100% cool - indeed, that's part of the fun:
making it yours.
Prayers
See also Casting and Targets for rules about targeting and AoEs.
Pray Tests Difficulty

@skyperbole asks:
Pray Tests are listed in the book as Challenging (+0). Is this true out of combat as well? Or should we follow the
usual Challenging (stressful) / Average (non-stressful) dynamic?
In short: no…
The rules listed in WFRP4 on p217 for praying, p234 for Casting, and p153-154 for Difficulty stand; i.e.: the
Difficulty is defined as Challenging +0 because it always is, at a minimum, Challenging.
The gods are fickle and mercurial, and it's never a stress-free process to communicate with them.
Advantage and Religion
Q: Does Advantage apply to prayers/blessings?

A: Only on prayers/blessings that cause damage.
Prayers do not gain that benefit. It is for Magic only. So, to use Advantage on a Pray Test, it would need to be a
combat or Psychology related Test, which is defined as Tests that 'hit, defend, or resist the influence of others'.
In practice, this pretty much means hitting others with Damage, as a Pray Test does not defend against others
or count as a Psychology Test.
Sin
Ranald's strictures
@Zubus asks:
How strict do you see Ranald's strictures? Would you think less (or possibly 0) Sin points would be gained for
attacking enemies of humanity? (mutants, beastmen, osk, skaven, etc) would attacking them unprovoked be ok, or
less of a Sin to Ranald? Or, can you see any circumstance where attacking first wouldn't result in Sin Points?
First, this is down to individual GM preference. I wouldn't like to say anything that over-rode that or diminished
its power. Always ask your GM first (and, if that's you, you need to determine what you feel the Gods are, and
how they 'think').
But, the stricture itself is pretty clear. WFRP4, p208, 'Strictures':
Violence is prohibited except in self-defence.
There is no exception there for 'enemies of humanity'. Any violence that's not in self-defence, to anyone or
anything, is prohibited. That's it. If you attack another, that's Sin. And if it's unprovoked? That's even more Sin.
Hell, I've doled out sin to one Ralandan that attacked a door during a break-in because they were too lazy to
find a clever way in during their Pilgrimage of Fingers.
Harsh? Yes. But did it fit the situation at hand? Hell, yes.
And, really, that's a good thing. Sin points are part of the fun of playing religious characters. And the Gods are,
if anything, fickle.
Sin and the units die

Q: How do you handle a Sin value of 0 and a roll of 0 on the units die when making a Pray Test/Wrath of
the Gods?
A: A 0 is always considered a 10 on the units die.
See Damaging Quality Clarifications for dev comment.
As for 0s on Wrath of God: Rolling Bones on page 6 defines a '0' on a 1d10 roll as a 10, not a 0. So, no, you do
not count a roll with a 0 on the units die as equalling 0 Sin Points, thus triggering a Wrath of God for those with
0 Sin Points. However, a 0 would trigger a Wrath of God if you had 10 Sin Points.
Blessings
@Quor asks:
Could you please clarify RAI for the following Blessings?
Blessing of Protection
When the blessing is in play, does the Average (+20) Willpower Test need to be taken every time the enemy
wants to attack the target of the Blessing? Even if the Test was passed before?
Yes.
Blessing of Conscience
When the Blessing is in play, does the Average (+20) Willpower Test need to be taken again to break the same
stricture on subsequent Turns? Even if the Test was passed before?
Yes.
Blessing of Tenacity
If the Blessing removes the Prone Condition when at 0 Wounds, does it also heal 1 Wound, similar to spending
a Resolve point?
No. If it did, this would be expressly stated, much as it is on WFRP4, p171, 'Spending Resolve'. In this case,
you remove the Prone Condition, which brings you to your feet. However, you have 0 Wounds, so you collapse
again. Somewhat of a waste of the Blessing in this instance.
Miracles
Miracle AoE clarification
@LongShadow asks.
More broadly are divine AoE Miracles selective, or do they affect everyone? What about the priest him or
herself? For example, the Sigmar Miracle Soulfire has a Range of You and is an AoE. Does it affect everyone
inside the AoE, including the priest?
Always check the wording of the miracle. It should answer the question every time.
However, as you point out, in some cases, the language is a little... ambiguous. The miracle you highlight is a
fine example for this, so we can address that now. Let's take a look at the Soulfire miracle, WFRP4, p226.
A holy fire explodes from your body blasting outwards for Fellowship Bonus yards. All targets within range take
1d10 Wounds ignoring Toughness Bonus and APs.
So, the RAI is strongly implied (the miracle blasts outwards from you, burning everyone else, meaning you are
not affected), but the targetting is 'all targets'. So, given you, the miracle worker, could strictly be described as
lying within the AoE, you could be included in the 'all targets' category, meaning the fire could also tear you
apart if you strictly follow the RAW.
Well, nope. Very hard nope to that as a RAI. The cleric should not be affected by the miracle here. That said, if
the cleric at hand was currently carrying several Sin points, I'd certainly consider using the deployment of this
miracle as a good way of unexpectedly cleansing their soul for a loss of a Sin point or two...
I suggest a slight reword to resolve this:
A holy fire explodes from your body blasting outwards for Fellowship Bonus yards. All targets within range of
you take 1d10 Wounds ignoring Toughness Bonus and APs.
The addition of the 'of you' removes the cleric from the potential target pool.
Miracles of Myrmidia
Blazing Sun AoE clarification
Q: What is the ‘Area of Effect’ of the Blazing Sun miracle?
A: Any non-Myrmidians looking in your direction (i.e. Line of Sight).
It's as written - if they can see you, they're affected. AoE is LoS.
Yeah, don't go generalising. :) This specific miracle specifies it affects people who can see you.
Miracles of Shallya
Balm to a Wounded Mind clarification
Q: Does Balm to a Wounded Mind require a Melee (Brawling) Test to activate?
A: Yes. But if used to put an opponent to sleep so that they may be slaughtered afterwards, Shallya may refuse
to grant the Miracle (as it's against the spirit of her faith).
Q: It looks like you can use Balm to a Wounded Mind (p. 225) to knock an enemy unconscious, but its Range is
Touch. To apply it on an enemy in combat, do you make a Melee (Brawling) Test like when casting touch spells
or do you do something else?
A: I think this is one where the spirit of the game and the letter of the rules are a little at odds. So I would
suggest that if the miracle is being used to send enemies to sleep it can be inflicted using Melee (Brawling).
However, I would also say that if a Shallyan miracle is being used to render people helpless for subsequent
slaughter, the goddess would not approve, and might deny access to the miracle until people learn to be more
merciful.
Official information given by Eileen Murphy (C7) via email
Miracles of Sigmar
Soulfire Target clarification
Q: The Soulfire miracle Sigmar provides hits friend and foe alike, right? Or does ‘all targets within
range’ mean that you can pick and choose what’s affected, since the Twin-Tailed Comet miracle
specifies everything within its range gets hit?
A: All targets. Even your mates.
RAW: All targets.

Twin-tailed Comet clarifications

Q: Does Twin-tailed Comet affect a location or a target? The write up says location but then adds 'may
only target those Sigmar would consider an enemy'. Should the word 'target' be replaced with 'affects'?
A: It affects a location, so yes, it should be 'affects' instead of 'targets'.
So, my personal confusion is about the final sentence of Twin-Tailed Comet. It says it "may only target those
Sigmar would deem an enemy". But the spell as written doesn't target characters? Is that meant to be "may
only affect those Sigmar would deem an enemy"? The first part of the sentence even states "The target location
must be outdoors", which seems to further imply it targets physical locations and not characters. I'm doing a
poor job explaining what I see to be the inconsistency, but I hope you see where I'm getting at
BadJuJu#0604
No, you're not. And you're spot on. It should be 'affect'.

Seeing as you're on the topic of Miracle targeting - how should this sentence in Twin Tailed Comet Sigmarite
Miracle be interpreted?
The target location must be outdoors, and may only target those Sigmar would deem an enemy.
1) Does it mean that the Priest cannot cast it if the AoE would include targets that Sigmar would not deem an
enemy?
2) Or just that the Miracle wouldn't affect them?
3) And if the former is the case, what should happen if it's invoked in such a way?
4) Sin points for the Priest?
5) Miracle not manifesting at all?
I've numbered your individual questions to make them simpler to answer. So, taking each in turn:
1) No. It just means the target point (not the entire AoE) must contain an enemy.
2) Yes. The Miracle does not affect Sigmar's allies.
3) If the target location does not contain an enemy of Sigmar (as defined by the GM), the Miracle automatically
fails.
Further, if the Miracle succeeds (because an enemy of Sigmar was targetted by the comet), it still may not go
the way the cleric expects given the other potential targets in the AoE. After all, what Sigmar defines as an
'enemy' is likely not the same as what the cleric defines as an enemy. Species, realm of birth, recent actions,
secret affiliations, and more may lead to an unexpected smiting for the cleric's 'allies'. Indeed, learning why an
ally has unexpectedly gained the disfavour of Sigmar can be a fun side-quest.
4) If only allies were under the AoE, Sin points sounds like a very likely outcome. The gods do not like to be
disturbed needlessly, after all.
5) That would be the outcome if there were no enemies in the target location.
Miracles of Taal
Taal's Miracle Tooth and Claw and Melee Skill
Q: When using Taal’s miracle Tooth and Claw, what skill do you use to hit?
A: Weapon (Brawling)
When using Taals miracle tooth and claw what skill do you use to hit?
ZachDaMasta#2964
Weapon (Brawling)
Tanglefoot
@Jay Dako asks:
I am one of those people that does not believe "meaningless fluff" is actually meaningless. If it was meaningless, it
would not be there. The miracle of Taal "tanglefoot" is an aoe that hits all targets in the area. The first sentence says
that tanglefoot entangles your foes. We have been ruling that means it won't hit your allies, or at least those your
god considers an ally. What is your interpretation?
The wording of the targeting section of the miracle is what matters. In this case, Tanglefoot is unambiguous.
WFRP4, p227.
All targets within Fellowship Bonus yards of the target point gain an Entangled Condition.
So, RAW and RAI, it's all potential targets, not just foes. The language is clear. Entangle everyone.
That said, if you wish to change that for your game, perhaps suggesting gods that are more discriminating and
have more care for the mortal realms, go for it.
To talk more generally here:
Always be wary of 'fluff' sections attached to rules. Not only are these the most likely sections to be edited by
others after submission, which can add ambiguity, but they are often merged with rules by mistake because of
removed paragraphing during layout, which can cause problems.
Miracles of Ulric
Ulric's Fury
@skyperbole asks:
If a PC casts Ulric’s Fury on a target, does that mean the target becomes actively Frenzied, or does the target
have to spend an Action (Willpower Test) to psych themselves into being Frenzied? Related, does the
Willpower Test to psych yourself into a frenzy take an Action?
...So, yes, the RAW suggests it takes an Action [i.e., a Willpower Test] to enter Frenzy.
[...]
Is that a bit rubbish?
Well, given the Miracle only lasts for Fellowship Bonus Rounds, it certainly is!
More importantly, is that the RAI?
Nope.
The miracle was intended to say something like this:
Targets gain the Frenzy Psychology, and Tests to become subject to Frenzy are Free Actions.
Much better, and very useful for targets with the Frenzy Talent, too, which could be common amongst Ulric
worshippers.
CHAPTER 8: MAGIC
Magic Rules
Magic Difficulty
Now to Magic: we are to assume that casting / channelling tests are Average (+20) out of combat, yes?
In short: ...no.
The rules listed in WFRP4 on p217 for praying, p234 for Casting, and p153-154 for Difficulty stand; i.e.: the
Difficulty is defined as Challenging +0 because it always is, at a minimum, Challenging.
...using the Winds of Magic is always risky, and never an 'Average' prospect.
Casting Test
Language (Magick) and speaking aloud
Q: Can you whisper Casting Tests with a penalty?
A: Yes.
Yes. This is covered directly in the RAW.

Limitations, page 236:
If your voice is inhibited, the Difficulty of your Language (Magick) Test to cast the spell should be increased by the
GM.
The limitations also define what counts as uninhibited.
...the Language of Magick needs to be spoken ... clearly, and often loudly, to ensure spells work; magic is anything but
subtle.
It even provides a loose guide for how loud you have to be when casting to suffer no penalty.
As a loose guide, the higher the CN of the spell, the louder the spell is chanted.
So, unless you are using the Lore of Shadows, which has its own rule on page 253…
Spells cast from the Lore of Shadows are surreptitious and sly, and so the lingua praestantia may be muttered
stealthily.
...if you cast spells 'subtly', the Difficulty of the Language (Magick) Test should be increased by the GM. This is
left in the hands of individual GMs, but presumably most will slap a penalty of -10 or so for 0 CN, up to -50 for
the highest CN spells. But that is left open for individual GM interpretation. Those penalties could be far larger,
or far smaller. And, yes, this means Hedge Witches with all their CN 0 spells are good at casting quietly if
compared to other spellcasters. As they should be. It also means Petty Magic is relatively easy to cast subtly
(they are all simple CN 0 spells), but what the penalty should be in the individual circumstances is left up to the
individual GM to decide.
Andy Law#7502 (The Rookery, 28.05.2021
Q: Must Language (Magick) be spoken aloud? Can you mouth the words?
A: You must speak them aloud, though you can whisper them at a penalty (see the next question). If you have
the Lore of Shadows, you can mutter or whisper them without penalty, but you are not silent.
See Lore of Shadows and Whispering.
Ignore non magical APs and you can cast stealthily (unlike other Lores).
Muttered =/= silent. Muttered = spoken quietly.

Casting and Targets

Q: With regards to Target: AoE, does the centre of effect have to be on an individual target (Great Fires
of U'Zhul specifically mentions this to be the case, but I don't recall any other spell description being
this specific) or can it just be an empty spot on the map?
A: If the 'Target:' is specified as a number, it requires individuals. If it is an AoE, it doesn't.
WFRP4, p239, 'Spell Format' explains what 'Target' means.
Target: This describes what can be targetted by the spell. Often this will be one or more individuals. Spells
marked with AoE (Area of Effect) affect all individuals within that diameter. If the target is noted as 'Special', this
will be clarified in the description.
So, spells with a number must target an 'individual', but this is not the case for AoE spells, as that is not
specified. The target can be any point following the normal targeting rules. So, what are they in this case?
WFRP4, p236, 'Limitations' explains what must be in place to cast a spell. Important for us here:
Lastly, unless otherwise specified, you must always need to be able to see - i.e. have Line of Sight - to your
target.
So, the target can be any point you can see. It could be the ground. Or a butterfly. Or a boulder. Or a person.
But it could not be an empty space, or the ground behind another character, or the other side of a wall, because
none of those can be seen.
That means AoE spells do not need to target an individual.
So, what about Great Fires of U'Zhul? What the hell is going on there? Let's read it and find out.
WFRP4, p248, 'Great Fires of U'Zhul'
Target: AoE (WPB yards)
You hurl a great, explosive blast of Aqshy into an enemy, which erupts into a furious blaze, burning with the
heat of a forge.
So, the Target rules explain where you can fire the spell, not the description. The quoted Target rules above
make that clear. Target rules are only over-ridden by spell descriptions when the word 'Special' is used. So the
Great Fires of U'Zhul spell is just like any other AoE spell, as it isn't marked with 'Special' or AoE: Special, or
anything similar.
That then leads to a much more pertinent question, why in the hell does it say 'into an enemy'?
This is, pure and simple, a mistake. Sure, I could argue that the word 'enemy' can be used as a plural - eg: 'the
enemy are approaching!' - but that's super weak, imprecise, and pretty much wrong.
So, we now have that 'an enemy' as RAW. If you wish to use that as justification to force Great Fires of U'Zhul
to target an individual, then that's up to you. However, that is not the RAI.
Q: When an AoE spell or miracle has a Range of You and a Duration greater than Instant, does it remain
stationary when you move, or does it move with you? For instance, Dome has a Range of You, an AoE
(Willpower Bonus yards) and a Duration (Willpower Bonus Rounds).
A: The AoE is stationary and doesn't move with you.
So, let's sort that with a quick RAI hack, because the rule is super easy, barely an inconvenience...
The easiest place to drop it is in the Spell Format, so edit sentence 3 after Target: found in WFRP4, p239, 'Spell
Format' to:
Spells marked with AoE (Area of Effect) do not normally move after being successfully cast and affect all
individuals within that diameter.
That'll do it until the current developers address this.

@Eivel asks:
How do you think it should work if the caster travels inside a carriage? If they cast a Dome, should it move
along with the carriage or is it going to stay behind the carriage? The dome spell looks like a perfect idea to
defend the carriage from arrows and spells when the party tries to outrun the bandits.
...The results of the Spell do not move with the carriage. The Dome Spell may look perfect for that, but it isn't,
not unless the carriage is motionless. WFRP rarely gives perfect outcomes…
But!
If the boundaries of the Dome Spell are entirely contained within a moving vessel, such as on a ship, I would
have the Dome be fixed in place on that ship.
Grimoires
@LordBorak13 asks:
1) WFRP4, p236, states: 'A spellcaster may cast a spell directly from a grimoire if the spell belongs to a Lore
they possess. Doing so doubles the Casting Number.' Does this mean that they cannot put a petty magic spell
in their book, because it is not from a 'Lore'?
Correct.
2) What types of spells can a wizard have in their starting grimoire?
Any spell that can be accessed by a Lore of Magic. Another way to view that would be any spell accessible by
the Arcane Magic or Chaos Magic Talents. Or yet another way, any spell from the Arcane, Chaos, Dark, or
Witch Lores.
3) Is it only a spell from a 'Lore' of magic?
Yes.
4) What about the generic Arcane spells?
Those spells are considered to be part of each of the Lores.
5) Since these take on attributes and characteristics of the favored Lore of the wizard casting, are these
considered part of a 'Lore' for this or is it only the 8 Lores of magic, along with Hedgecraft, Witchcraft,
Daemonology, and Necromancy?
Yes.
Ingredients
Q: What's the Availability of spell ingredients?
This was left for individual GMs to organise according to how they wanted ingredients to be used in their game,
with the intention of pinning it down hard in a magic book later. However, as a loose guide, most are presumed
to be at least Rare, then modified according to the GM's judgement.

As a follow up to Q150, does that mean that Ingredients can not be used to mitigate miscast results while
Channeling?
And in the case that you could actually use ingredients to mitigate Channeling, you have to burn ingredients for
every turn you are Channeling or using it once counts until you finish Channeling for whatever reason?
This one is super easy and the rulebook is very clear.
WFRP4, p236, 'Ingredients' is under the 'Casting Test' header found on p234, not the Channelling Test header
on p237. Further, the associated rules only refer to 'using an ingredient when casting', so the Language
(Magick) Test. So, ingredients do not protect against Channelling.
Which, I think, automatically answers part 2 of the question, too.

Magical Language Specialisations

Q: Is there a Language (Anoqeyån) or (Dark Tongue) specialization?
A: No. Just Language (Magick).
@BadJuJu#0604 - Strictly speaking: no. Currently, Language (Magick) is a catch-all term for any spoken
language that allows the casting of spells, and that includes the Lingua Praestantia, Anoqeyån, various forms of
Daemonic and Dark Tongue, the garbled, self-taught nonsense used by Witches, and more.
Miscasts
Bleeding Conditions and Minor Miscasts
Q: The ‘1d10 Bleeding Conditions’ result on the Minor Miscast chart seems potentially quite lethal
compared to the other entries?
A: It's a typo. It should be +1 Bleeding Condition.
Nosebleed should be 1 bleed condition, not d10.

Like, it was written when bleed was less debilitating. Not an editing error per se.
Magic Missiles
See also Ranged attacks and Opposed Tests for Advantage loss for failed magic missile attacks (i.e., you only
lose 1 Advantage if you didn't gain any that turn; you don't lose all Advantage from a failed Casting roll).
Q: Can a Shield with a Rating of 2+ be used against magic missiles?

A: No, because the Shield Quality only kicks in if you actively use the Shield to oppose an attack (neither of
which you can do with a magic missile). But the GM might allow it if the Character was hiding behind a Shield
and then got zapped.
@BigFinn#6704 asks:
Is it possible to use a shield with the Shield (2+) weapon quality to mitigate damage from a magic missile,
assuming that the spell itself or lore effect doesn't bypass armour?
No, as the armour points only activate when the Shield is used to oppose the incoming roll, as mentioned in the
'Shield (Rating) rules on p298. Originally, the magic rules went through three authors (the second of which was
the incomparable @Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358, the third of which was me), and I developed those rules
further during the late stages of design. At that point, I intended to add some paragraphs under 'Magic Missiles'
(p236), to discuss potential complications (misses, parries, shields, and more). However, when the final page
counts where decided for these sections, I had to make cuts, not additions, to the chapter, so the idea was
shelved for a later, magic-facing expansion. So, no, the RAW does not address this. However, in my games, if I
had a character hiding behind a big shield and someone zaps that character with a spell, I'd certainly let them
use that shield's APs. This is a clear example of where 'The Golden Rule' (p149) applies as far as I'm
concerned, and I'd deploy it.
@skyperbole#5497 asks on a related note:

So, obviously, magic missiles hit automagically.
1) Can someone in melee who is actively using their Shield to defend gain the AP against magic missiles, even
though it’s technically not opposed?
2) Would a target who’s passively wielding a shield (ie, not using it for the Melee defense Test) gain the AP
against magic?
3) Also, what about a ranged target?
4) Tangentially, I’m curious about the design decision to make magic missiles auto hit with no dodge test
allowed (ie, 1st edition allowed an Initiative Test for most magic missiles).
1) As mentioned in the reply above: RAW, no, but it would apply in my games.
2) Again, RAW, no for the same reasons. And, again, in my games it would apply.
3) The same applies again and for the same reasons. However, in this case it's not the RAI. In this case, I had
an update to the Shield rules that accounted for this that was planned for the core, but wasn't installed. For
reasons.
4) It's a duplication of the rules from WFRP2, p144. As mentioned in the Q&A reply immediately above, I
intended to expand upon this in the core book, but did not for space reasons, leaving the rule open for later
expansion by a magic book, which was my intention.
Q: Why can't you dodge magic missiles?

A: This was going to be expanded upon in a later book.
4) Tangentially, I’m curious about the design decision to make magic missiles auto hit with no dodge test
allowed (ie, 1st edition allowed an Initiative Test for most magic missiles). [...]
4) It's a duplication of the rules from WFRP2, p144. As mentioned in the Q&A reply immediately above, I
intended to expand upon this in the core book, but did not for space reasons, leaving the rule open for later
expansion by a magic book, which was my intention.
Q: Continuing with magic missiles, this game term has changed considerably from previous editions,
leaving only damage generation and hit location within the definition. In WFRP1, they were effectively
physical spells that flew from the caster's hands to the target allowing for an Initiative save for half
damage. In WFRP4, only the petty magic spell Dart mentions the caster's fingertips as an origin
1) Is it still intended that spells like Bolt and Blast originate from the caster or can a caster get creative?
2) For magic missiles spells with Target AoE it can lead to all affected targets being hit in the same
location, which feels strange. Obviously, it works like this for convenience, but did you have any other
mechanics on the table for how AoE works?
1) At the time, this was purposefully left in the hands of the GM to resolve according to how they perceived
different Lores of Magic manifesting the spells in question. However, in my world, they all flare from the
spellcaster and streak towards the target.
2) Urgh. I hate this. So much. RAW is exactly as you describe for the reasons you describe, but it was
nevertheless marked to be changed in a late-stage edit that never happened. Which left something I really
disliked as a RAW. So, I planned to fix this in an article for the book released as Archives of the Empire, Volume
1. That, obviously, never happened, either.
Advantage for AoE Spells with Multiple Opponents

Q: Do AOE spells that damage multiple opponents provide you with 1 Advantage per opponent
damaged?
A: No. Only +1 Advantage total.
AoE spells don't cause multiple Advantage.

Channelling Test
Channelling Duration Clarification
Q: When are you considered to be done Channelling, when you’ve reached the SLs of the spell CN or
once you’ve succeeded/failed the subsequent Language (Magick) Test? For example, say you are
Channelling a spell with a CN of 3. You score 3SLs on your Channelling test, allowing you to attempt to
cast it with a Language (Magick) Test using your Action on your next Turn. What happens if you suffer
an interruption (like say, taking damage) before your next Turn?
A: You are considered to be Channelling until you successfully cast the spell (i.e., pass the Language (Magick)
Test).
@BadJuJu#0604 Gotcha, by the rules, the magic is still in the process of being gathered before being shaped
into the spell by the words. So, you are still Channelling. It's not the best outcome, as it makes Channelling
slightly weaker again as an option. But, that's just how it is.
Q: When Channelling, do you declare the spell you are Channelling for before you start and then only
Channel for that spell, or is it more flexible than that and you can choose which spell to cast when you
have enough SLs?
A: You Channel first, and only declare which spell you are casting when you roll Language (Magick).
...So, this is the process:
1) To channel, you do an Extended Channelling Test.
2) When the SL total reaches the CN of a selected Spell (which is not chosen before the Test), you have
channelled enough magic to cast that Spell.
3) On the next Round you can cast a Spell if you have Channelled enough magic for it (and that could be any
Spell you have enough magic for).
So, to answer the question: you do not declare the Spell you are Channelling for before Channelling. You only
declare the spell when you are about to take the Language (Magick) Test, which you can only do if you have
Channelled enough magic to cast that spell.
So, RAW is clear, it is almost identical to the RAI (which was marked to allow partial Channelling), and it is also
thematically correct in terms of how the settting works (you channel first, then shape the magic into a spell
using the lingua praestantia).
Andy Law#7502 (The Rookery WFRP Q&A, 07.09.2020)
Q: If not at the time of initiating the Test, when does the selection of the spell occur?
A: When you make the Language (Magick) Test.
You can't select a spell until you intone a spell, which involves using the lingua praestantia to form the Winds of
Magic into an effect. Channelling is not casting -- it is just gathering magic to cast a spell.
So, when is the spell selected, and that selection cannot be changed?
On the Turn you attempt a Language (Magick) Test to cast a chosen spell. When the words are spoken.
Q: (1) Can a caster freely stop Channelling? (2) Or does doing so without a Language (Magick) Test to
utilise the gathered winds count as an interruption?
A: Yes and no.
1) Yes. There is no rule that says this cannot be done.

2) No. The Winds just flow free.
Interruptions
Q: Does defending yourself in melee count as an interruption for the purposes of Extended Channelling
Tests?
A: Yes.
I'd say so, yeah. I mean - someone taking a swing at you is going to be pretty distracting, right? But with a
caveat...like, a single snotling chewing on your bootleather, you could probably ignore.
Q: 1) Can a caster freely stop Channelling?

2) Or does doing so without a Language (Magick) Test to utilise the gathered winds count as an interruption?
1) Yes. There is no rule that says this cannot be done.
2) No. The Winds just flow free.
Repelling the Winds

See also the following new optional rules from Andy Law:
Shields and Repelling the Winds

Q: Do shields impart penalties on Casting and Channelling Tests as per the 'Repelling the Winds' rules
on p. 237?
A: No.
By strict RAW, they're not 'worn as armour', so no penalty. But that earlier clause about being dressed
inappropriately for the wind (GM's ruling) is key.
Dispelling
Dispelling and speaking
Q: Do you need to be able to speak in order to dispel?
A: Yes.
Dispelling need speaking, yes. It's language (Magick).

Dispelling as an Interruption
Q: Does Dispelling count as an interruption for the purposes of Extended Channelling Tests?
A: Probably yes. Andy Leask suggest that channelled SL was added to dispel test.
@BadJuJu#0604 I'd rule dispelling as an interruption. It's not explicit, but you're using magic to d a thing. If you
want an HR I was wanting to implement in a magic book, if you dispel while channelling, it interrupts the
channelling, BUT you add the already channelled SLs onto the dispel test…
Dispelling while Surprised

Q: Can a caster with the Surprised Condition dispel a spell?
A: Common sense says no, but a GM could allow a character with the Second Sight talent a Perception Test in
order to be able to.
No - you can't Oppose Attacks, so...

It's intentionally a little grey (pun not intentional): I'd be letting Second Sight Ofer a Perception Test. Common
sense would say, no.
Failed Dispelling attempts

Q: Does a failed Dispelling attempt make a spell stronger (e.g., if you roll -3SLs and the caster roll +1SL,
do they succeed with +4SLs)? Can it also make a failed Language (Magick) Test succeed (e.g., if you
roll -3SLs but the caster rolled -1SLs, do they succeed with +2SLs)?
A: There are two answers from Andy Law which confirm the RAI. However, the RAW as described by Andy
seems at odds with the rule on p.234 which specifies you must succeed on the Language (Magick) Test to Cast
a spell, rather than merely needing to win the Opposed Test. As such, it seems prudent to go with the RAI (or
otherwise align your decision with your house rules on Ranged attacks).
RAW: Yes and yes.

RAI: Failing your Dispelling attempt shouldn’t make your opponent’s spell succeed. Additionally, given Andy’s
latest comments on failed defence rolls against Ranged Tests, you can infer that a failed Dispelling attempt
similarly cannot increase the SLs of your opponent’s Casting Test (since counterspelling should be treated as
any other Ranged attack). See that entry for more details.
But, hey, it'll do. A Ranged shot specifically misses if the Test fails. That's the RAW. It doesn't matter what an
opponent may or may not roll in opposition. The Magic rules work differently, though. That's the RAW, but not
the RAI, where I made an edit, but it never hit the final book. So, Ranged shots need to succeed, magic does
not.
Andy Law#7502
So for a ranged attack: Attacker rolls -1 SL, defender with a shield rolls -2 SL : even though the outcome of the
opposed test is a win for the attacker with +1 SL, this a miss?
FBV#2439
Yes.
Andy Law#7502
Would it be sensible to treat counterspelling the same way?

FBV#2439
It was my intention, but it is not what the rulebook says.

Andy Law#7502
Got it
FBV#2439
Ranged attack success or fail. You hit or you dont? What happen if you hit and the opposite roll pass a dogde
test?
danil0#8120
Exactly as you'd expect, the final SL is lowered to a potential miss.

Fumbles while Dispelling

Q: What happens when you Fumble magic Tests, beyond Casting and Channeling (such as Dispelling)?
A: RAW, nothing special happens but you may opt to use the Astounding Failure rules or get creative.
QUESTION #1
(I submitted this first one before, but Mr. Murphy was out of the office.)
The core book's chapter on magic details how to handle rolls resulting in a Fumble for Casting (p236) and for
Channelling (p237). Are those the only two situations for which Fumbling exists for magic? For example, can
one Fumble while Dispelling (p237)?
There's no details on Fumbling while Dispelling, like there are for Casting and Channelling - but Fumbling while
Dispelling is not explicitly precluded either. Does that mean RAW precludes Fumbles for any rolls involving
magic besides Casting & Channelling? Or is the lack of details on Fumbling while Dispelling intended to just
leave the results of such a roll up to the GM to adjudicate? RAW.only Casting and Channelling incur the risk of
miscast, but I would be creative in the interpretation of a fumble, along the lines of an Astounding Failure as per
the option rule on pp 153. A fumble on a dispel could involve redirecting the magic dangerously, such as
redirecting an incoming bolt into a wounded party member, innocent victim, etc. or making a curse worse (for
example, attempting to dispel a Flock of Doom and fumbling might result in no immediate effect, but for the next
1d10 days small birds continue to harass the wizard an inopportune times.) I wouldn't use this as a stick to beat
wizards over the head with, but if it seems interesting and fun feel free to go with it! But the miscast tables
themselves are intended to reflect what happens when you loose control of the winds as you attempt to chanel
or cast a spell, not what happens when you carelessly muck about with someone else's magic.
Overcasting
Overcasting nerf (Petty Spells)
See Optional rule to reign in Dart (i.e., disallow Overcast on Petty Spells).
Overcasting and Range

Q: 1) What happens when the target of a spell is outwith the base range?
Great question. As you rightly note in your second question, a provision for this is built into Overcasting. Let's
read that.
WFRP4, p238, 'Overcasting'
For every +2 SL you achieve on your Casting Test, you may add additional Range, Area of Effect, Duration, or
Targets equal to the initial value listed in the spell.
For example, if we Overcast a spell by +2 SL, and it had a Range of 20 yards, we could cast it 40 yards. Neat.
So…
2) ...what happens if you cast a spell but don't score an Overcast, meaning you can't reach your chosen target
as it's outwith the spell's base range?
RAW? You have a spell that has been successfully cast, so cast it as appropriate for the spell at hand. If the
spell cannot be cast as there are no appropriate targets, the spell fails.
3) This question I am less sure about. If I have understood you correctly (and please correct me if I have not),
you are asking if you can build an Overcast with Channelling?
Strictly speaking, no. Channelling just builds a store of magic. Speaking the words of magic is what turns that
magic into an effect, which is where the potential for Overcasting comes from.
However, if you successfully Channel, it increases the chance of Overcasting, as your new CN for the spell is 0.
Note: this does not incorporate the RAI for Channelling as marked in Q137.
Overcasting and AOE spells

Q: How does Overcasting interact with AOE spells? Do you get extra AOEs or does the original AOE
simply increase?
A: You increase the size of the AOE.
Vonbloodbath chimed in with intent a few months ago - if it says AoE, you can increase the size of the AoE, not
the number of them.
macd21#2249
Yup. That's the case. If the Target has no initial value (where value is a number of targets), there is no number
to modify. So, if AoE is listed, there is no initial value to duplicate. 'Special 'is different as the spell in question
may define a number of targets affected in the Description, so it was important to call that out in the spell
format, as it could easily be misinterpreted (and make some spells far too powerful with multiple castings from a
single casting attempt). In short, if it's an AoE, that AoE may only be increased, not duplicated with multiple
castings. To do that would be waaaaaaaaaaaay to powerful for some spells. That all said, I can see how a
misinterpretation can be seen here. I'll ping that up for the next Errata.
Overcasting and Critical Wounds

Q: If you cause a Critical Wound with magic, does it also apply to each additional target from
Q: If you cause a Critical Wound with magic, does it also apply to each additional target from
Overcasts?
A: Only the first target gets the Critical. Everyone else just gets the normal damage.
@Droog#4937 The primary target takes the Critical Hit, the rest just take Damage.
Andy later gave a more lenient answer, allowing the caster to choose:
@Pierre asks:
When you cast an AoE spells like Blast and you score a Critical and you choose to inflict a Critical Wound:
Does that means that everyone in the AoE suffers a critical wound? Or only one (probably the closest to the
center)?
This question has come up many times, and I've answered it in several places. So, thanks for bringing it up
here so we have it in the list and answer it definitively and clearly.
Let's start with the RAW. What does it state?
Well, let's pull that apart.
First, when do Criticals occur? WFRP4, p159-160, under 'Criticals' explains this:
Any successful Melee or Ranged Test that also rolls a double causes a Critical.
Wait... what? So, can spells cause Criticals? The rules state 'Criticals' only apply to Melee and Ranged Tests?
So…
The answer here should be an unreserved 'YES! Spells can cause Criticals', but the 'Critical Casting' rules
(WFRP4, p234) references the WFRP4, p159 rule I cited above, meaning that actually, RAW, Language
(Magick) tests can't score Criticals, as that skill is neither Melee nor Ranged. One way to fix this is to apply the
'Options: Criticals & Fumbles' rule found on WFRP4, p153. But that's clearly not ideal as it requires an optional
rule. So, what happened here?
The original submission of the rules applied Criticals to all rolls, not just Melee or Ranged Tests. However,
Criticals were changed, causing a small rule loop-hole where it's actually impossible, using the RAW, to score a
Critical on any Test that isn't Melee or Ranged. So, 'Casting Criticals' are, by the RAW, impossible.
This is clearly not the RAI, as the following rules make evidently clear (WFRP4, p234):
If the casting roll is a Critical (see page 159), the Winds of Magic have flared dangerously high, granting you
extra power, but at a cost. Unless you have the Instinctive Diction Talent, you roll on the Minor Miscast Table as
the power moves beyond your control, but you may also choose one of the following:
- Critical Cast: If the spell causes Damage, it also inflicts a Critical Wound. See page 172 for details.
- Total Power: The spell is cast, no matter its CN and your rolled SL, but can be dispelled.
- Unstoppable Force: If you scored enough SL to cast your spell, it cannot be Dispelled.
So, if we choose 'Critical Cast', we can cause the 'Critical Wound' in question.
On WFRP4, p172 'Critical Wounds', you are instructed to roll on the Critical Wound tables found on pages 174
onwards should you cause a Critical Wound.
So, we now have all the relevant rules required to answer the question.
And this is the process:

1) Cast the spell.
2) If it is a Critical Casting, which is determined by rolling a double on the Language (Magick) Test, choose a
Critical Effect.
3) If the Critical Effect you choose is Critical Cast, you inflict a Critical Wound.
Note: That a singular Critical Wound is the result here. So, a Critical Wound will be caused, not multiples.
4) You then determine the Critical Wound as normal.
So, RAW, one target suffers a Critical Wound. The RAW doesn't specify which target suffers that Critical Wound
if there are multiple targets, so the caster can, by default, choose.
Job done.
The RAI is slightly different - it was supposed to be the target of the spell that suffered the Critical Wound
(assuming Damage was caused by the spell), with others affected by the magic suffering simple Damage. But,
arguably, the RAW works better (assuming you ignore that Language (Magic) Tests can't score Criticals), as it
offers a little more freedom and agency to the Player.
Overcasting on the same Target

Q: Can you use an Overcast to target the same creature or character multiple times?
A: No. Each Overcast selects an additional target.
So, to clarify: if I overcast with Bolt (or Dart or whatever) and get an extra 2 shots, all 3 have to hit different
targets?
macd21#2249
Yeah, additional targets.

Spell Lists
Lore effect clarifications
Q: Does the wording 'spells that cause/inflict Damage' include those spells that create magic weapons?
Do rider effects apply in that case?
A: Yes.
Q129
@Quor asks:
What was the intention for 'Spells inflicting Damage' and 'Spells causing Damage' when resolving passive
effects of the Lore of Shadows, Heavens, or Metal?
I assume it is about Magic missiles, but can the passive be applied to a magically created weapon?
Does Aethyric Arms or Enchant Weapon benefit from the Lore passive? For instance, does the Lore of
Shadow's Aethyric Arms ignore non-magical armour on a hit?
A. This is a fine question, and one that I intended to explore in later magic expansions.
First, let's look at the RAW; in particular, the rules for the Lores of 1) Shadows, 2) Heavens, and 3) Metal.
1) Lore of Shadows, special rule from WFRP4, p253.
Further, all spells cast from the Lore of Shadows inflicting Damage ignore all non-magical Armour Points.
So, that's clear. If the spell inflicts Damage on a target, it ignores non-magical Armour Points.
Let's now apply that to Aethyric Arms from WFRP4, p242:
You create a weapon with a Damage...
That['s clear] enough. The spell creates something that can inflict Damage on a target. It has a capital 'D' and
everything. Just like Bolt creates a magical bolt that can inflict Damage. So, the special rules for Lore of
Shadows apply.
That's a big yes.
2) Lore of Heavens, special rule from WFRP4, p248.
Spells causing Damage...
I'm not writing any more of the rule. It's not needed. This is almost the same trigger as the Lore of Shadows (for
all it is marked with 'causing' instead of 'inflicting', which does have implications we can discuss if anyone is
interested), so it does trigger with Aethyric Arms.
So, another yes.
3) Lore of Metal, special rule from WFRP4, p249.
Spells inflicting Damage...
Again, no need to write more. This is exactly the same language as the Lore of Shadows, so the special rule is
clearly triggered for Aethyric Arms.
So, yet another yes.
Lastly, does the Lore of Metal special rule work with Enchant Weapon?
Again, let's check the wording from WFRP4, p250.
For the duration of the spell [the weapon] counts as magical, gains a bonus to Damage...
And, again, let's stop here. The important trigger word has been dropped again. The spell creates something
that inflicts Damage, so Operation: Special Rule is a go.
That gives us yes number 4.
Now, is this RAI?
Yes, absolutely yes. But with the caveat that all of these rules were supposed to expanded significantly in a
relatively short time-frame. These rules were designed as a placeholding core to be built upon, a little like the
Wizard Career. The Wizard Career does the job required of it for the core rulebook, but we really need the
Career to be expanded significantly if you want to properly describe the deep differences between, say, Bright
Wizards and Amethyst Wizards.
Q: Do Arcane Spells count as Lore spells for the purposes of adding Lore effects?
A: Yes.
Q: Does the Lore of Life effect apply to all spells from the Lore of Life, or just Arcane Spells (as it is the
only Lore effect to specify 'Arcane Spells')?
A: Yes. All Lores apply their passive effects to all Arcane and Lore Spells (i.e., all non-Petty Spells). Using Bolt
with the Lore of Life can have interesting results.
All colour spells are arcane spells, granted under the Arcane Magic talent, so yes, it applies to them all. Or, at
least, that was the original intent.
Andy Law#7502
Say hi to Bolt (Life) nulling Bleeding and Fatigue on your enemies, :DDD But well, you are hitting them with the
raw essence of life.
Frozen_Flame#7506
Yup. That was the intent.

Q: Does the effect from Lore of Heavens jump to allies as well?

A: Yes.
Yeah, Heavens is my favourite. [...] It jumps to ALL targets, friend or foe. RAW pretty clear on that.
Q: You gain Fear 1 if using any Lore of Beasts spell. If you happen to cast a spell that also causes you
to gain Fear, does this stack?
A: No. You may, however, choose the longer duration for the Fear 1 effect (1d10 Rounds or WPB Rounds).
Casting a spell from the Lore of Beasts gives you Fear (1) for 1d10 rounds, but what happens if the spell you
cast also gives you Fear (1)? For example, Hunter's Hide gives you Fear (1) for Willpower Bonus Rounds
(among other things.)
On Page 236 under Limitations, it states:
Further, spells providing bonuses or penalties do not stack. Instead, the best bonus and worst penalty is applied
from every spell cost upon you. So, if you had a spell providing a bonus of +20 Willpower, and another providing +
10 Willpower, you gain a bonus of +20 Willpower, not +30.”
Using your example, let's say the caster had a Willpower of 57. Hunter's Hide gives that caster Fear (1) for
Willpower (5 in this case) Bonus Rounds. When you cast Hunter's Hide, you would also roll a d10 for the auto
Fear (1) from Lore of Beasts. If you rolled 1-5, the caster would likely choose to retain Fear (1) for 5 rounds that
come from the Hunter's Hide. If you rolled 6-10 for rounds for Fear (1) for the casting of a spell from the Lore of
Beasts - you would likely choose to retain the Fear (1) for a larger number of rounds if granted by the dice. You
do not, however, ever get Fear (2) out of it.
Q: Lore of Heaven's passive says that the arc damage is equal to your WP bonus and acts like a magic
missile. Does this mean the damage is WP damage or WPx2 seeing as its damage is WP and a magic
missile adds WP? And do you add the SLs of the original Casting Test to these extra arcing hits?
A: WPBx2, and no.
@BadJuJu#0604 WPB x 2. There's no SL to add, as it's not 'cast' it's a bonus hit. But in the same way you'd
add SB to a physical hit, you add WPB to a magical one. That seems like the cleanest read of the rule to me. I
could almost be persuaded that you use the SL of the original spell to add to the Damage, but I don't think it
parses that way, and I think that's a little OP. So WPB x 2.
Q: The Lore of Witchcraft states 'Each time practitioners of Witchcraft roll on a Miscast table, they also
gain 1 Corruption point'. Does this effect only apply to spells that are considered part of the Lore of
Witchcraft, or does it apply to any spell cast by a character with Arcane Lore (Witchcraft)?
A: Only those that are part of the Lore of Witchcraft.
Intent was the first, yeah.

First, and a known issue. And beaten to it.

Q: Does Drop affect the person holding the targeted item for the purposes of Lore effects (e.g., Ablaze
or Fatigued), or does it only affect the item being held?
A: The opponent is the target, not the item. All Conditions and similar effects apply to the opponent rather than
the item. Note that there is an alternative ruling by Andy Leask (no longer officially part of the WFRP team)
which states that the passive effect doesn't apply at all, as the spell targets an object not a person (even a held
hand counts as an object, not a person). Use whichever answer feels right for your table.
QUESTION
What is the target of the “Drop” spell (p243) and may Drop spell (The Lore of Fire (p217)) inflict 1 Ablaze
condition, Drop spell (The Lore of Death (p246)) assign +1 Fatigued condition etc? We had an assumption that
the target of the spell is only the object, so the effects from “The Lore of Fire”, “The Lore of Death” etc doesn't
apply, but the text in the spells threw us into confusion. We don't know how to interpret the part about
“someone's hand”. There was also discussion about ii an object is held by multiple opponents or one object is
held with two hands how, then, does the effect of the spell occur and how much SL is needed for this? Could it
be than the effect oi the spell can be either an object or an opponent's hand (And in this case, the effects of The
Lore of Fire, The Lore of Death etc are applied?)
It's a little bit of an outlier in how if is described, but in this case the person is the target in all cases - so you can
assign Ablaze, etc. as you wish and as is appropriate to your lore
Official information given by Pádraig Murphy (C7) via email
Nope. Drop doesn't target a person, so it doesn't set them on fire.

Petty Spells
Dart clarification
Q: Was Dart intended to be so good?
A: Yes and no. The original intent was to buff Channelling in a future supplement, so that the core Arcane
Spells would be more appealing. This never happened, so Dart remained relatively better than Bolt as a result.

@Andy Law#7502, was it intended that the spell Dart could be so easily increased in power through the use
of overcasting?
Yes and No. So, on the Yes side, the spell was always designed to work the way it does. However, the magic
rules, and the core rules, changed during development, meaning that the spell became more useful as the
underpinning rules changed beneath it. So, on the No side, it was never intended for Dart to significantly
compete with Arcane Spells largely doing the same job, such as Bolt. However, this was not deemed to be a
significant issue as the planned expansion for magic was going to significantly upgrade Channelling and its
utility, so the spells could stand as they were without revision, but be brought back in line with the core intent.
Which, in this case, is that Petty spells should be useful, but not close to successful castings of Arcane spells.
Q: If I cast Dart (or a fully channelled Bolt) with a casting roll of +1 SL at a Dwarf (Magic Resistance 1 for
-2 SL), does the spell itself get cancelled or just the Damage reduced?
So, to confirm this, let's check what Magic Resistance does.
WFRP Errata, p1, 'Page 140'
‘The SL of any spell affecting you is reduced by 2 per point you have in this Talent. The SL of a spell is only
modified by the highest Magic Resistance Talent within its target area’.
So, the casting roll of +1 SL would be reduced to -1 SL, meaning the spell fails.
Optional rule to reign in Dart

@Smiling Tom asks:
Dart is becoming the spell of choice for most casters in combat over any alternative massively. It can be cast every
turn, hits consistently multiple targets once advantage kicks in, and it's just better. Was there any intention to limit
overcasting for petty spells?
This is a variant of the question posed in Q53. Check that question for the answer I gave then:
However, it seems that no official fix may come to resolve this for some time. So, if the issue you highlight
concerns you, I suggest using the following rule to bring the spell in-line with the RAI. It's a blunt, harsh fix, and
is not what I ever planned to do here, but it works well, is thematically appropriate, and neatly resolves the
problem until it is properly addressed elsewhere.
Append the following sentence to WFRP4, p238, 'Overcasting', after Paragraph 2:
Petty spells may not be overcast.
And he felt a great disturbance in the Winds of Magic, as if millions of Wizards suddenly cried out in terror and
were suddenly silenced. scream mage
Arcane Spells
Arcane spells and spellcaster Careers
Q: The lore talks a lot about wizards using magic for everyday things. For example, WFRP2's Realms of
Sorcery says that any magister could use magic to do the menial tasks they give their apprentices.
However, the spells offered to characters in WFRP2 and to a WFRP4 offer little utility in these areas.
Was there a specific reason there weren't more spells for out of combat RP applications like that (of
course some Lores, especially Metal, do have very interesting applications for that, but that was always
one of my favourite applications of supernatural forces in fantasy)?
Was it perhaps that the use of magic in public is illegal without special permission or good reason so
those spells would be illegal to use in most circumstances anyway?
A: This is easy to answer for WFRP4: space.
This is easy to answer for WFRP4: space. There just wasn't enough of it in the core book for anything other
than core spells for the Colleges (which, to be very clear, are military institutions, for all they may sometimes
pretend otherwise, and the core spells reflect this). The plan was always to expand magic (especially
Channelling) with a later set of magic supplements covering, amongst other things, the very situation you
describe. That is now in the hands of others.
For WFRP2, Realms of Sorcery was completed just before I was heavily involved with that edition, so I can't
speak for its version of magic with any authority.
Aethyric Armour clarification

Q: If you use Aethyric Armour with the Lore of Metal to cover your skin in a coat of metal, does an
attack that ignores metal armour ignore its APs?
A: Yes.
Q: If you say that casting Aethyric Armour with the Lore of Metal covers your skin in coat of metal, would an
attack that ignores metal armour (such as T’Essla’s Arc) ignore the protection provided by Aethyric Armour?
A: It certainly would.
Official information given C7
Q: Can you Critically Deflect with Aethyric Armour?

A: Yes.
No need for a screenshot, I'll confirm it. You can Critical Deflect with Aethyric Armour.
Q: If you do Critically Deflect using Aethyric Armour, does the spell stop functioning entirely? Does it
stay up, but not have any effect? Does it stay up with the 1AP?
A: It just reduced the overall APs at that location, unless you houserule it otherwise.
@MikeTheSpaceWolf#4613 @cat59#8734 - RAW it would reduce the armour on a single location, as that's
what armour damage does. As a GM, you could decide the spell dissipates as a HR though. Bearing in mind
wizards are unlikely to have much, if any, real armour, and crits are quite common, that would strike me as
harsh, but YTYR, right?
Aethyric Arms clarification

Q: Does the weapon generated by Aethyric Arms also possess the qualities and flaws of its physical
equivalent?
A: No.
@Andy Law#7502 Hello, do the Aethyric Arms provides weapon's qualities and flaws?
Samael#4592
No.

What is the actual Damage rating of a weapon created with Aethyric Arms spell? Is it just +WPB, or +SB+WPB?
Easy. Let's look at the spell:

WFRP4, p242, 'Aethyric Arms':
You create a weapon with a Damage equal to your Willpower Bonus. This may take any form, and so use
any Melee Skill you may possess. The weapon counts as Magical.
[...]
Sure, it doesn't say '+Willpower Bonus', but that's not an issue as 'Damage' on p293 clearly states you still add
your SL to the Damage, regardless of whether it says '+Willpower Bonus' or just 'Willpower Bonus'. That being
the case, we have an answer.
RAW: It's +WPB.
It only has a CN of 2, after all.

Bolt Spell clarification

Q: When a Celestial Wizard casts Bolt with +4 SLs against a group of enemies, dealing 13 Damage
(4+5(WPB)+4(SLs)) to the primary target, how much Damage do the secondary targets take?
A: The RAW, circuitously, suggests secondary targets each take 14 Damage (as magic missiles deal
Damage+WPB+SLs, and the Celestial rider effect says Damage=WPB for any arcing magic missile). This is
incorrect. RAI was that, for the arcing magic missile, WPB would only be added once and SLs wouldn't be
added at all. So it should have been written as 'Damage +0, handled as a magic missile', giving 9 Damage to
each of the subsequent targets (4(Bolt)+5(WPB)=9).
@joesmoke#0464 asks:
Celestial Wizard with WPB5 casts a Bolt with 4SL into a clump of enemies. The primary target takes 13
[4+5(WPB)+4(SL)] damage, how much do their companion's take from the Lore effect?
Ah, this one is rarely asked. Good catch! The RAW is clear. The RAI is not the RAW. So, let's break this one
down. You are spot-on regarding the primary target: 13 Damage. So, how much Damage do the other potential
target's take. Let's read the rule from page 248:
Spells causing Damage ignore Armour Points from metal armour, and will arc to all other targets within two
yards ... inflicting hits with a Damage equal to your Willpower Bonus, handled like a magic missile.
Magic Missile, eh? Best read that, too... I'll grab the important bits from page 236!
The SL of the Language (Magick) Test is added to the spell's listed Damage and your Willpower Bonus to
determine the total inflicted Damage.
So, if it's handled like a magic missile... The SL is 4. The spell's listed Damage counts as 5 (the Willpower
Bonus). Then add the Willpower Bonus of 5 again. Totalling 14. So, with the RAW, the lightning crackles
between the multiple, very close targets, causing 13 Damage on target 1, and 14 damage on anyone within 2
yards. Nasty (and not entirely intuitive). As I mentioned that was not the intention. This was.
Spells causing Damage ignore Armour Points from metal armour, and will arc to all unaffected targets within
two yards ... inflicting hits with a Damage +0, handled like a magic missile.
So, that would be 13 Damage to the target and 9 damage to the poor saps standing too close. This was one in
my 'Fix It In Post' file. A known issue, but rarely spotted.
Breath Spell clarification

Q: Can we get clarification on the Breath spell? The talent states that it behaves like the Breath Trait,
but the Trait allows an Opposed Test, whereas the spell says the hit(s) scored are magic missiles, which
by definition are unopposed.
A: It's unopposed. Suggested errata follows:
Breath
CN: 6
Range: Special
Target: Special
Duration: Instant
You immediately make a Breath attack, as if you had spent 2 Advantage to activate the Breath Creature Trait
(see page 338) with +TB Damage. Decide in advance with your GM which type of Breath attack best suits your
Arcane Lore Talent. For every +2 SLs achieved, you may increase damage by +2.
This is a funny one. I edited the spell from the original wording to rebalance it. During layout, it was somehow
messed up -- I didn't develop this book, so I could go in and fix it after. It should probably look something like
this, but ymmv:
CN: 6
Range: Special
Target: Special
Duration: Instant
You immediately make a Breath attack, as if you had spent 2 Advantage to activate the Breath Creature Trait
(see page 338) with +Toughness Bonus Damage. Decide in advance with your GM which type of Breath attack
best suits your Arcane Lore Talent. For every +2 SLs achieved, you may increase damage by +2.
Entangle Clarifications
Q: What happens if you cast Entangle on a Large target?
A: The target is affected as normal. However, the Large target will automatically break free on its turn unless
you Critically Succeed on the Opposed Strength/Intelligence Test.
Update: There is a new dev clarification which modifies and perhaps partially contradicts this answer (see
below).
I assume what Andy meant was, you have to get a Critical Cast on the Language (Magick) Test for the Entangle
spell to be able to affect Large targets
BadJuJu#0604
Hmm see I assume that the reference was regarding the opposed test following. But I admit it can be either.
時－正義の味⽅#4453
The Strength Test.

Q: A target that is being affected by the Entangle spell tests their Strength against the caster's
Intelligence. Does this count as an Opposed Test for the purposes of gaining Advantage?
A: Yes, for the person attempting to break free. No, if you're the one imposing Entangled Conditions with a
spell, as you aren't actually engaging in the Opposed Test yourself.
I think - now, bear in mind, I have no official status here - it's a slightly odd situation. So… It's an Opposed Test,
but Opposed against whatever is entangling you. So, if you are entangled, and break out, you'd get Advantage.
If I am entangling you myself, in a grapple or with tentacles or something, and you fail to break out, I'd get an
If I am entangling you myself, in a grapple or with tentacles or something, and you fail to break out, I'd get an
Advantage.
Ooh, slightly related. If you use Distract while in combat against multiple opponents, is that 1 or more
Advantage if you beat all of your opponents?
LongShadow#4934
But if it's a spell, it's the spell you're opposing not me, so you failing to break out wouldn't give me an
Adtantage.
Q: How does Size interact with the Entangle Spell?

A: For each step larger than Average the target is, apply a +1 SL modifier to the Strength roll to break free. For
each step smaller, apply a -1SL modifier instead.
Q2: How is the “Entangle” spell (p. 244) supposed to interact with larger or smaller toes? (p. 341) Does it count
as a regular opposed Strength test between creatures with different sizes? This is absolutely dear and logical if
we talk about, for example, grappling (p. 163) or weapons with entangle condition (p. 298). But does it work the
same way if we are talking about magic? Could it be that the Wizard uses the “Entangle” spell on his opponent,
the Wizard is two sizes larger than his target, and the opponent has no chance to get out of the “Entangle” until
the end of his days? Or is the “Entangle” spell considered the same size as its target?
A2: For the time being use the following rule. For every size step larger than average gain +1 SL, and for every
size step below average impose -1 SL
Q2: Is if +1/-1 SL per size for Language (Magick) test? Or is ii +1/-1 SL per size on opposed Strength lest to
remove Entangled condition? I still don't understand if the opposed Strength test from “Entangle” spell counts
as the same size as the target
A2: Apologies, the +1/-1 SL applies to the Strength test to remove the Entangled condition, not the Language
(Magick) test. Both caster and target count as the same size of target (it would be weird if bigger spell casters
were better at casting entangle spells, honestly), but the +1/-1 SL is there to give some advantage or
disadvantage to creatures whose size should logically make it harder or easier for them to slip out of an
Entangle spell. So for example, an Ogre Butcher (Large) spell caster trying to cast Entangle on a Halfling
(Small) would not automatically win the opposed strength test each time, though they normally would if it were a
simple physical grapple. The Haffling may attempt to escape, but suffers a penalty of -1 to do so (as they are 1
step smaller than average).
Q: When breaking free of the Entangle spell, does the bigger creature need to use an Action to do so?
A: Depends on the size difference. If the creature is 1 step larger, it will still need to use an Action. If 2 or more
sizes larger, it simply breaks free, with no Action required.
So, a troll would still be getting slowed down by the lasso as it snaps it, but the giant would ignore it. That's
what I mean.
Ah, okay. So if they need to roll, Action. Otherwise, free action, basically
BadJuJu#0604
2 steps bigger - no roll --> no action. yep indeedy!

Colour Magic
Winds of Magic
@Andres asks:
The book makes special mention that Ghur blows weakly in settlements, though no mention of other winds having
similar weaknesses. Is Ghur the only wind that's weak in certain areas?
Not at all. As a quick guide, I recommend checking the answer to Q105:

The Lore of Beasts

Amber Talons clarifications
Q: Do you add your Strength Bonus to Amber Talons’ damage?
A: Yes.
SB would be added there, like with Flaming Sword of Rhuin.

Q: Do Unarmed attacks with claws gained from Amber Talons keep the Undamaging Flaw?
A: Yes.
Q: When you cast Amber Talons on yourself, do your Unarmed attacks still have Undamaging?
A: They do.
Beast Form clarifications

Q: Why are there so few forms available for Beast Form?
A: It's already a very powerful spell and this best represents the spell as cast in most of the Old World.
@LongShadow asks:
It's curious that the Beast Form Spell allows the caster to shift into creatures listed in The Beasts of the Reikland.
That's very specific wording and doesn't include that many creatures.
1) Is it because the spell was written with Reikland PCs in mind?
2) There are published creatures not in the core book (stirpike for example), are they included?
3) Lastly, what if your campaign is set outside the Reikland, or outside the Empire?
A. Before I answer these, let me first tackle a point you raised: 'doesn't include that many creatures'
I disagree. Nine very different creatures from a single CN:5 spell is, I feel, more than enough. Especially when
you consider what over-casting allows. As I hinted at all the way back in Q11, this spell is likely too powerful as
it stands. So, making it even more versatile is... not what I would choose to do.
Anyway, to the questions.

1) No. 'The Beasts of the Reikland' from WFRP4, p314, is a broad enough spread of basic creatures to
represent the Amber spell lists used in most of the Old World and arguably beyond. Shape-shifting into other
creatures can easily be added with further spells, rather than making the core spell even better. Indeed, of all
the spells in the core book, this is at the top of the list of those I feel need revision.
2) Only if they are described as being added to 'The Beasts of the Reikland' section. So, RAW, no.
3) You could make changes if you wanted. I[t] could certainly be characterful. But I would be very careful here.
The spell is already very powerful. I would rather just make a new spell for a regional variance if required.
Q: Is Skittish also removed from the Creature statblocks when you use Beast Form to assume that
shape?
A: Yes. Bestial and Skittish were originally linked, so removing one removed the other. When this was changed,
the rules weren't updated elsewhere in the book.
Oversight. Skittish was, at some point, directly connected, e.g. you couldn't have Skittish without Bestial, so
removing the one would've automatically removed the other; however, I think we later found value in de-
coupling it (there is, in fact, a Skittish NPC in one of the Ubersreik 2 adventures) -but Beast Form was missed.
Official information given by TS Luikart (C7)
Q: For Amber mages, when in Beast Form, it's clearly indicated that they can't cast or dispel while their
form is maintained. Does that mean that they HAVE to stay in bestial form for WP minutes or can they
drop the spell to revert to normal if they wish so?
A: Yes.
Unless they have a friendly Wizard able to dispel it for them, they stay in Beast Form until the duration is over.
Q: When you cast Beast Form, can you choose a shorter duration than WP minutes from the outset?
A: Yes, but you must decide this before you cast. You can't just decide to end the spell without Dispelling it once
it's already been cast.
Q: I know that to end a spell after casting it you need to Dispel it, you can't just choose to end it, but I'm asking
about something different. When you're actually casting a spell, can you choose to have its Duration be less
than what it’d normally be? Beast Form has a duration of Willpower Minutes so if you have 40 Willpower it lasts
for 40 minutes, but when you're making the roll to cast the spell, can you choose to make the spell's Duration 1
minute or can it only have a Duration of 40 minutes?
A: You can set the duration as you wish when casting the spell, that's fine. You should declare it to the GM at
the time. (My WP is 40, so this will last 40 minutes normally, but I cast it to last only 10 minutes)
Q: Do you keep your Talents and Skills after you change form with the Amber spell Beast Form?
A: Yes, but not all of them can be used (this requires common sense).
@TinyDancer#8966 the spell doesn't say you lose any talents or advances, but some may not be available to
use while in beast form. For instance, Shieldsman would be really hard to justify if you are currently a snake
and without a shield.
LongShadow#4934
Yes, but common sense whether they apply or not. As @LongShadow#4934 says. But as noted, my opinion
carries no official weight. :)
Q: When using Beast Form, do you take the Movement Characteristic of your new form?
A: Yes (this is officially errata, as the RAW missed this out).
Q1: If you use the spell Beast Form to transform into a creature that has higher or lower Movement than you,
such as a horse or snake (page 316), do you replace your Movement characteristic with that of the creature or
does it stay the same?
A1: RAW no, but it is an error. You should inherit the Movement of the creature you take the form of.
Beast Form and Critical Injuries

Q149
@Andres asks:
1) Do Critical Injuries carry over to and/or from a Beast Form transformation?
Yes
2) What if the Injury is a Broken Knee when turning into a Snake, or a Tail injury when turning back into a
Human/Elf?
Translate it to an appropriate location as determined by the GM.
So, if it were me, the Broken Knee/Snake would be a few broken bones in the lower region somewhere (Body).
Snakes tend to have 400+ bones, so there are lots of options there. And Humans have tail bones, and it hurts
like buggery when they're broken! Fortunately, a broken coccyx usually heals by itself. Again, a broken bone in
the Body location would be a perfect match for me.
Flock of Doom and extra damage

Q: Can you increase the damage caused by Flock of Doom with extra successes?
A: No, because it's not a magic missile. You can increase AoE, range or duration, however.
Q: Just a quick question about tile Flock of Doom spell, which I believe has not been answered on tile discord
server thus far. Tile spell description says that tile flock inflicts +7 Damage hit at tile end of tile Round to
everyone affected. I'm unsure whether one should add the spell's SL to that damage or is it simply a constant 7
from which you subtract TB and AP.
A: As flock of Doom is not a magic missile, additional SL cannot be used to increase its damage. You can use
the Spells SL in conjunction with the Overcasting rules on page 238 to increase the duration, area of effect or
range. In most cases, increasing the duration or area of effect should result in some extra damage.
The Lore of Death

@ScoopDogg87 asks:
WFRP4 question about applying the Lore of Death: In the rules it states that only one Fatigue Condition can be
assigned on a target affected by a spell from this lore. However, when looking at the Lore of Beasts or the Lore of
Fire there is no cap to Fear or Ablaze Condition respectively. Why is that?
In short, because they all work differently. Fear doesn't stack, and only lasts 1d10 Rounds. Multiple Ablaze
Conditions don't wipe out a character completely (but can hurt!). Fatigue Conditions do stack, and would quickly
wipe out a character if there were multiples of them, which would be stupendously unfair if multiple low CN
spells were cast at the same target.
The Lore of Fire

Lore of Fire rider clarification
@LongShadow asks:
When it comes to the Ablaze Condition and Lore of Fire wizards, can the Condition be applied to inanimate
objects, or is it purely for animate objects?
TL;DR
...Lore of Fire spells only sets creatures alight, not things.
The wording isn't 'anything', it's 'anyone'.
Incidentally, I'd actually marked this rule to be minorly altered before publishing for clarity here, but the rule
that's printed still states the RAI, so I never marked it for Errata.
@LongShadow asks:
Thanks for the answer to Q104, it was nice taking a trip down your memory lane. There is still one question
though (and it's what originally sparked my original question), do objects that are on fire count as having Ablaze
Conditions and would that benefit a fiery wizard. So, not stuff that is set alight by the Lore of Fire specifically,
but things that are on fire anyway like torches, braziers, bonfires, etc.
This question caused me to pause as I was certain the answer was already in the rulebook.
So, I checked. And the answer isn't in the rulebook.
Somewhat befuddled by this, I checked my notes, and rules covering this were down to be included. However,
space appears to have yet again been the eternal enemy there, so there are no rules detailing how the Winds
of Magic can be sourced from the surrounding world, including sourcing aqshy from empirical sources of heat
such as a fire.
But that's easy to fix. Let's add a quick rule here to act as a stand-in until it is covered in the official rules.
Further, I'll also embellish the 'Repelling the Winds' rule on WFRP4, p237 so that fire is clearly included there,
too.
The following two rules are sourced from my WFRP AE rules (Andy Edition, the rules I wrote between WFRP2
and WFRP3), so is as unofficial as these things possibly can be, but it should act as a handy guide for those
looking for answers here.

Certain materials attract individual Winds of Magic, and, if worn in sufficient quantity, can benefit you when you
attempt to cast spells. However, if you bear trappings that attract a Wind of Magic you do not use, the attracted
wind may interfere with your ability to manipulate magic effectively.
The materials that attract the individual Winds are listed in Winds Attracted by…. Whenever wearing colours
that do not attract your wind (such as a Celestial wizard wearing green), or bearing trappings that attract
another wind (such as a Grey carrying a holy artefact), you suffer a penalty of –1 SL to all Language (Magick)
and Channel tests.
— Winds Attracted by... —

College Attracted to... Appropriate Colours
Amber Untreated animal remains Browns and oranges
Amethyst Bones Purples, dark blues, and black
Bright Flames Red, browns, oranges and yellows
Celestial Images of celestial phenomena Blues of all hues
Gold Metal Yellows, oranges, browns, and dark greys
Grey Anonymity* Grey, black, and white
Jade Organic life Greens of all hues
Light Holy artefacts Whites, golds, and light greys
*: Wrapped scarfs and wide-brimmed hats hiding the face, voluminous robes hiding body shape, and similar
trappings.
So, using these rules, if you carry a torch and you try to cast a spell not using the Lore of Fire, you suffer a
penalty. And, yes, if you carry a metal sword, unless you are a Gold wizard, you suffer a small penalty.
That said, swords can be fashioned from many substances, and staffs are popular for a reason...
To the next rules, this time covering modifying the SL of channelling and casting spells. Again, it's worth noting
these could not be more unofficial if I tried. They are rules drawn from a different ruleset, after all (just edited a
little to match WFRP4).

The Winds of Magic wax and wane according to the surrounding environment, which can make channelling
easier or more difficult for wizards attempting to cast spells. Variable Winds provides sample situations that
affect the individual Winds, and can be used as the GM feels fit. Generally speaking, the opposite of any
situation that attracts a wind will repulse it. For example: where distrust and betrayal attracts the Grey wind,
trust and friendship repulses it.
It is suggested that bonuses and penalties are used judiciously, and that they are never higher than +2 SL or
lower than -2 SL, although exceptional circumstances could incur modifiers of almost any extreme.
— Variable Winds —
Magic Attracted to…
Amber Atavism, Brutality, Dominance, Ferocity, Frenzy, Isolation, Remoteness, Stubbornness, Wild Animals,
Wildernesses
Amethyst Battlefields, Boundaries, Clocks, Death, Gardens of Morr, Gibbets, Longing, Reverence, Respect,
Silence
Bright Anger, Arguments, Dynamism, Excitement, Heat, Impulsiveness, Flames, Passion, Pride, Vehemence
Celestial Anticipation, Clear Skies, Dreams, Imagination, Inspiration, Inventiveness, Hope, Omens, Patience,
Prophecies
Gold Heavy Metals, Greed, Experimentation, Industry, Logic, Knowledge, Science, Obsessiveness,
Rationality, Wealth
Grey Confusion, Distrust, Gales, Independence, Intrigue, Lies, Fog, Shadows, Storms, Wisdom
Jade Animals, Fecundity, Friendship, Healthiness, Plant Life, Rain, Soil, Summer, Stone Circles, Water
Light Beauty, Contemplation, Enlightenment, Faith, Holiness, Illumination, Pacifism, Purity, Pyramids, Truth
So, with that take-it-with-a-pinch-of-salt optional rule in place, if you have fires around you, you can claim a
bonus of up to +2 SL with GM permission, and perhaps higher bonuses in extreme circumstances.
That should plug that hole for the moment. slight_smile
Crown of Flame clarification

Q: Does the Fear rating of the Crown of Flame Spell also affect friendly or allied characters? Or does
Fear only trigger if the source of the Fear is also an enemy?
A: Yes, it affects everyone.
Fine question. Let's read the relevant section of the spell.
WFRP4, p247, 'Crown of Flame':
You channel Aqshy into a majestic crown of inspiring fire about your brow. Gain the Fear (1) Trait and +1 War
Leader Talent while the spell is active.
There are no mentions of specific targetting there, so everyone is affected by the Fear (1) Trait, not just
enemies. The magic is just too awesome for folks to ignore.
However, as impediments go, it is not that debilitating unless you happen to be advancing your fiery wrath
towards your friends, or they are intending to advance upon your awesome majesty.
Wizards are scary.

Purge clarification
Q: Do you need to make Channelling Test each Round to maintain the Purge spell?
A: Yes. But if you fail any of the Tests, these simply don't add to the total rather than causing the spell to stop
(otherwise you'd never be able to use it against more serious sources of Corruption).
Q: To maintain the Purge spell in rounds after you cast it, do you need to make a single Challenging
Channelling Test for ALL subsequent rounds or do you need to make a ChallengingChannelling Test for EACH
subsequent round?
A: You should make a Channelling test in each subsequent round to maintain your Purge. However, I would
rule that failing a test or two wouldn't end the purge - you just wouldn't count that round against the total number
required to cleanse whatever Chaos taint is present. Otherwise you'd never be able to Purge more serious
sources of corruption
Flaming Sword of Rhuin Damage Clarification

Q: Do you add your Strength Bonus to Flaming Sword of Rhuin’s damage?
A: Yes.
SB would be added there, like with Flaming Sword of Rhuin.

Great Fires of U’Zhul Target Clarification

Q: The Great Fires of U'Zhul spell has 'Target: AoE' despite the fact that text suggests it actually targets
a singular entity and also creates a damaging AoE around them. I assume it's for purposes of
overcasting, but it also suggests you can just cast it targeting an area, in which case the part of doing
more damage to one target gets confusing. Shouldn't it have Target: Special and in description mention
that it initially targets a specific entity, and creates an AoE around them that can be expanded for each
+2SL?
A: This is an error. It should be Target: Special.
yeah, that probably ought to be Target: Special.

The Lore of Heavens
Cerulean Shield and Critical Deflection
Q: Can Cerulean Shield deflect critical hits?
A: Yes.
Note: As with Aethyric Arms, this should probably reduce the APs at that location, unless the GM is feeling
harsh (in which case, it might deactivate the spell, too).
@spooky21st if you have APs on a location struck, you can deflect the crit. The source of the APs does not
matter.
First and Second Portent of Amul Clarifications

Q: Can I keep stacking Second Portent of Amul to build a huge pool of Fortune, and then drop all of
those on a Casting Test to stack Overcasts?
A: No. And if your GM only allows one Fortune point to be spent per Test, this wouldn't work anyway.
You can't keep casting 2nd Portent - can only have 1 instance of a spell active at once. :) And there is a voodoo
doll style witch spell. :) Curious about the ruling about multiple FPs spent for multiple SLs on the same Test,
though, as the indefinite article a generally means only 1, too.
Q: Does the '+1 Fortune point per +2SLs' part count as an Overcast option or an intrinsic feature?
A: It's an Overcast. The words 'you may' were missed out from before 'gain additional…'
@Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358 I asked Andy when he was online earlier today, but I assume he was busy,
I'll repost:
It's about Spells that have an effect that makes you get some extra benefit for an amount of SL. I will use
Second Portent of Amul as an example (CN 6). It gives you +SL fortune points and 'For every +2 SL, gain
additional Fortune Point' and lasts IB rounds Is this just an effect of the spell, or is this related to the entry in
Overcasting rules that says 'Certain Spells may have additional, optional benefits for additional SL noted in their
description.'?
In practice: I cast Second Portent and gain 8 SL. I want to Overcast it to double the duration using 2SL. In that
case would I get 8 Fortune Points for 2x IB rounds or 9 FP for 2xIB rounds?
I checked and actually only First and Second Portent don't use the may wording. Would appreciate info if this is
just inconsistent wording in those spells and they should also just be using 'may', or if they are just meant to
work differently.
Jaalib#2203
Yeah, the +2SL indicates it's an overcast thing. I suspect the word 'may' has just been omitted.
Starcrossed Target Clarification

Q: Question about the Starcrossed spell: Do you target an opponent and now you make specifically
their day worse with your Fortune Points, or do you target an ally and they can throw their Fortune
points at any enemy within the spell's range?
A: You cast it on yourself or someone else, and that person can then spend their Fortune points to force rerolls.
Target: 1
Not Target: You
So, you cast it on yourself or someone else. That person can then spend their FortPs to force rerolls. Most
likely yourself, especially if you have other spells active. There's some intended synergy in the Heavens list.
The Lore of Metal

Enchant Weapon and Forge of Chamon Qualities
Q: With Enchant Weapon and Forge of Chamon, what Qualities do they add? Item Qualities like Fine
and Durable, or Item Qualities plus Weapon Qualities?
A: Enchant Weapon applies Weapon or Item Qualities. Forge of Chamon only applies Item Qualities.
Forge = Item. Enchant Weapon = Weapon or Item.

The Lore of Shadows

Lore of Shadows and whispering
Q: Can spells from the Lore of Shadows be cast without people hearing?
A: No. They are muttered but still audible.
Ignore non magical APs and you can cast stealthily (unlike other Lores).
Muttered =/= silent. Muttered = spoken quietly.

Hush
Q: I had a query about the Ulgu/Shadow spell Hush. Hush states it cannot be cast on an unwilling
target, though an object can be. Can an object already in the possession of an unwilling target be
selected? For example, a pendant around the target's neck or a weapon in their hand. I can't find
anything in the Core Rulebook that advises about this either way, so as long as the object is visible to
the wizard (i.e. within Line of Sight), I can't see why this wouldn't be legal but thought it best to check in
case I've missed something or this isn't intended.
A: No, but see full answer.
Hi, thanks for getting in touch. As the spell states that "an object targeted by Hush could be picked up after it is
cast" it indicates to me that you can't cast it on something that someone is holding. I'd personally rule that
casting it on a pendant that is around someone's neck is effectively targeting the person.
The thing I'd always consider is the idea of whether it'd be fun to have this done to you. As a player, it can be
great to try and argue for a spell to work this way, but then the GM could easily use the same rule (and other
examples like it) against you. I recommend that you speak to your GM or players and come to a joint decision
about how this works, as having consensus around the table is the best way of keeping a gaming group happy
together.
Matthew (Cubicle 7 Entertainment via private DM, 26.08.2022)
Shadowsteed
Q: If you Overcast Shadowsteed, can you summon more than one? As per the Overcast rules, you can
increase the number of targets for each overcast, and Shadowsteed has: Target: 1.
Yes.
Shroud of Invisibility and Casting while Invisible

Q: If a Grey Wizard casts Shroud of Invisibility on himself, can he cast other spells from the Lore of
Shadows without causing the effect to end? The spell says it ends 'if you bring attention to yourself by
making large noises or attacking someone', but the Lore of Shadows rider effect says your spells can
be 'muttered stealthily'. So does that mean you can cast while Invisible? I assume casting a spell like
Bolt would end it, since that counts as 'attacking someone'? Or does it just end if you attack someone
with a melee/ranged attack?
BadJuJu#0604 - that's intentionally a little vague, to allow GMs wiggle room. You definitely can cast it stealthily
- so while invisible, you could quietly cast something. Likely you won't get spotted, but common sense applies.
In the corner of a bustling tavern: you'll be fine. Standing 2feet from someone, in a silent room - they're going to
hear you. Then there's the spell effect to consider. With bolt, it shoots from you...so will draw attention to you:
revealed. But you could, say, quietly cast Shadowstep to get out of a tight situation. You could also Channel, as
well. In both instances, though, if there's someone with the Second Sight Talent, I'd be allowing them a
Perception test to notice the magic. I'd probably tweak difficulty based on how strong the spell is, and how
much background Ulgu is around. Altdorf, during a fog - pretty hard. Bright summers's day, in a meadow? Pretty
easy. Hope that all makes sense?
Witch Magic
The Lore of Hedgecraft
Q: How does a Witch or Hedge Witch learn more spells? Do they need a master or can they use
downtime only?
A: It's down to the GM. A combination of trial and error and tutelage may be appropriate, though Witches may
also have illegal Grimoires. This may be roleplayed or run as an Endeavour.
Down to individual GM preference at the moment. In my game, spells are learned between adventures or
during an adventure from a master or mistress, but it’s never fast. For me, I generally always roleplay it out —
to a degree. For Hedgecraft, learning how to best cut the mandrake with a Dagger of the Art, how to bury it
correctly for at least a week beneath a holly bush watered with the blood of a menstruating woman, then exactly
what words must be incanted over such a root, takes time. Witchcraft is a bit easier, as some (not all) could
learn from super illegal grimoires of nasty magics, but this is not catered for in the core. It was planned for later
expansion.
Andy Law#7502
Oh, I’d use endeavours, too, depending upon the circumstances. I generally prefer not to limit, but to offer
options.
Q: Do Hedge Wizards need ingredients to cast Arcane Lore spells? What about Petty spells?
A: Yes for Arcane Lore spells, but no for Petty Magic spells.
@Droog#4937 Yes, all Lores have a version of all Arcane spells, including Hedgecraft. Note, unlike ‘normal’
Hedgecraft spells, the Arcane spells in the Lore have higher CNs. But, like ‘normal’ Hedgecraft spells, they all
require specific ingredients to cast, which can significantly impact a Hedge Witch’s casting ability given
ingredients only work for individual spells. So, if only carrying 3 batches of ingredients for the spell Bolt, it can
only be cast 3 times before more ingredients must be secured.
Andy Law#7502
@Droog#4937 No, Petty Magic spells do not require ingredients.

Q: Do Hedge Witches use Grimoires? They don't have any way to read.
A: No, they do not. Theirs is an oral tradition. They never write their spells down and must learn from a teacher
in secret.
Hedge witches are, having said that, very different from normal Wizards.
Andy Law#7502
They don't do that Vancian stuff

Droog#4937
They do not record their spells. Ever. It is akin to a religion. Passed from one of the Blessed Few to the next
generation in secret. Because what they are doing is deeply illegal. I suggest reading the WFRP2 book Shades
of Empire.
Andy Law#7502
Lastly on Hedge Witches, consider them like priests rather than Witches in terms of how they work (all the core
spells, like Miracles, are CN 0), with specific ‘rituals’ that provide specific results, all of which are handed down
through the generations. They literally believe they are ‘blessed’ with their powers, and that they must do what
they can to preserve them in order to better protect, and guard against, the hedge.
The Lore of Witchcraft

See also The Lore of Hedgecraft for info on learning more spells as a Witch or Hedge Wizard.
Q: Is Witchcraft a variant of Dark Magic in any manner?

A: No.
This is potentially a blurry situation, but, at its heart, the answer has to be: no.
In terms of its simplest definitions, Dark Magic uses Dhar to power its spells. This is done by purposefully
forcing the Winds of Magic together into something much more powerful and terrible. It's dangerous, and steps
have to be taken both to form the Dhar if it is not already available and to then mitigate the danger it represents.
But, simply, Dhar is needed.
Witchcraft, by comparison, does not purposefully merge the Winds to make Dhar, and it does not need Dhar.
Instead, it negligently draws on whatever Winds of Magic are available and uses that.
Sometimes, a by-product of that process is the creation of Dhar, and the associated Corruption that goes with
doing this unprotected, but this is entirely by mistake, not purposeful. Indeed, most Witches have no idea
they're doing it.
So, Dark Magic requires Dhar and is deliberate, powerful, and requires a lot of study not to screw up.
Witchcraft does not require Dhar and is, by comparison, a big mess.
Dark Magic
Necromancy
Q: In Raise Dead, is the 'For every +2 SLs you score, you may summon an extra SL Skeletons' part
referring to an Overcast option? How many Skeletons would I raise if I roll +2 SLs on my Language
(Magick) Test?
A: Yes. When 'may' is used in this context, it always refers to an Overcast option (see the clarifications re: First
and Second Portents of Amul). If you have first Channelled the spell and then roll +2 SLs on your Language
(Magick) Test, you would raise a minimum of three Skeletons but because you have +2 SLs, you could also
choose one Overcast. If you choose more Skeletons (rather than, say, Duration), you would summon five
Skeletons in total. See page 238 of the core rulebook for Overcasting rules.
"For each +2 SL you score, you may summon an extra SL Skeletons." - Is a reference for Overcasting,
explaining what happens when Raise Dead is Overcast.
TSLuikart#6781
So, @Dork117#2832 , you roll 2SL. You get by default SL+1, so that's three. For every +2SL, you add another
SL skellies. +2SL = another 2 skellies. So 5 in total.
Chaos Magic
Q: Can you learn more than one Chaos Lore?
A: RAW, no, but writer Ben Scerri gives an interesting alternative rule: learning additional Lores (via Unusual
Learning) is possible but automatically grants Corruption.
Tbh, that's how I handle it. Same with multiple Arcane Lores. If you can find a source to teach you, you can
study more than one, but Channelling or casting Spells from any Lore after your first automatically grants
Corruption. I've never had a PC go down that route, as it's too dangerous. But I've had some tempted before.
The lore is pretty specific that you can learn more than one. That's what Dark Magic literally is, anyway. It's just
a very very bad idea.
BenScerri#0563 (Rat Catcher’s Guild, 29.06.2020)
Missing Spells
Q101
@Sacred asks:
I noticed the Lores are missing 3-4 big name spells each. Are these added in the supplemental books or were
they simply never put in and we'd need to homebrew them?
Currently, they will need to be homebrewed until they are added officially. It's also worth noting that there are
many more then just 3 or 4 spells missing in each Lore.
Loosely, and as I recall (and my memory is faulty at the best of times) my plan was to add more Petty, Arcane,
Colour, Dark, and Witch spells and Lores, as well as a new range of Battle spells for top tier stuff, Ritual spells
for long-term stuff, and full rules for Channelling Magic and how to handle spell creation. I discussed this a long
time ago when I was still producing the game. At that point, I was going to organise each Lore in turn and
release it - which is what I said at Warhammerfest - but that plan changed as time progressed.
Nevertheless, I'm sure more official material will be released concerning this soon as magic is super popular.
slight_smile
CHAPTER 9: THE GAMEMASTER

General Advice
No Opposition
No Opposition is a guideline for the GM only (rather than a rule). It does not apply to Ranged attacks, since
the Helpless rule it cross-refers to (p.162) only applies to Melee attacks.
See Ranged attacks and No Opposition.
Travel
Travel Costs
Q: Are the prices listed on the ‘Travel Costs’ chart on page 262 in shillings or brass pennies? The
pricing format is a bit odd…
A: Brass pennies. The general format for currency is GC S/d. So 3 5/2 is 3 crowns, 5 shillings and 2 pennies.
And it is brass. S/d

CHAPTER 11: CONSUMER’S GUIDE

Money
See also Alternative coinage.
Brass versus copper
Q130
@ChapterGrim asks:
I had a curious conversation about coins in The Empire in which the question "why brass not copper" came up,
and it pretty much concluded "it's cheaper" but it certainly raised a curious query for me. As a side note, most of
the time brass and bronze are near indistinguishable for the layman at least…
A. The primary reason? Because 'brass' is what was established in the existing WFRP setting as the most
common tertiary coinage.
WFRP1, p292, 'Coinage':
1 Gold Crown = 20 Silver Shillings = 240 Brass Pennies.

WFRP2, p103, 'Coinage':
1 gold crown (gc) = 20 silver shillings (s) = 240 brass pennies (p)
WFRP3, Player's Guide, p94, 'Economy & Equipment':
1 gold crown (g) is worth 100 silver coins (s) is worth 2500 brass coins (b)
(And people wonder why WFRP3 caused some folks to pause...)
So, we therefore have in WFRP4, p288, 'Money':
1 gold crown (1GC) = 20 silver shillings (20/–) = 240 brass pennies (240d)
Previous editions were clear that brass pennies, although being the most popular, were certainly not the only
tertiary coinage, with copper, bronze, or similar cheaper metals in wide use. WFRP4 left space for this to be
added in a later Trappings book with this sentence from WFRP4, p288, 'Money':
The Empire's coins are most commonly minted...
So, 'most commonly' but not 'exclusively'. It was intended that extra base metals and coin types would be
covered later, as discussed a little further in the answer to Q120:
The Cost of Living

See Maintaining Status.
Income from odd-jobs

Q: How much should PCs be paid when hired to do a job?
A: The average day rate is Status x 3. So a Silver 2 character should earn about 6ss per day. It's implied in the
hireling rules and confirmed by Andy in the following article: Keeping Up with the Liebwitzes.
“You earn about 3x your status per day.” That doesn't seem correct, where is that number from?
Jaalib#2203
It's hidden in the core book, although it takes a little to find it.
Andy’s Editor’s note: Want to know how much your Character actually earns before deductions for rent, food,
beer, wine, entertainment…? Well, it’s hinted at on page 309 under Hirelings where you can see daily and
weekly wages. With a little bit of cross-referencing with the Careers, you can easily calculate that normal
wages, before deductions, are 3 × Status. So, a Silver 5 Character would earn about 15 silver a day, the
equivalent of 180d a day. And a Brass 3 Character would earn about 9d every day.
Andy Law (Keeping up with the Liebwitzs)
As mentioned above, this is covered on page 309 and is three times a character's social standing per day.
Given there are 8 days in the week in the Empire, that gives us:
Silver 5: 120 silver (5x3x8=120 silver or 5 Gold)
Gold 1: 24 Gold (1x3x8=24 gold)
Q: How much of a character's income are they expected to have left at the end of the week?
A: This is the figures given on pp.51-2. E.g., a character with Silver 2 will have 2d10 Shillings left over. Silver
characters have lower living costs than Gold status characters, and so may end up with more spare cash at the
end of the week.
How do those huge numbers compare with how much money each character has spare at the end of an
average week?
The answer to this is found on pages 51-52. In short: Silver is left with 1d10 shillings/Standing, where Gold has
1 Gold/Standing, so…
Silver 5: 5d10 silver (average of about 27 silver/week)
Gold 1: 1 Gold (20 silver/week)
So, Silver 5 characters are effectively richer by an average of 7 silver shillings per week, even though they earn
significantly less coin. Why? A more frugal lifestyle.
Craftsmanship
Item Qualities
Practical Armour and the Winds of Magic
Q: Does Armour with the Practical Quality reduce penalties to harnessing the Winds of Magic when
worn by spellcasters?
A: No. Practical is only supposed to reduce the penalties from Item Flaws and those listed in the Consumers'
Guide.
BadJuJu#0604 Nope. The practical quality applies to the penalties for the armour, in the equipment chapter, not
the repelling the winds rule in the magic chapter. But I'll grant you, that could be clearer.
I'm afraid not. The Practical quality refers only to those penalties listed to Stealth and Perception. Even very
practically designed armour will interfere with the winds of Magic.
Encumbrance
Q: Do carried weapons (when not drawn) count as worn?
A: No.
Q2: Do weapons count as worn as long as they are not wielded? Example: Hand Weapon is a sword that is
carried in sheath. Will it have 0 Encumbrance unless ii is drawn or ii will have 1 Encumbrance all the time?
A2: Weapons do not count as worn in the same way as clothing. Look al the backpack or sling bag for ways to
reduce encumbrance in this way, as they are designed lo distribute the weight more evenly, reducing your total
encumbrance quite substantially. A typical scabbard is a hosier designed to keep the weapon in easy reach, not
to distribute weight. However, you might talk to your GM about creating such a scabbard, especially if it were
worn over your back.
Items
Q1: What was your inspiration when putting prices to goods and items through the editions?
A1: All pricing was focused on matching the existing economy.
Q2: Did you seek inspiration in real life, and try to balance things?
A2: Yes and, to a degree, yes.
Q3: What mentality do you use when making the economic aspect of the game?
A3: There was research (largely thrown out the window) and lots of spreadsheets.
Now, this is one where I could write an entire essay, as a lot of thought went into building the core of the
WFRP4 prices, particularly when it comes to moving the economy to one based on silver, not gold. But, I'll be
brief, largely as your questions are quite tight.
1) For my work on previous editions, all pricing was focused on matching the existing economy. For example, in
WFRP2, that was a post-war economy that was, at its heart, broken in many ways. WFRP4, by comparison,
offers the booming Reikland economy ripe for trade. I planned to present a completely different price list for
Middenland in the Enemy Within to show regional differences, but I never got there.
2) Yes and, to a degree, yes.
3) Mentality? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. But I will say that I read a lot of books, did a lot of
research, then threw a large chunk of that out the window because the Empire is unlike any real-world
equivalent, but it was fine inspiration. Then I turned to spreadsheets. Really big and complicated spreadsheets.
#AndyTheAccountant
Q: What's the reason to buy a tent when you can just get a sleeping bag. RAW, there doesn't seem to be any
benefits for tents and sleeping bags get a +20 for exposure tests in cold environments. Were tents supposed to
help against weather effects or?
Absolutely. Apply common sense here. If you're caught out in the rain, that sleeping bag isn't going to be much
help keeping you dry. This is left in the GM's hands.
Now, was there once more rules than this? Kinda, but not really. The extra sections were cut early for space
reasons, so it was left to a later supplement to cover this more fully, which is already the case with the Enemy in
Shadows Companion.
Weapons
Weapon costs
Q: While creating weapons for the core rulebook, did you use some specific costs for every Quality and
Damage or did you create weapons and come up with costs later? For me it would be awesome to know
exactly why, for example, the Zweihander costs 10 GC and the Bastard Sword costs 8 GC. It would be
very helpful for someone who is making new kinds of weapons to know how the devs made them (like:
hey, it has Penetrating quality so it raises price by X GC but it has shorter range so it should be reduced
by X GC).
A: There is no easy formula here, sadly.
This is an easy one to answer, but the answer may disappoint.

The WFRP4 weapon prices do not entirely reflect a weapon's capabilities. Instead, the prices also take into
account the materials used to create the weapon in question, the labour, scarcity, the local price variations in
Reikland (as the prices are for Reikland goods, the focus of the core book), and a host of other bits and bobs
that was used to build the WFRP4 economy.
In short: there is no easy formula to apply here.

Improvised Weapons
Q: Is it intended that all improvised weapons should be wielded using the Melee (Basic) Skill (since that
is the group under which the Improvised weapon stat block sits) or can they be used with other Melee
specialisations?
A: Yes, it is.
A. Yes, that's the RAW and RAI.

So, trained in Melee (Fencing), but decide to fight with a pot, you fall back on Melee (Basic), which, if you don't
have any Advances in the Skill, is just your neat Weapon Skill.
In-fighting and improvised weapons

Q1: What if you're trained in Fencing and someone forces their way into Infighting range - are you then
stuck using Basic with your rapier?
A1: Yes.
Q2: Alternatively, if you're skilled in Two-Handed and start swinging around a long heavy tree branch,
should that still be Basic?
A2: Yes, but the RAW breaks down here and may need some house rules.
1) If you are using the 'Optional: Weapon Length and In-fighting' rules from WFRP4, p297, yes.
2) Again, RAW, yes. However, this is where the Improvised Weapon rules from the core break down and need
some extra rules or GM intervention - after all, a big branch or hunk of metal will cause much more damage in
combat than a doily or a cloak.
Blunderbuss
Q205
Is it intended for a weapon like the Blunderbuss to cross ranks? I understand the Blast 3 Weapon Quality of the
gun as I interpret it works as a cone attack, but it's not a 8 pounder shooting shrapnel able to decimate a cluster
of soldiers.
So, a few things to mark here.

1) The Blunderbuss does not have a ‘cone attack’. If using the RAW, it uses the Blast Weapon Quality. Let’s
look at that:
WFRP4, p297, ‘Blast (Rating)’
All Characters within Rating yards of the struck target point take SL+Weapon Damage, and suffer any
Conditions the weapon inflicts.
So, for the Blunderbuss with Blast 3, all targets within 3 yards of the target suffer the Damage. Further, if you
use Small Shot as ammo, you gain a bonus of +1 Blast, so the Blunderbuss can have an effective Blast 4. So,
all targets within 4 yards (that’s two squares) take the Damage. Eek!
Before I discuss that, let me make a second point.
2) You can only target ranged attacks at a target within Line of Sight. So, you can’t target someone behind
someone else if you can’t see them, and you also can’t target empty space, as there is no line of sight to…
well… nothing. This is covered in WFRP4, p158, ‘Attacking’. This is a relatively minor point, but is important
when attacking groups as you can’t, under normal circumstances, select a target in the centre of the group who
is blocked by others. However, given the enormous blast area, does that really matter?
Let’s discuss that.
So, is Blast 4 a bit silly?
Yes, it absolutely is. If we are just talking in squares, all targets within 2 squares of the target (potentially
including you!) is hit by the blast when you use small shot. And that’s a huge area.
Is that the RAI?
Not quite.
There used to be a description for all weapons in this chapter, but they were mostly cut for space. In the
weapon description there was some limitations to the extra targets added. Obviously, this section is no longer
there and we have a simplified version of the rules.
So, RAW, it’s a bit crazy, and I intended to tidy that up with an Armoury book.
RAI would limit the targets to LOS, as I recall. But I don’t have that document to hand. When I get home I’ll
check the original weapon rules and see if that provides more here. In short: watch this space. I will ping
again…
Ranged Weapon Groups

Engineering
Q1: 'Those with Ranged (Engineering) can use Blackpowder and Explosive weapons without penalty.'
Does it mean that a Character can roll Ranged (Engineering) when using Blackpowder and Explosive
weapons?
A1: Yes.
Q2: Doesn't that make Ranged (Blackpowder) and Ranged (Explosives) useless as soon as the
Character attains an equal or higher Ranged (Engineering)? Like an uber-skill that encompasses other
skills (are there other skills like that?).
A2: Pretty much, yes. But, and here's the big but, Ranged (Engineering) was supposed to be handled a little
differently. It was intended that Ranged (Engineering) be capped at your Lore (Engineering) rating.
Q3: 'All Engineering weapons can be used by Characters with Ranged (Blackpowder), but the weapons
lose all Weapon Qualities whilst retaining their Flaws.' Can a Character roll Ranged (Blackpowder) when
using an Engineering weapon, although with all Qualities removed? Personally, I would prefer if the
answer to 1 and 3 is that you roll Ballistic Skill, i.e. you can use the weapon just not as good as your
(wrong) specialisation.
A3: Yes (and the loss of those Weapon Qualities can be enormous).
Ah, this is a good one, as it covers an area I've discussed a few times in previous answers. More on that in a
mo'...
1) Yes.
2) Pretty much, yes. But, and here's the big but, Ranged (Engineering) was supposed to be handled a little
differently. As I mentioned back in Q10 in reply to @joesmoke:
...there was originally a section planned for the core book that explained all the weapon groups, but that was
removed for space reasons. It explained that the Engineering Weapon Group covered all the weird and
wonderful experimental weapons, many of which used blackpowder. That cut section was kept to be used later
in an Armoury book.
So, why does that matter?
Originally, the cut section explained that Ranged (Engineering) could never have more Advances than your
Lore (Engineering) because the Skill was more broadly useful. But that was lost on the cutting room floor,
unfortunately, meaning Ranged (Any) became significantly more powerful than it was ever supposed to. I
planned to reinstall a version of that rule in a later Armoury Book.
3) Yes (and the loss of those Weapon Qualities can be enormous).
Weapon Qualities
Q: Why is it impossible to use a spear and shield in the core rulebook?
A: One-handed spears are supposed to be covered by the Hand Weapon stats. For more specific spear rules,
use these:
Weapon Enc Reach Damage Qualities and Flaws
Short Spear 1 Long +3 Impale
Spear 2 Very Long +3 Impale
2h Spear 2 Very Long +4 Defensive, Impale
Pike 4 Massive +4 Impale
2) As I recall, the spears were something like this, with something marked for throwing shorter versions (which
is where the Javelin rules come from, as I recall). Let's see if I can get this to format straight. Time to count
spaces...
Weapon Enc Reach Damage Qualities and Flaws
Short Spear 1 Long +3 Impale
Spear 2 Very Long +3 Impale
2h Spear 2 Very Long +4 Defensive, Impale
Pike 4 Massive +4 Impale
All that is off the top of my head, though. I don't have the WFRP4 rules I wrote anymore, but do have the
original WFRP AE version somewhere, which were the source for the WFRP 4 treatment of the weapon rules.
Weapon Qualities in combat

See also Initiative and Weapon Qualities clarifications for the impact of Fast and Slow on Initiative order. (In
short: these cause you to take your Action and Move at different times.)
See also Ranged Combat Clarifications for Opposed Tests versus Weapons with the Blast Quality. (In short:
you can't oppose Blast attacks, as they hit automatically)
Adding Qualities to Weapons

Q: Can Weapon Qualities be added to a weapon? Or only Item Qualities?
A: No, not normally; Item Qualities only.
@Zoltan#5019 1) No, not normally; Item Qualities only.

Blast Quality clarifications

See also Ranged Combat Clarifications for Opposed Tests versus Weapons with the Blast Quality. (In short:
you can't oppose Blast attacks, as they hit automatically.)
Q: Are Blast weapons supposed to do more damage the more targets they affect?
A: RAW, yes. RAI, no.
Similarly, should a blast weapon do more damage the greater the number of people in a targeted crowd?
RAW, yes. RAI, no. This outcome was a known issue that I had marked to revisit as it wasn't part of the original
design.
See also Damage of ranged attacks (reiterates the same issue re: targeting crowds and confirms there was no
fix).
Suggested possible fix (entirely unofficial; this is just your helpful uFAQ admin butting in): Deduct
Damage equal to [the modifier for Shooting Into a Group (p. 162) divided by 10] before applying Soak. This
should negate the bonus from targeting crowds without nerfing Blast weapons too much. (Note that the issue
shouldn't crop up with Fast SLs, as the rule on p.162 explicitly says that if you succeed on a Ranged attack
only because of your Shooting Into a Group modifier, you score +0 SLs. This stops the bonus from bumping up
your damage when you roll over your Skill. Another bonus of Fast SLs.)
Damaging Quality Clarifications

Q: When do you apply the Damaging quality during Opposed Tests? Does it apply before or after you
compare SLs with your opponent?
A: After (you may replace the final Opposed Test SL with the units die result of your attack Test)
But yes, to clarify, for @BadJuJu#0604 and @Paul S#3235 - if you look at the Damaging Quality, it says when
calculating Damage, use the SL or the units die. When calculating Damage from a melee hit, it's the Opposed
Test SL (i.e. the difference) that's used. So you'd either use the Opposed Test SL or the units die, whichever is
higher. The rule is clear, but looking at it, the example is not, as it is based on a Simple Test (i.e. unopposed
ranged attack).
Q: Say you roll a 40 with a Damaging or Impact weapon. Is the ‘0’ on the units die a 0 or a 10?
A: A 10. The same for Pray Tests, etc.
@Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358 Say you roll a 40 with a Damaging or Impact weapon
BadJuJu#0604
Dammit
is the '0' on the units die a 0 or a 10?

BadJuJu#0604
Busted. Erm, a 10.

Lmao. Ah, interesting

BadJuJu#0604
Same for Pray Tests. Etc.

Defensive Quality Clarification

Q: Do you have to Oppose with a weapon with the Defensive quality in order to gain the +1 SL bonus on
the Melee Test?
A: No. You need only be wielding the Defensive weapon in order to gain the +1 SL bonus.
@hrafnagud314#7583 you gain the Defensive bonus for wielding the Shield. Wielding means having it in one of
your hands, not necessarily using it to parry. So, if you have equipped a sword (main hand) and shield (off
hand) you can resist the attack with Melee (Basic), using sword. Gain +1 Defensive for wielding shield. But no
APs, unless you actively use the shield to resist.
Q: Does the Defensive Quality stack? For example, if you wield a Swordbreaker in one hand, and a Main
Gauche in the other?
A: Yes.
Ben's seems to be saying "if the Extra Arm Mutation works in a way that allows you to wield multiple Defensive
weapons, then you gain the bonus SLs to all your defensive rolls. The determining factor is how extra arms are
handled by the GM."
BadJuJu#0604
Trust the @BenScerri#0563

Defensive, p298:
If you are wielding such a weapon, gain a bonus of +1 SL to any Melee Test when you oppose an incoming attack.
So, all it takes for you to activate Defensive is to oppose an incoming attack. That could be with one of the
Shields or even a weapon held in a third arm. Or a fourth. So, the answer here is clearly… Defensive stacks.
So, carry two weapons with the Defensive Weapon Quality, and you gain a bonus of +2 SL to any Melee Test
when you oppose an incoming attack.
Durable Quality
Q: Does the Durable 'x' Quality give you the option to deflect ‘x’ free criticals?
A: Yes. You essentially reduce the Durable rating by 1 instead of removing APs. When the Armour reaches
Durable 0, you begin losing APs instead. Lost levels of Durable cannot be repaired except via the
Commission and Crafting Endeavours.
Effectively, the helm loses 1 point of Durability instead of losing 1 AP. If the helm is damaged again, it loses
another point of Durabilty, taking it to 0 Durability and 2 APs. After that, the helm loses 1 AP as normal per
damage sustained, eventually rendering it useless when it reaches 0 APs. So, the short answer to the initial
question is... yes. Okay, that all seems fine. But, it does beg a question: How do we repair lost Durability? Good
question! Glad you asked it, Andy. Well, according to the RAW, you cannot. You can only repair lost APs, as
covered on page 300. So, what do you do? Well, clearly the repair is beyond the ability of your standard
armourer. Instead, you need an expert to fix your super-high-quality helmet. Fortunately, Chapter 6 offers the
Commission and Crafting Endeavours to resolve that (someone else fixes it, or you do), but there are obviously
other ways to find high-quality smiths in-game.
@Andres asks:
If your gun is Durable, would it prompt a saving throw if it misfires? If it succeeds, do you take any damage?
Okay, so if a trapping has Durable 1, it has a 9+ save against destruction. If it has Durable 2, it has a 8+ save.
And so on.
Sounds good.
Now let's check Misfires and see what happens there.
WFRP4, p160, 'Misfires!'
If you are using a Blackpowder, Engineering, or Explosive weapon, and roll a Fumble that is also an even
number — 00, 88, and so on — your weapon Misfires, exploding in your hand. You take full Damage to your
Primary Arm location using the units die as an effective SL for the hit, and your weapon is destroyed.
Again, simple stuff. So, let's now apply those rules.

1) I roll 00 resulting in a Misfire for my PC's Durable 1 Engineering weapon.
2) An explosion bursts from my weapon, causing full Damage to my PC's Primary Arm location and destroying
the weapon.
3) However, as the weapon has Durable 1, it can avoid destruction on a 9+.
4) So, if I then roll 1-8, the weapon is destroyed. If I roll 9+, there was an explosion, but the weapon is not
destroyed (but is likely somewhat charred and blooded!).
Job done.
Entangle clarification
Q: The Entangle Quality describes having a Strength equal to the attacker's Strength. How does that
interact with the Size rule for Opposed Strength Tests? Does a Large creature still shrug off a whip
attack from a Halfling?
A: It uses your Strength, including any Size modifiers.
The Entangle Quality specifically grants the weapon 'your' Strength, so the Size rules do apply here, as your
Strength is attached to a particular Size band when resolving Opposed Strength Tests.
Hack clarification
@bearjuden113 asks:
Was it the intent that Hack might take effect immediately, or does the recipient only lose the armor point
afterwards?
The original intent, as Q192 discussed, was that the resolution order as detailed in the section now called
'Taking Your Turn' in WFRP4, p157 was more clearly codified. In short, that should have been something like.
1) Opposed Tests are resolved first.
2) Damage is then resolved.
3) Anything remaining is resolved; and if an order is required, the GM applies what makes most sense
according to the situation at hand.
In that order, Hack would come last. And the Weapon Quality was written with that order assumed.
However, as the rules were edited after submission, that assumption is no longer accurate as the section was
rewritten. So, we have to rely on the wording of Hack for an answer, and it can be argued Hack should come
before Damage for the reason I mentioned, not after.
So...
RAW: Hack comes first. Arguably.
RAI: Hack comes last.
Just to be clear concerning Q210, does the target of the Hack attack take an extra point of Damage from
reduced armour immediately?
RAW: Arguably yes.

RAI: No.
Impale clarification
Q: If I lose Wounds from a ranged weapon with the Impale quality (Impale wasn't triggered, the attack
just dealt me damage normally), is the ammunition lodged in me?
A: No. Only crits caused by a weapon with Impale cause ammunition to be lodged in your body.
Hey @Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath)#8358 If I lose Wounds from a ranged weapon with the Impale quality
(Impale wasn't triggered, the attack just dealt me damage normally), is the ammunition lodged in me?
BadJuJu#0604
Nope.
Or does Impale's second paragraph only apply from Crits dealt by the weapon?
BadJuJu#0604
Just if it's an Impale crit. Yes, the second thing.
Penetrating Quality clarifications

Q: Does the Penetrating Quality ignore the first point of each piece of metal armour, or just one point
total?
A: Just one point total.
Q1: Weapons with penetrating quality ignore 1 AP from each metal armor or 1 AP from all metal armors total?
Example: Enemy wear Mail Shirt and Breastplate. Will weapons with penetrating quality ignore 1 AP from Mail
Shirt and 1 AP from breastplate leaving only 2 AP? Or weapons with penetrating quality will ignore total 1 AP
from Mail Shirt and Breastplate leaving 3 AP?
A1: Just the first point of all other armour - so the first point of your total amount of metal armour is ignored, but
not 1 from each individual item. In your example, wearing a Mail Shirt and Breastplate, 1AP is ignored leaving
3AP.
Q: Which Shields count as metal for the purposes of the Penetrating Quality?
A: Assume all Shields are made of wood unless they have the Durable Quality.
So, how do we fix that? Well, let's keep this easy. First, make all the Shields count as non-metallic. Next, so
there is an option to upgrade your shields, add the following rule to the end of the Durable Item Quality on page
292:
If the item is a piece of armour, it counts as being made of metal for the purposes of the Penetrating Weapon
Quality.
Sure, this is a blunt hack, but it quickly resolves the issue until C7 release an alternative.
Pummel clarification
See also Strike to Stun.
Q123
@Zoltan, The Golden Rook asks:
With a pummel weapon, if you score a hit on the Head, you do an Opposed Strength/Endurance test.
1) Should you win the Opposed test, do you gain an advantage? And 2) if you lose, do you lose all your
advantage and your opponent gains one?
A. This is very easy using the RAW.
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
The important rules in question are found in WFRP4, p164.
For 1), under 'Gaining Advantage':
Winning: If you win an Opposed Test during combat gain +1 Advantage.
For 2), under 'Losing Advantage':
If you lose an Opposed Test during combat ... you automatically lose all Advantage.
However, RAI? Well, that's a whole can of worms. This is one of the rules I tried to amend before publishing,
but my marked fix didn't happen.
Repeater Quality and partial Reload

Q: Can you partially reload a weapon with the Repeater (X) quality?
A: No, not according to RAW.
No, not RAW (on reloading). “If you are interrupted while reloading, you must start again from scratch”
Shield clarifications
See also Penetrating Quality clarifications for interactions with the Penetrating Quality.
Q: Can you apply a Shield's AP when defending against a Riposte or Champion counterattack?
A: Yes, but only if your initial attack was with the Shield.
@joesmoke#0464 asks:
Are there any circumstances when a shield's AP could be applied to defending against a Riposte or Champion
counterattack?
Using the RAW, yes. But only if the original strike was made with the Shield i.e.: You attack using the Shield.
You lose the Opposed Test, which triggers Damage from a Riposte or Champion. This means the Shield is
used in an Opposed Test against what is now an incoming attack, so the Armour Points sourced from the shield
trigger.
Q: Does Shield stack (e.g., if you have two Shields)?

A: No.
So, to activate the Shield Weapon Quality, you have to actually use the weapon to oppose the incoming attack.
So, the answer here is clearly… Shield does not stack. So, the Weapon Quality only activates when you use a
weapon with Shield to directly oppose an incoming attack, and, under normal circumstances, you can only
oppose an attack with a single weapon.
Two-handed Cavalry weapons used on foot

Q: The book states the rules for using two-handed cavalry weapons on foot, then says 'Single-handed
Cavalry weapons are not normally used while unmounted.' Does 'are not' = 'can not'? Would it still use
the Melee (Cavalry) skill?
A: If used on foot, treat cavalry weapons as Improvised weapons, which use the Melee (Basic) skill (or perhaps
treat a lance as a Spear, using the Melee (Polearm) skill).
Well, the profile is for mounted. If you wanted to use a lance on foot, your GM would have to rule what it
counted as. Improvised, or maybe a spear, depending?
Basically only use that profile while mounted, otherwise it's probably Improvised or a Spear?
BadJuJu#0604
If you have Melee (Polearm). Yeah.

Oooo, so on foot it wouldn't even be a Cavalry skill?
BadJuJu#0604
Like,y improvised, as it's not weighted or designed for being used 2H on foot.
Weapon Flaws
See also the Repeater Quality and partial Reload.
Tiring and the Champion Creature Trait

@Smiling Tom asks:
On the topic of weapons... here is a tricky one that actually happened to me and wasn't sure how to handle it.
Someone with a Tiring weapon (say, a Great Axe) charges in and cancels the Tiring Weapon Flaw. If this
individual happens to have the Champion Creature Trait, while parrying incoming attacks the rest of the Round
does it still counts as Impact and Damaging?
A. Great question, and everything needed to answer it is covered in the Tiring Weapon Flaw.
That's on WFRP4, p299:
You only gain the benefit of the Impact and Damaging Weapon Qualities on a Turn you Charge.
The important word here is 'Turn'. That is not 'Round'. So the rule only pings during your Turn, not for the entire
Round.
WFRP4, p156, 'Timing' makes the differences between Rounds and Turns clear.
Armour
Plate Armour
Q1: In the rules, plate armour has the same number of APs as chainmail. But, in reality, the plate was
much more durable, and a warrior in armour could ignore many sword strikes. And arrows against
good full plate armour would mostly be ineffective (in the language of the rules, they would have the
quality of 'Undamaging'). Is this done for some kind of game balance?
A1: No. The core rulebook 'plate' represents off-the-smith's-rack plates over other armour, and not full plate.
Q2: What do you think about the possibility of increasing the number of APs, or perhaps considering a
weapon without certain qualities (for example, Damaging or Penetrating) to have the quality of
Undamaging. Our gaming group thought that maybe a knight should be really very seriously armoured.
A2: Potentially yes to all of that, but you have to be careful when creating rules like that.
Okay, this is a bit of toughie. Largely because you're correct, but also don't realise that WFRP4 only offers a
limited set of trappings. It's the starting point to get everyone going, but it doesn't contain much top-level gear.
Really, the plate armour experience you're describing isn't what WFRP4 covers in the core rulebook.
What do I mean by that?
You intimate the answer to that question when you say: 'good full plate armour'. Because that's just not what
WFRP4 offers. It offers a mish-mash of plates stacked over chainmail, probably with leather padding
underneath. It's highly protective (5 APs and Impenetrable!) but it's also not 'good plate armour'. It's not made to
spec, and it's not complete. However, it is good enough for the vast majority of PCs, so works perfectly for that
book. It provides off-the-smith's-rack plates over other armour. Standard adventurer stuff.
But not top-to-toe plate.
Armour like that was planned to come in a later Armoury expansion where you get all the top-level stuff. I also
planned to include it in Power Behind the Throne when discussing the Knights Panther. I.e.: the core book
doesn't have awesome stuff like engineering weapons, made-to-measure blades, or full plate armour. So,
you're not really comparing like for like here.
The reason this isn't clear in the core book has been mentioned several times in the #wfrp-q-and-a. As
mentioned before, at one point, all trappings were to have a small write-up. You can see what I mean by that
on, say, WFRP4, p304, where each of the trappings has a small explanation provided. Every trapping was
planned to have that level of detail. But, early on it became very clear that space was too tight, so plans for that
were dropped. The result of that was that all weapons and armour were left without a description outside their
hard rules, meaning you never receive a proper summary of what 'Plate' is as defined on p300. So, you are left
to guess.
With that all said, let's answer your questions.

1) No.
2) Potentially yes to all of that, but you have to be careful when creating rules like that. But, given I hadn't
arrived there yet for WFRP4, and I no longer write for the game, it's no longer something I really need to worry
about!
smile
I hope that clears it up.
Critical Deflection
Q: Can Critical Wounds caused by going below zero Wounds be deflected by Armour?
A: No, because they are not Critical Hits. These are automatic Critical Wounds and so cannot be deflected.
Critical Deflection can only be used for Critical Hits (which is both doubles and rolls divisible by 10 with Impale)
- not for automatic Criticals caused by going below 0 Wounds.
Q: Do you get to see the critical effect result before deciding whether to deflect it?
A: Per RAW, you don’t have to decide until after the crit result is determined, but a lot of people don’t run it that
way.
Per the RAW, the PC doesn’t have to decide until after the crit result is determined, but I think a lot of people
don’t run it like that.
Q: If my player sacrifices armour to deflect a crit, do they still take the Wound loss noted in the ‘Wound’
column of the Critical Effect table?
A: Yes.
@JollyRoger#4271 You take all normal Wounds, including any extra Wounds caused by the Critical Wound.
You only ignore the Critical Wound effects.
Q: If you burn a point of armour you can ignore a crit. However you still take the additional wounds.
Plate armour also lets you ignore crits, so do you still suffer the additional wounds from a crit then
since the wording is the same? Or do you just not roll?
A: The intent is that it operates the same as normal critical deflection, but without trashing your armour.
Erm, I'm 99% sure it's the same, but I'd need to check. IIRC that was the intent. Like, you can still get battered
around, but avoid the effect, without trashing your armour.
Q: If rules say that APs should be ignored, do you allow them to be used to deflect a Critical Wound?
A: No.
No. The rule is clear there. For Critical Deflection to ping, you need to be protected by the armour.
Armour Qualities
Boiled Leather over Leather and Flexible Armour
Q: Can a Boiled Leather Breastplate be worn overtop of, say, a Mail Shirt and Leather Jack?
A: Soft Leather can be worn under any other kind of armour. Flexible armour can be worn under any kind of
non-flexible armour. So yes.
Flexible just allows something to be worn under other armour

BadJuJu#0604
Yes @BadJuJu#0604. Soft Leather under anything, flexible under non-flexible. So Boiled Leather BP (non-
flexible) above mail (flexible) above soft leather is golden.
Partial and Open Helms

Q: The Partial Armour Quality means an Open Helm can never offer any protection, RAW, except in
some rare cases. How should we address that?
A: The RAI was that it only provides APs half the time. A simple fix is to rule that Partial only applies after you
reverse the dice result to determine the Hit Location. So a roll of 20, reversed to 02 and hitting the Head,
bypasses the armour, but a roll of 30, reversed to 03, does not.
In short, the intention, obviously, was for the helm's AP to only work half the time. I suggest changing the rule
to:
When an opponent's Hit Location number to hit you is even, or when your opponent rolls a Critical Hit, ignore the
partial armour's AP.
That should fix it until a better option is offered officially.

Miscellaneous Trappings
Torch
Q: What are the rules for torches?
A: Errata: You can buy the pitch for 6 torches for 1ss (and find your own sticks). They each burn for one hour,
illuminating an area of 20 yards. A torch counts as an improvised weapon that can deal an Ablaze Condition on
a Critical Hit (or automatically, if the target is particularly flammable).
I would expect that this was an oversight. We may be able to address this in a future item, but for the moment I
would treat a suitable treated torch (wrapped in rags and dipped in pitch or a suitable alternative) as burning for
1 hour, illuminating 20 yards, and in addition would count as an Improvised weapon that inflicts on Ablaze
condition on a Critical Hit (or automatically, if the GM rules that the target is particularly flammable). The pitch to
light 6 such torches would cost 1 silver shilling - you can find your own stick.
CHAPTER 12: BESTIARY

General Bestiary clarifications
Q: Why are the Creatures in the Bestiary so weak?
A: These are the equivalent of average starting characters (after rolling Characteristics but before adding
Species Skills and Talents, or a Career). They are not the weakest form of these Creatures but baseline
versions with average starting Characteristics. You are supposed to tailor these to your table by adding any
Traits or Careers that may be necessary.
First up, that isn't a true statement. The weakest versions of those creatures would be (generally speaking) -8
weaker on their Characteristics. The stats in the Bestiary, like the stats in all WFRP Bestiaries (a secret rarely
discussed), are starter versions, not the weakest versions. And they are there to be boosted as a GM requires.
Let's use Humans as an example. The Bestiary on page 311 gives them stats of 30 for their Characteristics.
However, the weakest starter Humans are down at 22. Similarly, a Bestiary Bear may be listed at Toughness
45, but the weakest Bears would start with Toughness 37. Of course, experienced characters are generally
better, much like Black Bella or Paul Dankels on page 313 are better than baseline Humans -- similarly,
experienced Bears would be generally better than unexperienced Bears.
The Peoples of the Reikland

Ogres
Q. Why do Ogres look like they have bad teeth? Is it just how they are or is it because they don't
practice dental hygiene to the extent that other species typically do?
A. Both. They also lead a life where loss of teeth is common.
Loosely, three things:

1) It's how they are.
2) Ogres usually lead a very physical lifestyle, and loss of teeth in combat is common.
3) As you suggest, Ogre dental hygiene likely leaves much to be desired; but the same could be said for most
species in the Warhammer world.
Generally, depending on the art and the edition, some Ogres have almost Human looking teeth (not my
preference), whereas others are more akin to jagged rows of shark teeth (which fits the species well, I think).
For your game, go with what works best for you. My Ogres have very sharp teeth, with many missing to attrition
or age and more growing in (my Ogres, like elephants, are polyphyodont), which creates a Maw that few would
want to go anywhere near, and not just because of the terrible smell!
The Monstrous Beasts of the Reikland

Bloodletters (errata)
Q: Bloodletters have a trait called Claws. What does it do?
A: That is an error, remove it.
Nothing. Remove it. I put my hands up for missing this one. Like the Bite rules, Claws were once universal to all
clawed creatures, but that was removed late in the development process. Or, at least, it should have been…
Demigryph
Q. How do Demigryph Knights actually tame their mounts? There are statements of 'wrestling them into
submission' but there are Demigryphs who have mauled Trolls and can rip apart armoured knights and
horses with strength alone... How would someone do that? My head canon is you just need to fight it
for long enough that it considers you worthy or something like that.
A: Most raise them from birth. Others break them, but it's not for the faint-hearted.
Loosely, this is covered in The Empire for Warhammer8, which makes it clear that most, but not all, Demigryph
Knights raise their Demigryphs from birth. For the foolhardy idiots that want to 'tame' an adolescent or adult
Demigryph, they're in for a tough time. Breaking a wild animal like that takes time and skill and usually fails if
you do not have divine favour or magic.
The following paragraph makes that clear.
The Empire, p45, 'Demigryph Knights':

Whilst many of the monstrous creatures ridden by the heroes of the Empire have been raised from birth, such is not
always the case with Demigryphs. Amongst some Knightly Orders, an aspiring knight's final trial is to capture a
Demigryph and break it to his will. Unsurprisingly, many fail and are torn to bloody ribbons. As a result, there are
relatively few Demigryph Knights in the Empire and even the Knights Griffon, who count fully two dozen of these
majestic beasts amongst their number, still rely primarily on more conventional steeds. However, those few small
Orders, such as the Knights of Taal's Fury and the Knights of the Vengeful Sun, whose entire brotherhoods can take
to war upon these monstrous beasts, have a roll of victory honours surpassed only by the most ancient of Knightly
Orders.
Q: You said that the knights who manage to tame a demi have some divine or magical things going on.
Is that something similar to the Bears of Ursun where divine favour lets them tame the creature or more
just something needed to survive long enough to tame an adorable death machine?
A: It's not a requirement but is very useful. While no God officially calls out Demigryphs as sacred (yet), those
like Taal may target wild animals.
To be accurate, I didn't say that all knights who tame demigryphs definitely have divine or magical things going
on, I said, and I quote:
Breaking a wild animal like that takes time and skill and usually fails if you do not have divine favour or magic.
So, it's damned useful, but not required.
That clarification aside, on the divine side, you could say the outcome is similar to what happens with Ursun
and bears. But it's similar only, not the same. No god specifically calls out demigryphs as sacred in the same
fashion that Ursun calls out bears as holy. So far, at least.
However, cults for Gods like Taal certainly do have prayers and blessings that affect wild animals, so divine
influence from the correct gods can make a big difference if you're looking to tame that demigryph for adorable
death machine fun.
Giant Spider (errata)

Q: Giant Spiders have Bite as an Optional Trait, but it has no rating. What rating should it have?
This one bugs me a little. It's a remnant of an earlier version of the Bite Creature Trait that was relatively
universal for biting creatures. The rating, for a Size (Little) Spider should be a measly Bite +3 as I recall.
Hippogriffs
Q: What's the deal with Hippogriffs?
1) Do they have the wrong size listed?
2) Do they have too many wounds listed?
3) Or does the wound-calculation formula not apply to them?
It's 2. A clean error. Known, but caught after the last Errata was compiled, so added to be addressed in a later
Bestiary, where I intended to make a sly inside joke about it.
So, if you want what it should be:
Page 321
Hippogriffs should have W 36.
Hydra (errata)
Q: Why does the Hydra have BS 0 when it has a ranged attack?
A: This is a mistake. It should be BS 40.
Page 322: Hydras should have BS 40.

Pigeons (errata)
Q: Pigeons are Size (Tiny) and have Size (Small) as an optional trait, but not Size (Little). Is this an
error?
It's an error. It should be Size (Little). I completely missed that one, I think, and don't recall marking it to be
fixed. Good catch!
Creature Traits
Attack Traits clarifications
@skyperbole asks
RAW, the Creature Trait attacks are a bit restrictive, as most require Advantage to be spent to activate. Based
on the base-line profiles included in the Bestiary and many of the published adventures, this special action
would rarely activate.
1) Had you considered an alternative or optional rule that would offer the GM the option of simply using the
creature's special attack (such as Breath or Vomit) instead of its standard Weapon attack?
I did not consider this - not seriously, anyway. However, I did consider many different methods of activating the
attacks.
2) Do you think a simple swap would be fair, or OP as far as the creature is concerned?
A very hard question to answer as different attacks have very different power levels, and the loss of a core
attack means different things to different creatures. For some attacks a simple swap would be particularly
powerful, for others it would be much less so, and may significantly impact that creature's potential.
Loosely, and in general, I would suggest finding a different method for activating the special attacks instead of
swapping attacks out from your creatures. That would be closer to the original RAI, and will hopefully ensure
your larger creatures aren't stomped by even mid-tier parties.
Armour
Q: Does the Armour Trait count as armour and can you use it for Critical Deflection?
A: Yes and yes.
Well, is the Armour Creature Trait actual, well, armour? Yes. The rules state it clearly on page 338, and, well,
it's the name of the Trait.
So, can a creature lower their Armour Creature Trait by 1 to ignore a Critical Wound?
Again, yes, using the rules presented on page 299. So, that means we can unambiguously answer the first
question:
Do you consider it RAW to allow Armour Trait to deflect Crits?
Yes. The RAW allows you to use the Armour Creature Trait to deflect Critical Wounds as defined on page 299.
Animals and Low Initiative
Q: Why do animals like Bears and Horses have such low Initiative, meaning they are always terrible at
Perception?
A: This was to be covered by Creature Traits, but wasn't due to oversight.
Suggestion: house-rule a Creature Trait that gives a bonus to Perception (and perhaps Navigation?).
Andy, it's based off Initiative though, which is a similar issue. Like you guys have given low Initiative to animals
like Bears and Horses, meaning they are always terrible at Perception, which is a skill that I feel most animals
(certainly predators) should probably be decent at (at least as good as the average human, and certainly not
half as good like the horse is)
That's a weird one. Most animals are almost blind compared to humans, but have better hearing and certainly
better smell. Not really sure how you'd accommodate that in rules
Мink#9077
That was to be answered with Creature Traits.

Bite
Q: Do free attacks from sources such as Bite and Vomit have a per turn limit?
A: One per turn per such attack.
I hope there is, otherwise they went from underpowered to Godlike. I always thought it was one special move
per round. Like, one bite, or one stomp, but not infinite bites or stomps? Or maybe one of each type. So one
bite, one stomp, one vomit, but not three bite?
Soojai#7506
yeah there's nothing that says free attacks or bites specifically are 1/turn
Pippington#2889
Bite is once per Round per creature.

Ethereal
@MagicznyCysiu asks:
Question about conditions and Ethereal creatures.
1) Should the Bleeding, Ablaze, Poison Conditions etc deal Damage to them or not? (I assume not, but prefer to ask)
Ethereal, WFRP4, p339:

It can only be harmed by Magical attacks.
This means sources of Damage with 'Magical' attached as a keyword, this includes anything with the Magical
Creature Trait, Magic, and, RAI, Blessings and Miracles, but this is not explicitly marked in the RAW.
Those Conditions only apply if the source of the attack is Magical. If the source of the attack is not
Magical, then any associate Conditions can cause no harm, so no negative affects are suffered.
2) Suffering a Condition also means losing Advantage, so should they even get the ones like Bleeding in the
first place?
They only suffer any associated Condition from an attack if the source of the attack is Magical.
3) And what about Ablaze inflicted with Fire Spells? Should it be different than normal ablaze in this case?
Spells are Magical, so that ghost is on magical fire. So, in that instance, yes, the Ablaze Condition is
suffered, the Creature is 'harmed' by it.
Magical
Magical, Daemonic and Ward saves
Q: Here's a question about whether magic missiles bypass Daemonic and Ward saves. RAW, Ward
stops all damage assuming the save succeeds. In core, Daemonic seems to stop everything as well. In
the Starter Set, the Magical Trait bypasses Daemonic: so do magic missiles count as having the
Magical Trait, or is it just unwritten/assumed that they should count as Magical. (I mean, logic suggests
so, and that's how I've played it, but one needs evidence for the rules lawyers.) Or, am I dead wrong
about magic missiles counting as Magical?
A: Magic missiles are 'Magical' but RAW, the Magical Trait doesn't bypass the Daemonic Trait.
This one is easier to answer than it may first appear. Let's head into the WFRP Starter Set, 'Adventure Book',
p45, 'NPC Traits'.
If you own the WFRP rulebook, those rules take precedent to these.
In short, all rules in the WFRP Starter Set are for the Starter Set only. If you want to use any of the rules there
that are different to WFRP4, that is your choice, but that is not the RAW.
So, how in the hell did this happen?
Well, that's a loooooong story. For the moment, let's just stick with the following:
RAW: the Magical Creature Trait does not bypass the Daemonic Creature Trait.
Magic, however, does count as 'Magical'.

Q: Magical and Daemonic Traits. It seems that Magical creatures (or weapons) don't bypass the
Daemonic trait in RAW, but was it RAI?
A: No.
No. That rule was lost in the development process. I intended to reinstall a version of it in a Realms of Chaos
book.
Regeneration
Q240
@skyperbole asks:
1) What is the RAW and RAI for the Regenerate Spell and Creature Trait in terms of healing lost limbs?
The Regenerate Creature Trait is pretty clear with the intention here, and the RAW matches the RAI. Let's look
at the opening sentence.
WFRP4, p341, 'Regenerate':
The creature is capable of healing at an extraordinary rate, even regrowing severed parts.
So, yes, lost limbs - indeed, lost anything - can be regrown with a successful use of Regenerate, using the rules
as presented in the Talent. Which, as you note, does require a 10 to regenerate a suffered Critical Wound.
2) It says 'fully regenerates a Critical Wound', so does that mean a limb could be healed with this spell
(assuming a 10 is rolled while active) as long as the Amputation surgery hasn't been performed (and thus that
part of the Critical Wound completed)?
Again, yes, and using the guidelines you discuss. However, I would be very careful of multiple castings of Jade
magic on any target for those looking to avoid an amputation. But that's another topic, and was beyond the
scope of the WFRP4 core book to cover, so currently there are no RAW limitations concerning that.
Q: Can the Regeneration Trait heal permanent injuries, such as amputation Critical Wounds, caused
before the Trait is gained?
A: No. Permanent injuries taken before the Trait are not healed. Active injuries may be healed any time if the
GM permits and permanent injuries taken after the Trait is gained can be healed, too. This also technically
applies to the Regenerate spell, meaning permanent injuries can only be healed if taken after the spell is cast.
Q: Looking for a clarification on the power of the Regenerate Creature Trait (and thus the Lore of Life spell). It
mentions healing Critical Wounds. RAW, this works for combat Criticals and implies it can regrow lost body
parts that come from the Critical Tables. What about older Criticals that are no longer Criticals because the
surgical amputation has been performed? Can the spell regrow any and all lost body parts, and if so, how far
back? I assume GM fiat, but wondering if there's a Dev clarification on this, since Players will always be looking
for something to their advantage.
A: With Regenerate - I would say that if the ability to Regenerate is conferred on a character then permanent
injuries, such as an old missing limb, may not regenerate - in other words you couldn't use Jade magic to
regrow lost limbs or stuff like that.
If a limb is lost whilst a character is under the effect of such a spell then I reckon it should be able to grow back.
Skittish, Trained (War) and Mounted Combat

Q: If a Horse with Skittish has Trained (War) and Trained (Magic) does it still count as having Skittish for
the purposes of it making its own attacks in mounted combat?
A: The rules were supposed to say that Trained (War) removes Skittish for the purposes of Mounted Combat.
@Thane Reynolds#5094 Yes, that's an artefact of older rules hanging around in the text. If you have training
War you should activate the Mounted Combat rule. That needs fixed, and is one I missed (although my text that
I have for my rules doesn't have that error, which is why I missed it). Thanks.
Size
Size and moving in combat
Q200
@Kazyleusz asks:
I have a question about the Size Creature Trait. More specifically, it's about Moving in Combat, kinda. In
WFRP4, it is clear that larger opponents ignore the need to Disengage when they want to leave the combat.
The problem that I encountered in one of the last sessions was, what if the monster just goes by? Is it should
possible to use an attack of opportunity on it or not? My player thinks his character should be able to do that
because enemy is large and I think he shouldn't because this fragment it brushes smaller combatants out of the
way, moving where it wishes.
In short, you are correct. There are no 'attacks of opportunity' in that instance.
...there are no 'attacks of opportunity' outside the Fleeing rules in WFRP4, as described on p165. However, as
Larger creatures ignore the Fleeing rules as they can Disengage automatically without recourse to Fleeing,
they never suffer from such attacks.
...Now, could you argue that smaller foes should have a chance to attack larger creatures as they push by? You
sure can. But this outcome is handled in WFRP4 with the standard Move and Action rules for that character.
That all said, I would be sympathetic to a player suggesting the Reaction Strike Talent should be allowed to
trigger in that situation. I'd likely let that occur in my games, even though it's not RAW.
Q229
@Yahuna asks:
On WFRP4 p157, under 'Taking your Turn' there is the following entry:
"On your Turn you have a Move and an Action, you can take these in any order — it’s presumed you are
probably doing both at the same time, and you can freely describe them as one combined manoeuvre."
Also, onp341 under the Size rules it is stated:
"A creature that is larger ignores the need to Disengage if it wishes to leave melee combat; instead, it brushes
smaller combatants out of the way, moving where it wishes"
Can this be interpreted (or was it the initial intention) that a creature with a larger size than its opponent(s) can
perform a Charge movement, attack its target, and then finish its charge movement (if any left) away from its
target?
RAW, no, this is not how it works. You can take your Action and Move in any order you prefer, and you can
describe them as a combined manoeuvre, but as far as the rules are concerned, they are discrete and handled
separately. Indeed, when Charging, it is called out that you can Move then use your Action for a Melee Test to
attack an opponent - the Move and Action are not combined; one just follows on from the other. So, no extra
movement is allowed after the Action as the Move is already completed.
However...
In your game, if the GM allows it, or if you want to expand the combat rules, there is certainly space for this.
Sure, this will add an extra layer of complication, and also disrupts the combat balancing of the rules, so some
accommodations for that will need to be addressed.
For example, characters should be able to make potential counter-attacks against such drive-by choppings.
Perhaps this is modified by the weapons used, or by Talents such as Reaction Strike. Whatever the case, there
is a whole new section of rules that would need to be created to ensure that mounted creatures, and similar big
guys, didn't dominate Combat because you only handled their needs.
This is also obliquely related to Q200, which you can check here:
Lastly, did I plan to present rules like this at a later date?
Yes. The core book was always designed to be, well, the core. Expansions for combat allowing for mounted
versions, mass warfare, flying, and more were planned.
Q230
@Yahuna asks:
WFRP4, p163, 'Mounted Combat' says:

"When Charging, you may use the Strength and Size rules of your mount for the purposes of calculating
Damage."
Does this apply the -2SL for using Melee to oppose the attack as in Defending Against Large Creatures?
No. As that rule is not a part of calculating Damage, it's a part of the Opposed Test to determine who wins the
combat on that Turn.
However, if the Mount attacked, assuming it had the capacity to do so, the -2SL penalty to Melee Tests
opposing that attack would definitely apply.
Size and Outnumbering

Q: Size Damage rules. Does the Damage multiplier count for ALL attacks the larger creature possesses, such
as special abilities, ranged combat (even from a crossbow that doesn't rely on strength), magical attacks/spells,
etc?
The RAW here is simple.

WFRP4, p341, 'Size Combat Modifiers':
Its weapons gain the Damaging Quality if the creature is one step larger, and Impact if two steps larger.
So, that applies to all weapons, bizarrely including Ranged weapons like Crossbows, but not Creature Traits,
Spells, and so on.
The next bit is... just... wow...
It multiplies any Damage caused by the number of steps larger it is (so, 2 steps=×2, 3 steps =×3, and so on);
this multiplication is calculated after all modifiers are applied.
What? All Damage? Yup! So, RAW, all Damage the creature causes is multiplied, no matter how that damage is
caused. Creature Traits, Weapons, Spells, you name it. Kinda cool, but nowhere near the intention there.
If you are interested in the RAI, use the following two replacements:
Its Melee, Ranged (Thrown), and Creature Trait attacks gain the Damaging Quality if the creature is one step
larger, and Impact if two steps larger.
And...
It multiplies any Melee and Creature Trait Damage caused by the number of steps larger it is (so, 2 steps=×2, 3
steps=×3, and so on); this multiplication is calculated after all modifiers are applied.
Q: How does Size work with Outnumbering?

A: Andy Law has provided the RAW (which should have been edited, but weren’t) and RAI, which makes for
Creatures that aren’t so easily Outnumbered.
RAW: A Large Creature versus two Small Creatures is still Outnumbered 2:1, sadly. However, Outnumbering
requires you to be Engaged. Larger creatures can freely Disengage, meaning they are harder to Outnumber.
RAI: Andy suggests two options:
1. Larger Creatures count as +1 person for every Size step up. E.g., a Troll counts as three people
against a Halfling (two Size steps difference), so would outnumber them 3:1.
2. Larger Creatures double the Size difference when counting for Outnumbering. E.g., a Troll counts as
four people versus a Halfling, so would outnumber them 4:1.
Engaged — i.e. having attacked the opponent, or having been attacked by the opponent, and neither party
having since moved — is a requirement for out-numbering. And, yeah, I figured that may be the case, but
always best to be sure.
Andy Law#7502
So as Righty was saying he would mean the Troll just backs up to maybe build up another barf.
Droog#4937
As an example, or just moves a bit and hits a target of their choice, no longer counting as Engaged with any
bearing the new target.
Andy Law#7502
Think of it as pushing your way through a crowd of small children.

Unknown Author
Yup.
Oh, the house rule is super simple, and likely one used by others at this point in WFRP4's life as it's kinda
obvious. A version of it was originally part of the core design, but it vanished at some point, likely because the
maths requires a few extra sentences to explain than is immediately apparent, and space was tight.
Regardless, it's less a house rule for me and more just how I've always played with big guys, for all it's a
massive simplification.
So, each step the creature is larger in size, the creature counts as one extra opponent. So, it takes four
halflings to out-number a human 2:1 (harsh!). Or, if a bunch of humans face a dragon, you'd need 8 to
outnumber it 2:1 (or 16 halflings!).
The rule works fine if you don't think about it. But, if you do, the maths requires attention when you have
creatures of multiple sizes facing off against each other. But, for all that takes a wee bit to explain, in practise
it's rarely an issue. I'd look up the original rule, but I wiped all the original files from my PC when I left C7.
That's the original treatment, actually. But it was considered too faffy for the maths. It would make a great
optional rule, especially for very large creatures.
Andy Law#7502
I think double is easier to do the math, no?

skyperbole#5497
Not as easy as just +1, but certainly not hard in the slightest.
Size and Qualities

Q: Does a Creature two steps larger than its target gain both Damaging and Impact, or do they only gain
the latter? If the Creature does have both Damaging and Impact, does it benefit from both at the same
time?
A: Yes, and yes. So it will benefit from the higher of the SLs rolled or the units die (Damaging), plus the units die
again (Impact), as a bonus to their base Damage. A Creature that rolls +3 SLs with a roll of 35 and Weapon +8
would do 18 Damage (8 + 5 + 5) instead of 11 (8 + 3).
Q: I have a question about how size interacts with the Damaging and Impact Qualities in WFRP and generally
how the two qualities interact a creature is two steps or more larger than its target does it gain both Damaging
and Impact, or just Impact. Additionally, if a character does gain both, can it benefit from both at the same time,
or does it just use Impact?
A: If a creature is two steps or more larger than its target - it gains both Damaging and Impact - which it can
benefit from at the same time. So it will choose the higher of either SL or units die for damage + unit die in
additional damage (anything ending on a 9 is really bad for the target...) As if that isn't bad enough, remember
that damage is multiplied by the number of steps larger - so 2 steps is X2.
Mind you - most folks are unlikely to ever face an opponent that is more than one step larger (Ogres and Trolls
being the most 'common' larger opponent that, say, an Imperial Soldier might fight) - which gives them
Damaging but no Impact or multiplying. [Well, one or two steps if you're a Halfling.]
There's a good reason why people fear the (rare) monsters of the Old World as they are very, very dangerous.
Tough
Q: Is the Tough Trait included in Bestiary statlines such as the Troll?
A: No. This Trait (and others like it, such as Brute, Big, Elite, etc) should be added to the Optional Traits line
instead. These are essentially optional packages of stat boosts to replace Career advancement when making
NPCs in a hurry, and shouldn’t be on the Traits line of any Creature as a result.
Now here's a question for you all. When a creature has Tough listed as a standard trait and not an optional one,
have the Toughness and Willpower increases already been factored in to the stat line? Also why not simply
increase the base stats instead of adding the trait? Two examples from the book are Trolls and Giants.
LongShadow#4934
That's a mistake in the core book that appears to have carried elsewhere because others don't really
understand what the rules were designed to do. I attempted to remove the error when I spotted it before the
publication of the core book, but it didn't happen for reasons (after all, I was just a writer at that point). Was I
was annoyed by it at the time? Well, yes, but it was one of the smaller issues that stood in the final book, so it's
not one I focussed on. Let's cover what should have happened:
There is a selection of optional 'Generic Creature Traits' designed to be 100% optional at all times. These traits
should never be included in a Bestiary statline. They were only to be used by GMs to quickly boost an existing
base creature statblock, or used on simple pre-built NPCs/Creatures in adventures and similar that were a
modification of a basic statblock (i.e.: that NPC had not gone through Careers, instead it just had Traits boosting
a base statline). If an NPC was presented in a published book in this way, the generic trait in question should
have been marked in italics on the Traits line to show the trait was already included in the statline. So, Trolls
and Giants? They should not have the Trait on their Traits line, it should be in their Optional line. I marked those
(and several other things in the Bestiary) to be amended before publication, but it didn't happen.
Andy Law#7502
Vomit
Vomit and free attacks
See Bite.
Weapon and Ranged Creature Traits

Weapon Damage
Q: The Weapon Trait in NPCs should include SB right?
A: Yes.
Weapon trait in NPCs should include SB right?

HidaOWin#8946
Yes.
Weapon Qualities and Flaws

Q: Can the Weapon or Ranged Creature Trait also have Weapon Qualities and Flaws?
A: By default, the Weapon Creature Trait lacks Weapon Qualities. Although the Trait is presented as an
abstraction to simplify weapons for the NPC, you can add Weapon Qualities if you wish. (The question asked
was about both the Weapon and Ranged Traits. Though Andy only specifically mentions the former in the
answer, it's safe to assume they both use the same ruling, or an exception would have been mentioned.)
So, RAW says no Weapon Traits for the Weapon Creature Trait. But it also allows for you to add them if you
wish. Now is that RAI? Yes, it is. Having to track multiple different weapons for multiple different NPCs in
combat is a pain for the GM, so that pain is mitigated by the Weapon Creature Trait. And that's what the RAW
offers. However, if you want to ignore this, you can, as you can just give the NPC a weapon from Chapter 11
and not bother with the Creature Trait.
ROUGH DAYS, HARD NIGHTS

APPENDIX 1: GNOMES
Gnome Characters
Skills and Talents
Q: Should the limit of five Talents for Gnomes include Small?
A: No. That was a mistake.
@Paid â bod yn dwp#4390 asks

Should ‘Small’ count as one of the Gnomes alloted 5 species talents? In the core rules the halfling doesn’t have a limit
to the number of talents, and so gains ‘small’ automatically. But with the cap of 5 talents for the Gnome, this then
strangely becomes a choice to have to make. Common sense says ‘small’ is automatic requirement, not a choice for
the Gnome. Is the cap of 5 talents a mistake?
It is. And a bloody annoying one because I not only missed that error, I wrote it! (My mind was still thinking of
Small as a Trait, not a Talent, which is what it originally was.)
Suffuse with Ulgu

Q: Does Suffuse with Ulgu's +1SL work on the owner of the talent?
A: Yes
You are within 8 yards of yourself, so yes. #Yay!

ENEMY WITHIN (GENERAL)

Gideon and the Daemon
Q: Shot in the dark since I know you left before the Enemy Within books were completed. I've searched
through the Enemy Within books for an explanation, but can't seem to find one. Is there some explicit
reason that Gideon's name (Sheru-tar Gee'taru) is so very similar to the big boss daemon's name
Sheerargetru? Is this meant to be coincidence, writer's whimsy, implied familiarity, imitation-as-flattery,
or is Gideon an aspect of Sheerargetru? (Or all at once?)
A: The original plan was to have an express connection (see the king answer for details).
This is because I had plans for Gideon and its later return through Power Behind the Throne, The Horned Rat,
then the full reveal (which could have been on the PC's side depending upon choices made - pesky, unreliable
Tzeentch!) in Empire in Ruins. But that didn't happen, meaning early seeds sown never took root.
I'll try to keep the explanation for this brief. There is a lot to sum here to ensure you understand this tiny section
of what was going on there. The important part, I suppose, is that Shertu-tar Gee'taru was planned to be a
larger part of the ongoing story, and its true name was a part of that.
To keep this explanation simple, assume that Gideon is a part of the Greater Daemon behind The Enemy
Within. You could assume this is in much the same way that the Greater Daemon is a part of Tzeentch. If you'd
prefer a more mundane description for that, consider Gideon to be the subject of the Greater Daemon, and not
a happy one as it had gained a taste for the material realm when with Teugen.
Now, as this problematic Daemon grew more independent and sentient, it also became more like its Greater
Daemonic master. In turn, its true name, a reflection of its soul, was morphing to become very close to that of
the Greater Daemon, too. As you noted.
Why it was important was to be investigated using Research, possibly in downtime, in the Wittgenstein libraries
and from Etelka Herzen's grimoires - where Gideon would have been named in truth, and Teugen's involvement
and history consolidated for PC understanding - and the Collegium Theologica in Middenheim and at other sites
(after hints to do this from others, when required).
Amongst many other things, this would all hint that daemonic names potentially reflect the nature of the
daemon in question, and can be deciphered by the mad and the foolish (almost certainly incorrectly -
Corruption points spread aplenty) - and that would have also revealed the source of the Daemon's
shapeshifting after deeper investigation. All minor asides to the campaign at this point, and very easy to wend
in without impacting any primary plot points. But potentially explosive by the end.
Why?
Well, to sum some of the ramifications of that very quickly (and without any establishment or drama!
open_mouth ): Eventually, after also learning the truth of the Skaven-created dopplegangers in The Horned Rat
(and that the Emperor, and many others, had been replaced by them! - ties to the Konrad trilogy there, too!), it
would have led to several hard choices in the last instalment giving options to, for example, significantly weaken
the Greater Daemon in return for setting Gideon free (which, in turn, was actually the plan of the Greater
Daemon, which could later manifest in its servant, which now bore its true name exactly).
So, in short: the name is a hint to one of Tzeentch's planned Endgames for the Enemy Within, and one of the
planned conclusions we had for the campaign, where the PCs kill the Greater Daemon in triumph, but it re-
manifests in Gideon (or Gideon ascends in power to replace its former master, effectively becoming it, showing
the many faces of Tzeentch). In that outcome, the Greater Daemon stays in the material realm after it is killed
because the PCs had earlier released Gideon in order to secure their success against, well, the Greater
Daemon. Pesky, twisty-turny Tzeentch! But that required proper foreshadowing, set-up, execution, then payoff,
which this paragraph does not do.
The whole point of that, and the other potential ends, was that Tzeentch almost certainly always wins (because
it's Tzeentch!), and that the PCs help ensure that as they are just another thread in Tzeentch's tapestry, but
they likely don't realise that until its too late.
Of course, others likely took it in a very different direction after I left (I've not read the published books) so none
of that is likely to apply anymore.
ENEMY IN SHADOWS COMPANION

Sigmafoil missing rules
Q: What does Sigmafoil do?
A: Taking it before bed means you regain +1 Wound upon awakening (in addition to any you regain from rest).
I passed on your query to the WFRP development Team and they responded as follows: This was omitted in
error. Slgmafoil, lf taken just before sleep, allows your Character to recover 1 Wound when you awake, in
addition to any other wounds recovered from the Healing rules on page 181.
DEATH ON THE REIK COMPANION

CHAPTER 5: RIVER NAVIGATION
Q: Is there a mistake in the Riverboat of the Empire Table?
A: 'In Riverboats of the Empire on page 32 and 33 the lengths given should be in yards rather than feet, and
the price and weight of items measured by the foot ought to be by the yard as well.'
THE HORNED RAT

INTRODUCTION
Skaven Troops
Q: Why do the Skaven in this book not have Skittish, when those in Death on the Reik did?
A: Skittish is an Optional Trait in the core rulebook. It's not something that every Skaven would have.
Regarding Skaven and the Skittish trait - it’s not something that every clan rat has to have (as demonstrated by
them having different stats in different books). It’s not a species-wide trait, it’s something you add to their profile
as appropriate. Some clan rats might be skittish all the time, some might be skittish under certain
circumstances, some might never be skittish. Don’t take the stats from one book and apply them to every clan
rat in the Old World; adjust as appropriate.
SULLASARA'S SPELLS OF UNRIVALLED UTILITY

THE LORE OF LIGHT
Q: Can Cleansing Glow deal Wounds to creatures that are Corrupted but don't have any Corruption
Points?
A: Yes. Beings with Minor Corruption take 2 Wounds, those with Moderate Corruption take 4 Wounds and those
with Major Corruption take 6 Wounds.
Q: Can Cleansing Ught damage corrupted NPCs that lack Corruption points such as Cultists, Mutants, and
Beastmen?
A: Indeed it should! 2 wounds for Corruption (Minor), 4 points for Moderate, and 6 for Major. We strongly
recommend, however, that you do not rely on this spell for dealing with the sort of being that carries a
Corruption (Major) trait.
Official information given by Clan Whelan (C7) via email
MISCELLANEOUS
Alternative coinage
@ChapterGrim asks:
Is there any specific reason in lore (or mechanical reasons in WFRP4) that there wouldn't be more coin
denominations akin to those in £sd, much like the 'noble' mentioned on p288? I'm definitely curious if you came
up with other denominations, and what they may have been. I could certainly guess at a few based on the
common short-cuts on old tills…
So, first, there is no lore reason not to include a wider ranged of coin types. Indeed, the Empire is known for its
regional variations and complexity, so I would suggest the opposite is the case - more coins is not just likely, it is
effectively certain.
However, explaining that takes up a lot of space, so it was decided to leave that for another book. Much like
coinage was only briefly covered in WFRP2, and then expanded in the Old World Armoury, p6-10.
So, I made a brief mention of the potential complexity of the Empire's coins in WFRP4, p288, 'Money, Money,
Money':
...6/8, or 6 shillings and 8 pence. That number may initially look arbitrary, but if you translate it to pennies, it
becomes a far more understandable 80d, or one third of a gold crown. Indeed, an 80d coin is fairly common in
the Empire, and is called a noble.
And I left the greater complexity to be covered in a later book.
As for what other denominations would I have added?
Well, I already had a full write-up for this in place for WFRP AE (as mentioned in many previous questions, this
is the version of the rules I wrote for my own group between WFRP2 and WFRP3). In that version of the
economy, I had a wide array of coins in place, but I ended up not using them in practice to keep things simple at
the gaming table:
You receive 3 florins and a groat for the job!

I receive what now?
Given the complexity of it all, I only intended to use the extra coins I made if I had actual coins to give the
players. Using real coins, with values marked, can be fun, rather than being an annoying bit of maths on a
character sheet, which may require looking up what each coin means. Hard nope to that!
So, with that in mind, here's the list of coins I had at the time. It matches WFRP4's design for coinage at the
time of writing this answer.
COMMON COINS OF THE EMPIRE

Coin Value Pence/£
Sovereign 5GC -/- 1200
Half Sovereign 2GC 10/- 600
Guilder 1GC 1/- 252
Crown 20/– 240
Half Guilder 10/6 126
Half Crown 10/- 120
Noble 6/8 80
Laurel 5/0 60
Half Noble 3/4 40
Half Laurel 2/6 30
Florin 2/- 24
Shilling 1/- 12
Half Shilling 6d 6
Groat 4d 4
Threepence Bit 3d 3
Half Groat 2d 2
Penny 1d 1
Halfpenny Bit ½d 0.50
Farthing ¼d 0.25
Half-farthing ⅛p 0.125
Demilances
You've referenced Demilances about half a dozen times now - can you please give us the full saga?
Bloody Demilances!
The original WFRP4 rules I submitted included demilances.

The rules that were first released did not include those rules, but did refer to them in the Cavalryman Career.
As I've mentioned many times in this Q&A, and many more times when it was actually happening, there were
many rules marked after the initial launch of the WFRP4 pdf to be updated.
Back then, I was handed editorial control of the book with @Lindsay to install a big patch-it-up to make it all
work (because what was included at launch did not work), so I constructed a file with some 5K+ changes
included, drawing from fan feedback (collated by @Lindsay), my original RAI (sorted by me), and many a chat
with @Andy Leask (Vonbloodbath) to rationalise some of the changes made to the rules I originally created.
Most of the edits were tiny, such as changing capitalisation to ensure game terms were clear, or adding
italicisation for the same reason. Some were bigger edits to accommodate rules I needed to change or to fix
rules that were missing.
None of this was done in private. It was all done in conjunction with the Rat Catchers and on Facebook. And
everyone was super helpful.
One of rules I tried to fix was the missing demilance.
It was marked to be added in my 5K+ edits file, and having fixed the omission, I put the issue from my mind.
Job done, I thought.
But that's not what happened.
The demilance was far too cunning for that.
Bloody Demilances…
So, when the final pdf was sent to me, and the book was off to be printed, it was with some surprise that I had
to say this back on the 24th of August, 2018:
5760 changes made. One demilance missed! Dammit!
However, that statement proved to be very wrong - my 5760 suggested changes were not installed into WFRP4
- and the demilance was the first sign of that.
In actuality, only about 4K (a guess) of my changes were installed, but I didn't know that at the time. The truth
would become apparent over the next few weeks.
When I found out that my edits were not all installed, I was, to say the least, not a happy Andy.
It left me scrambling to patch up all the remaining holes, and trying to sort the oddities created by half-installed
patches.
To help with that, I again recruited helpers on Rat Catchers. They trawled through the book and found every
error they could. And I did everything I could to patch them.
When it came to the demilance, I marked it to be deleted.
But, that didn't happen.
So I marked it for deletion again.

And that didn't happen either.
And, as this post makes clear, we were all a bit perplexed about it on Rat Catchers at the time, and I kinda gave
up.
@Andy Law said:
But if the demilance is so stubbornly hanging on, let's keep it, huh? I've tried to erase the thing three times.
(I'll stop citing my posts - you can find the rest out there if you want to do so.)
So, I decided to just add the stats for the bloody thing and be done with it.
So marked the demilance to be added to the Errata.

@Andy Law said:
Bloody demilances. They will get stats. I hate them.
But that didn't happen either. A layout issue missed the rule.
Again.
By that point, I was saying things like this:
Bloody demilances.
...or...
shakes fist at demilance
A lot. And I do mean a lot. Facebook was full of this.

I swore a fair bit, too.
Bloody Demilances!
And it only grew worse as another attempt to add the thing failed.
So, I returned to the original plan and decided to remove it. Again.
After all, it was barely mentioned in the core book. It was just easier to remove it.
For obvious reasons, by this point, the Demilance was a standing joke. Entire books were jokingly lined up to
be dedicated to the thing.
@Andy Law said:
I have two demilance books planned. One will not be enough. #GivingItAway!
And even went as far as to say:
I need to commission a demilance adventure...
Which, for the record, I was doing. And I intended to have a big section covering rules for the bloody things.
Because at this point, the issue was legendary.
Maybe leave the demilance rules for that book alone!
But, by the 30th of January, 2019, I finally killed the thing:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Take that, Demilance!
Just take a look at the Errata, p1:
Page 109
In the Cavalryman Trapping entry, remove ‘,
Demilance’.
Hah! Dead!
That said, folks were still calling for Demilance, the RPG game. It was a standing joke, and was representative
of the difficulties I was facing at the time to install the changes the rules needed.
But it was fixed in the end.
Kinda.
So, the saga was: I wrote it. The rules were simple and worked. But they never officially hit print
anywhere, no matter how hard I tried to sort that.
But, deeper than that, the Demilance was representative of a deeper issues I was tackling at the time.
Bloody demilances!
Dwarf Runes
Q94
@Tyka said:
Do you mind sharing your Dwarf rune rules?
They'd take time to turn into a proper presentation, and my time is very much spent on other things (as I'm sure
you can imagine).
However, to be an enormous tease, I did use them for creating the magic item I posted in my recent blog post!
None of the rules were complicated, as the two runes dropped there likely show.
https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2021/08/wfrp-gnome-npc-with-graeme-davis.html
Elves
Q: Do Wood Elves have regional accents that can be mapped onto 'known' regional accents? The Wood
Elf in Vermintide has a Scots accent and it's got one of my players wondering.
A: It's a case of Yourhammer. In Andy's game, they do.
In my games? Yes, absolutely. In your games: that's up to you. To a degree, I covered this in the appendix
discussing Empire Accents in Enemy in Shadows, p144-145. Broadly speaking, everything I wrote about the
Empire there equally applies to Elves of any kith.
But, for the record, no Elves in my game sound Scottish. Or Irish. Or Celtic in the slightest...
Q: How do High Elves and Wood Elves get their stone and metal?
A: That was intended to be covered to Elf expansion
Andres#7311 asks
How do high elves and wood elves get their stone and metal? And how do high elves and eonir build bridges and
walls and operate bolt throwers? They don't have access to Miner and Engineer, so I'm not sure which career is
responsible for handling that.
This was always intended to be covered in a later Elf expansion. Elves tend to do these kind of things differently
to other species. As I'm no longer in charge of putting that book in place, I'll leave it for the current publishers to
answer this question more fully. But, in brief, if I were still running things, a different set of careers would have
explained this.
Q: Are Half-Elves possible?

A: Usually, no. But there may be exceptions (because of 'magic and gods and Chaos and more').
Historically, this has happened many times in Warhammer's long existence, and will likely happen again.
Take Konrad from the Konrad series. It's strongly implied he's half elf (or something worse). There is also a half-
elf, half-human character in Gilead's Blood. And the farther back you go, the closer you get to Warhammer's
AD&D-influenced roots, the more examples you'll find. Indeed, they are almost common, much like half-orc/half-
humans (pretty much impossible with the current version of greenskins, but note that half-orc/half-human
characters were hinted at in the pre-release articles about Warhammer: The Old World) or similar examples.
But, such inter-species breeding was, loose hints aside, abandoned long ago.
For WFRP4, like WFRP2 and WFRP3, the default is that Elves and Humans are a different species and cannot
interbreed. Indeed, this was driven home where we used 'species' not 'race' to describe them. And, really, using
the word 'race' for a different species is pretty damn problematic for many reasons that I'll not cover here.
So, does that mean I abandoned such characters in my own games? No.
In my game, I used Konrad, and I made him half elf because of what the fiction suggested. My game was set
after the books, so the character had investigated and tracked down his father by the time the PCs met him. But
that didn't mean that cross-species breeding was now a thing in my games. The reasons why Konrad was
conceived were deep, complex, not a little terrifying, and quite unique. But, that's another story entirely.
Indeed, in general, that's how I recommend such characters are used: as ways of showing how the
Warhammer world defies its own convention, breaks its own rules, and is a place where you should always
expect the unexpected. It's a world of magic and gods and Chaos and more. So, almost anything can happen,
even when others say it's impossible.
But, in general, it's a big no to half-elves. At least for the version of Warhammer that I built for WFRP4.
Q: So, can't Elves and Humans have offspring in the same way that horses and donkeys can?
A: No.
That was considered to be expressly not the case for WFRP2 onwards, and was forbidden when I was running
things (or writing before that). So, Elves and Humans were at least as different as, say, cats and dogs, not
buffaloes and cows. They are assumed to be from very different genetic families (i.e., they are not a different
species of the same family — or a sub-species of the same base species, so to speak).
Instead, they, and almost all other sentient species in Warhammer, were said to have been created/evolved
from very different sources, and are 100% incompatible when it comes to breeding. More scientifically, they
likely share Kingdom (animalia), Phylum (chordata), Class (mammalia), but it's all different after that.
That stands in comparison to, say, donkeys and horses, which share classification down to the Family level.
Clarifying that, Elves were not, as I was repeatedly told by several sources, primates, thus could not breed with
primates, like humans.
Until they do.

Q: Are Elves primates?

A: See above. But no.
…it was made clear to me that they were not primates. Just as is the case in 40K.
I suggest checking Xenology as a start. The space elves are definitely not human. Entirely different internal
biology and much more besides. Different bones, different organs, and different everything else.
And, remember it's not parallel evolution, it's intelligent design. The Old Ones stepped in.
The answers are, as with all things Old One, unsure. What is sure is that I was told that Elves and Humans
were different species, could not interbreed, and, like 40K, Elves were not primates. Leave the monkeys to the
mon'keigh, so to speak.
Down through the years, some have attempted to tackle it in WFRP and similar, and the general consensus
amongst most was that the Humans were uplifted and Elves were made, both to a similar design. That marries
well with most older material and a lot of new material, too. But all manner of different interpretations have been
bandied about: such as Humans as invaders when the Gates collapsed, or Elves just being Aeldari spirited over
to the Warhammer world by the Old Ones for one unlikely reason or another.
Personally, I'm not too keen on pinning down a truth of all that - I'd much rather it was left in our hands to do
with as we will if our games go that way. Leave the Age of Myths to myth, so to speak.
Grail Knights
Q: Can Grail Knights be raised as undead? I believe there's an adventure in 4e that has one being
raised, whereas older lore explicitly states that Grail Knights are protected from becoming undead due
to the Lady's Blessing.
A: Yes but see the long answer.
Well, so many ways to answer this one. But, in short: yes...
It's a bit more complicated with the Grail Knight. But, with a little thought about what caused that bloody Grail
Knight to return, it's easy enough to come up with fun exceptions that turn into terrible tales to spin for your
RPG adventures. After all, aren't Grail Knights supposed to know peace in death? Absolutely. Until one doesn't.
Again, if I was involved with it, I'd be keen to make sure the reasons and explanations were explored, if not
necessarily answered.
So, in short, I don't like absolutes as they deny inventive storytelling that could, with some work, make the entire
setting more vibrant, nuanced, complicated, and, I hesitate to say this, realistic.
In-character knowledge
@LongShadow asks:
Something that isn't quite clear from the core book is how much an average person without specialist
knowledge would know about the world around them. Examples include knowledge of the Imperial Colleges of
Magic, Imperial Law, beasts and monsters and so on. My question is therefore twofold. 1) In WFRP AE, how
much do your average people know about things outside their immediate circles? 2) Has it been left deliberately
vague in the main book so GMs can tailor things for their group and what advice would you give?
1) So how much does the average person know my personal games?
Loosely, very little from outside their immediate experience.

Ignorance, fear, and misinformation rule, and are often fuelled by myth, lies, over-zealous cults, and personal
bias. And what is or is not known by individuals (and how much of that is plain wrong) really helps define their
characters.
As a single example of this, consider the eight days of the week. Not even they are consistent in my version of
the Empire, which I made clear in the Tome of Salvation for WFRP2, p142-143, and in many other places in
Chapter VI of that book. The Empire is huge and filled with ignorance, variance, and opinion.
Thinking on this, I could probably write a whole essay on the subject, but a Q&A is probably not the best place
for that.
2) Was this left vague in WFRP4 on purpose?

Yes.
Some general guidance can be found in the letter in WFRP4, p20-23. But, that was purposefully made
subjective (and even included a hidden message reinforcing this) to ensure it could be easily ignored by GMs
and Players who saw the world differently from the setting the core book implied.
Katya (unofficial)
Q162
Can we please request a wee info-dump on Katya, possibly from the pages of WFRP AE, in order to inspire our
GMing?
Okay, the following is so unofficial it's painful, for all I created the goddess back during the WFRP2 days where
she was first presented in the Tome of Salvation.
So, take the following quickly tapped bullet points in any way you wish.
And, remember, I never intended to write Katya into WFRP with any depth. She was very much a goddess from
my games, although she's based on existing GW lore.
- Katya, Goddess of Disarming Beauty, is worshipped throughout the Vorbergland and in isolated other places.
- Traditionally, Katya uses her beauty to disarm others, i.e. bring down the defences of others and expose them
to experiences they would not normally contemplate.
- Katya is analogous to Atharti, an Elven goddess so beautiful it is said she could tempt any Elf from the Path
they were walking, no matter how lost they may be. Both Atharti and Katya unlock suppressed emotions of
mortals, stopping them from becoming fixated or obsessed with a single way of thinking.
- The Katyan Cult is not large, and is not dominated by any gender or sex.
- In the Empire, Katya's temples are often associated with brothels, red-light zones, playhouses, and any place
where sex is purchased.
- Her clerics actively seek those lost to the divine influence of the gods (or Elves stuck on a path, which they
see are the same thing).
- This includes looking out for Chaos Cultists, who they do not see as irrevocably lost.
- Katyans, in general, if not specifically, see those singularly devoted to Sigmar or Ulric or Taal (and similar
gods) as no better or worse than those lost to, say, Slaanesh, Khorne, Nurgle, or Tzeentch (this, obviously, is
not openly discussed).
- Katyans usually 'break' devoted and lost souls by unlocking feelings that stand contrary to how their chosen
God demands they act, opening them up to experiencing a different way of life.
- The Katyans take a different approach according to the cultist at hand, using all manner of techniques and
some particularly unique blessings, and will put years in if necessary.
- One of their most commonly used tools is making others fall in love with them. This can have all manner of
horrendous outcomes.
- Katyans are forbidden to use violence against those who are not irrevocably lost. They are forbidden to know
love or experience jealousy (good luck with that!). They are forbidden to set foot in the blessed temples of other
gods. They are forbidden to influence others for their own benefit, and may never take a position of power for
themselves.
So, make of that what you will. It may make you see the Kat House and Alisha, both included in the Ubersreik
book a little differently.
Khorne followers and magic

Q220
@LongShadow asks:
I have been meaning to ask, if Khorne followers don't use magic, how do they manage to summon daemons?
In short, 'rituals' are not necessarily 'magic'. I.e.: if you do specific things (the rituals), Khorne may approve
(here come the daemons! or mutations! or worse!), and no 'magic' is required.
The most common way this manifests is massive sacrifices of blood (for the Blood God) and the offering of
skulls (for the Throne of Khorne). The wanton slaying this requires has no specific requirement for magic, but it
may need to be enacted in a certain way to attract the Blood God's attention. And, obviously, different rituals will
have different results, perhaps with a Bloodletter (or more!) sent in response, or one of Khorne's Flesh Hounds,
or something worse...
Not that those deamons are likely to be friendly, though! Khorne cares not from where the blood flows.
The stories almost write themselves.
Looting in combat
Q201
@bluetardis asks:
I have a question re being in combat and looting.

I have a player / halfling thief who wanted to loot in the middle of combat - the mutant fight in Mistaken Identity.
I got them to do a hard roll due to combat but this started a discussion as rules/but I am a thief etc. and I should
have more options.
Is this something I should have setup with success levels using lockpicking as inspiration or what did I miss...
If I understand correctly, you’re asking if a body can be searched during Combat? If the answer is yes to that,
then the answer is yes, that can be done easily enough.
WFRP4, p127 discusses the Perception Skill and its uses in Combat, which includes the ability to notice details
about your surroundings or opponents that are not immediately obvious. This includes having a quick rifle
through someone’s belongings. As it’s during Combat, the standard difficulty is Challenging (+0), as made clear
in WFRP4, p158, ‘Default Combat Difficulty’. This Difficulty can then be modified by the GM according to the
circumstances. If there are multiple things that could be discovered, the simplest way of handling this is to have
extra +SL find extra goodies. So, score +0 SL, you find something, with each +1 SL in excess of this finding one
other item.
Notable Freistadts in Middenland

As a cartographer extraordinaire, do you have any ideas where can I find any information about the following
Notable Freistadts in Middenland (as per Archives of the Empire): Magnusdorf, Ulfensee, Wyrming?
So, first I don't have a copy of the Archives of the Empire: Volume 1, so I'm not sure what's in it. However, I did
develop those sections, and wrote others (although I don't think I was credited for any of that), so if the content
is the same as it was when I last saw it, it's all derived from my Master Map. So, yes, I do know where you can
find the info you're looking for: my maps!
Now, as to where they are?
Magnusdorf was originally a Black Library novel location (I forget which book off the top of my head). It's deep
in the forests north of the Midden Moors, accessible from the Carroburg road before it rises into the Draken
Hills. The land surrounding the Freistadt of Magnusdorf is pretty much all forest.
Wyrming is close to Magnusdorf - about 50 miles the south-west, with its territory diagonally bordering with it. It
stands on the Carroburg Road, just north of the Duchy of Drakken-Reuter.
Ulfensee is deep in the forests south of the Howling Heights and north of the Howling Hills, about 50ish miles
west of the border of Hochland. In its centre is Lake Ulfen.
Howzat?

Orcs
Q: Can Orcs be mercenaries? I know there's the Dogs of War unit from way back when, but other lore
has said the complete opposite, with there being no way to treat with them past maybe misdirection.
A: Yes but see the long answer.
Well, so many ways to answer this one. But, in short: yes…
Generally, there are always exceptions to rules. There are always surprises. There are always unique
circumstances that make a nonsense of 'incontrovertible truths'.
More specifically, Greenskins have a long history of being mercenaries. After all, a fight's a fight's a fight! 'Hur,
hur, hur. Me Orky-Know-Wats - me smartz! - haz got dem to pay us to fight wot we would hav been fightin'
anyway!'
But, to make it work, a good backstory is essential. So, what drove the Greenskins to become mercenaries?
Why do they still do it? Who do they work for? Chaos Dwarfs? Ogres? Traders? Others? With a little thought,
it's easy enough to resolve.
Heck, even my Whiteskulls Orc article on my blog almost went there with several Orcs that spoke Human
tongues and could be, for want of a better word, reasoned with, and none of that was particularly controversial.
You could argue they were only a few steps away from being mercenaries themselves. And many an
unscrupulous Baron would happily take advantage of that (with inevitably disastrous outcomes).
https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/04/da-whiteskulls.html
[...]
So, in short, I don't like absolutes as they deny inventive storytelling that could, with some work, make the entire
setting more vibrant, nuanced, complicated, and, I hesitate to say this, realistic.
Reiklander Thorncobbles
Q164
@Andres asks:
Do Reiklander Thorncobbles, as a rule, wear shoes?
They do not in my game. Halfling feet are just too big and look ridiculous in shoes, and I'm kinda fed up with
Halflings being presented as jokes only, which is what this would likely make them. But, that's my game. Do
what works best in your game for your game.
Skaven
Q: What do Skaven eat? As in how do they sustain their population in undercities? There are
statements in WFRP2 that their undercities are often more populous than the city above. But how? The
same book says Skaven have a faster metabolism than Humans so need to eat more (like rats would).
So what supports them? I know Skavenblight has a ton of black corn, but that's just the city itself. I've
never seen any source on how Skaven sustain themselves. That's why in my games I always go with a
far, far lower number of Skaven than Humans because I can't really justify the Skaven having this much
food.
A: They eat mutated corn, mould lattices, slaves, rivals, hunted things, Greenskins, underworld denizens best
left undisturbed, Skavenbrew, Clan Mouldar beasts, the results of scavenging, the spoils of war, and so much
more.
I love this question. Sure, it would be easy to dismiss, and I could talk around the issue. Perhaps I could
discuss what Skaven represent, and why they are presented the way they are. Or maybe I could dive into
arguments about 'cool' over 'realistic'. Or I could simply shout:
'WHO CARES? THEY'RE SKAVEN! THERE ARE LOADS OF THEM WITH CRAZY SKAVEN SHIT! AND
THAT'S COOL! STOP RUINING IT FOR EVERYONE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS! JUST HAVE FUN!'
But, nope. I call bullshit on that.
We all, after all, have fun in different ways, and things being ubercool and also understandable within the
framework of the setting are not mutually exclusive. You can have your cake and eat it. Adding carefully
considered depth and internal consistency does not have to change the Skaven, or that they are over-
populated and have OTT warpstone shit. Indeed, many would say that the strength of WFRP lies in examining
the Warhammer world and then making it all make sense. And I agree with that. It was frequently my job.
So, let's take a look at this. The Skaven need food. Obviously. And they are over-populated. Which is
unfortunate. Is the problem of feeding this chittering mass addressed in the official texts? And if so, does it go
far enough to explain everything? And, if not, what do we do to fix the problem?
In your case, your fix was to change the setting and lower the population of Skaven.
This would not be my preference. As far as I was concerned, my job required that I make sense of everything
GW presented, it did not require that I delete the parts that I personally didn't like or couldn't immediately
rationalise. More than that, I actually enjoy the challenge of taking seemingly contradictory or impossible
situations and making them work in a reasonable way. Ask anyone who knows me: I live for that shit.
But, and this is where we may disagree, I don't think there is a large problem here. Skaven already have a
broad selection of foodstuffs on their menu. Let's take a look at the obvious options:
So, what do they eat?
Everything they can get their grubby paws on. They're not picky. We have mutated corn (especially around
Skavenblight -- pity the grain-slaves that tend that black stuff!), mould lattices (everywhere), slaves
(everywhere), rivals ('Skaven crippled in fights can expect to be summarily butchered and devoured' as can
everyone else!), hunting (especially around Hell Pit where Packmasters hunt everything that moves for
experimentation and consumption), Greenskins (especially around Crookback Mountain which has various
mentions of Goblin slaves being enslaved deep below and transported upwards for labour and food),
underworld denizens best left undisturbed (if it lives, it can be eaten, and Skaven aren't picky), Skavenbrew
(let's go mad on warpstone!), Clan Mouldar beasts (that clan breeds more than just war beasts, after all -
reliable food to fuel the Warlord Clan Clanrats brings many warptokens, yes? Yes?), scavenging (often from the
detritus of towns and cities above), the spoils of war (or, if you prefer, we eat our enemies and anything else
that could be considered edible; by a rat), and... actually, I think that's where I feel I should stop. Just look at all
of that! And I've not really looked at the books yet! There is likely many a source in the novels, comics, White
Dwarfs and more that could add loads of fun extras.
So, given I've barely scratched the surface of the answer and already have a shed-load of potential
consumables, I already feel confident. Is there enough mentioned above to write a fun article about how to feed
all Skaven? Yes, I believe there is. Easily. Especially when you move through the different clans and how they
work with and against each other. Will resources be tight? Often yes. Will this bring conflict? All the time. Do
Skaven thus have to eat all kinds of disgusting shit? Hell yes! And sometimes literally. But, taking everything I
listed above alongside the sorcery-science of Clan Skyre and the breeding skills (and mutation skills!) of Clan
Mouldar, we already have more than enough for me to confidently build a working model for feeding their entire
society. And we also have more than enough for scores of awesome story hooks involving, at its core, warfare
over food resources (which is very Skaven).
Really, that would be a lot of fun to write. (STAY ON TARGET, ANDY!)
Now, the above may not convince you, and that's cool. But it is enough to convince me.
And I'll tell you another reason why it is.
My mum wrote a thesis on Skaven society for her degree. Yes, my mum did that. There's a reason I turned out
the way I did. She used only GW sources, many of which I supplied (she even contacted the studio at the time).
And she managed to get it to all work. In a way that other academics not only understood, but agreed with.
If my mum can get this to work and convince others she'd nailed it, I'll be damned if I can't!
#NotCompetitiveAtAll
Wizards
Q: We've seen short glimpses at possible Human High Magic, the most prominent one being the Night
of a Thousand Arcane Duels where a Book of Volans reading Supreme Patriarch became an insane
High Magic user and summons a Storm of Magic (and later kills all but one mage in Altdorf).
In another older source (I'm not sure if I read it in WFRP2 or a White Dwarf), there's a mention that
Volans might have actually been able to learn High Magic had he started to learn early enough.
1) Was this massive display of High Magic a sign that a Human High Mage, if he actually managed to
learn High Magic, would be more powerful than we've seen from Even High Magic?
2) And would such a thing actually be possible with someone like Volans doing a lot of dangerous
experimentation?
A: 1) No.
2) As it stands, no, but Chaos can do many varied and remarkable things. However, given the influence of
Chaos would much more likely lead to Dark or Chaos magic, I'd still lean to a hard no. High Magic is special.
And hard. It takes centuries to learn and master, and Humans rarely have that kind of lifespan.
So... this is almost impossible to answer without lapsing into speculation or simply making things up. Because,
in all sources I recall, Humans can't do High Magic. The reasons why are long and sometimes contradictory, but
regardless of the route taken, the destination is always the same: nope, nuh uh, ain't happening, Humans don't
do the High Magic thing.
Supporting this, I feel you've somewhat mischaracterised High Luminary Horx's 2415 attempt to become
Supreme Patriarch as an example of a Human using High Magic. I would suggest that's not what happened.
Instead, Horx -- later called the White Pretender -- trapped the Patriarch of the Light Order in a crystal labyrinth,
grabbed the Book of Volans, unleashed a Storm of Magic (which uses a completely different set of magic rules),
then went to war with the Colleges and the Supreme Patriarch in an attempt to wrest control. This sets up a
special Warhammer scenario with crazy magic everywhere, and we're good to go.
Now, the part you have assumed to be High Magic isn't described as that. Let's take a look at the exact
wording. Fortunately, I have it to hand as it was part of my research of the Altdorf book when I was still working
on that.
White Dwarf 389, p61:
Helmgart sundered the great arcane doors to the hall with a single blow of his warhammer and as the
Theogonist and his warriors poured into the hall they saw Horz, gibbering insanely as all eight Winds of Magic
danced between his fingertips. The first soldier to move forward to apprehend Horz were engulfed in a corona
of magic as the White Wizard unleashed the full spectrum of magic against them.
So, Eight Winds are deployed by one human as a result of a Storm of Magic and a powerful magic artefact that
grants access to extra spells. It's perhaps, arguably, Rainbow Magic, but it seems more likely to be a Wizard in
command of all 8 Winds because of a unique and extremely dangerous situation. Nothing specifically mentions
High Magic, and no descriptions of the raw majesty of High Magic are given.
Further supporting this, the Colleges, from bitter experience, tell their Wizards not to work more than one Wind
of Magic because Humans can't cope and tend to go a bit insane. Horz is a clear example of that.
So, assuming I've not missed something, there is no compelling evidence for High Magic here.
Now, as for Volans? Well, he's... special. Always has been. However, drawing upon the legends of long-dead
Wizard to support the possibility of High Magic is a bit of a stretch.
Potentially something to debate, but not something from which to draw conclusions.
So, to directly answer your questions:

1) No.
2) As it stands, no, but Chaos can do many varied and remarkable things. However, given the influence of
Chaos would much more likely lead to Dark or Chaos magic, I'd still lean to a hard no. High Magic is special.
And hard. It takes centuries to learn and master, and Humans rarely have that kind of lifespan.
As a final comment, my WFRP games have gone to many crazy and varied places in the last three decades,
but even at their most overwrought when gods walked the Warhammer world and the End Times came, I've
never had a Humans wield true High Magic.
LAWHAMMER
Animals rules
Q226
@bluetardis asks:
The following questions refer to your great blog posts on your Lawhammer blog (dogs, horses cats and careers
etc.).
Sure, let's go!

The animal careers don’t have a Status or an Earning Skill.
Correct.
Was that deliberate? It wasn’t explicitly stated that they shouldn’t have one in the article.
It was deliberate. The animals are assumed to earn alongside you. And the costs of their upkeep are similarly
incorporated into your Earning. It's super simple, but works in a pinch.
Now, could I have provided a bonus to a PC's Earning if an appropriate animal was owned?
Yes, and upon reflection, that seems a good idea, and very easy to incorporate. But, as noted on more than one
occasion, those blogs were written very quickly in a day each to get the ideas down fast. They are somewhat
unpolished because of that, and I like your suggested idea a lot. But it does add extra complications that would
have to be carefully considered.
Do animals have status?
You could say mongrel has a different status than an Araby charger. Which is covered by his pedigree (fine,
flawed) trait. But a working animal could earn on behalf of the character I suppose.
Yes, that could certainly be the case if you wished it to be. The RAW do not include this, though.
Also some animals have low Initiative yet are known for their impressive senses. According to you it was to be
answered with Creature Traits. Are these in line with your thoughts?
Keen Senses (senses)

One of the creatures primary five senses is highly developed, allowing them to spot what others miss. This
normally increases its breadth, range or detail. They may take Perception Tests to detect things that are
normally imperceptible with the associated sense, as dictated by the GM and may add SL equal to their
Initiative Bonus to all Perception (sense) Tests.
Wayfinder
The creature has an instinctual ability through magical or natural senses, such as magnetic fields, reading signs
or detecting the winds of magic (from the polar gates), to find their way accurately even without maps or
instruments. They add SL equal to their Initiative Bonus to all Navigation Tests.
Yes, these seem perfectly in line with what I was thinking. smile
Dogs rules
Q96
@Giant Worm asks:
One short question about your homerules to horses and dogs. What exactly mean Perform (Obedience) and
when should I test this?
Really, this is for individual GMs to use as they prefer. And it could be used in many ways (several of which
arguably transgress into Cool territory).
For example, a Perform (Obedience) Test could have an animal stick to their training without a character with
Animal Training directing affairs.
So, will the dog continue to stay when you're not in the room? Or not chase eat meat flung into an open yard
when on guard duty? Roll the test and see. It's arguably much more than just Cool as its something that needs
to be trained above and beyond the normal.
Or you could use it to represent an animal's capability in classic obedience trials (or similar), much as
@Roderick (He/Him) suggested to you in his replies here:
More generally, as these rules were created on the fly for the blog, I prefer others to find how best to use them
rather than mandate how they should be used from on high, especially for things like how Skills manifest in
play, which are always interpreted differently at each table. Every GM will likely have their own opinion, and I'd
rather not challenge that with my opinion unless it is clearly different to what is immediately obvious. Hence I
link to others this time rather than claim my views have much more validity.
Horse rules
Q158
@Stan TotallyNot'aHalfling asks:
I've been looking into the home brew that you made for Horses.
I was thinking if you still think that Pack should work the same now?
The module says that encumbrance that the mount can carry is increased by the full Strength characteristic.
This question references the rules from my blog found here:

https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/03/my-kingdom-for-horse.html
And, yes, I'd leave it as is. If I was refining it later, I'd maybe rejig it a little, but it works well enough. It means
your average Donkey can carry about 3 unburdened men, for example.
Q159
@Andres asks:
The Calm Creature Trait in your homebrew for horses grants a +10 to the Test to resist panic from Skittish, but
Skittish doesn't invoke that kind of Test, it just deals 3 Broken Conditions. Is the Skittish Creature Trait meant to
prompt that Test before dealing out the Broken Conditions?
No, it's not. Let's make Calm give you a test to ignore the Skittish Trait, with a bonus of +10 per extra time you
have the Trait. I've revised the blog to resolve that. Thanks for pointing it out!
https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/03/my-kingdom-for-horse.html
NOTE: I could have sworn I had an alternative version of Skittish on the blog, but it seems I don't. If anyone
spots that, ping me and I'll return the rules to their original form.

Unofficial Wfrp4 Faq: Last Update: 13/10/22 (Dd/mm/yy)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unofficial Wfrp4 Faq: Last Update: 13/10/22 (Dd/mm/yy)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNOFFICIAL WFRP4 FAQ

UNOFFICIAL WFRP4 FAQ

Last Update: 13/10/22 (dd/mm/yy)

Skills and Talents

CHAPTER 3: CLASS AND CAREERS

Advancing Through Your Career

Advances and what they mean?

1) Sure, what do you want to know?

Career Skills and Talents

Nope. Only when it's in your Career level.

@macd21#2249 matter you’re in adventure or out?

CHAPTER 3: CLASS AND CAREERS

This one makes my blood boil. Just a bit.

Replace Sleight of Hand with Research in Physician's Apprentice.

But that doesn't fix the lack of Language (Classical)!

Q: Can Slayers wear armour?

Witches and Hedge Witches

This was especially the case in three primary areas:

@Smiling Tom (He/Him) asks:

@Baz King asks:

Heal Wounds equal to your Intelligence Bonus + SL.

There is also a small section explain the loss of Wounds.

Staunching multiple Bleeding Conditions

Q: How does Intimidate work?

Q: How Intimidate should work (Andy Law contradicting uFAQ)?

Lore (Engineering) and Trade (Engineering)

Let’s you pick pockets…

The paragraph then explains some mechanics for doing this.

@Jaalib (he/him) asks:

Will you have +20 against 2 opponents in this case?

Combat Master and Outnumbering (RAI)

Concoct and Trade (Apothecary)

Great question. Thanks for asking.

Dual Wielder and Advantage

Dual Wielder and reversing the dice

Using Dual Wielder with Knuckledusters

Dual Wielder RAI?

Stacking Dual Wielder, Frenzy and Furious Assault

WFRP4, p190, 'Frenzy':

WFRP4, p136, 'Dual Wielder':

WFRP4, p137, 'Fast Hands'

Q: How would you fix Feint?

Great question, and easy to answer for the RAW:

a. Damage is reduced to all targets, because I have less SL?

Magic Resistance and Religion

Let's take a look at the wording WFRP4, p141, 'Noble Blood'

Noble Blood and “being true noble”

Jay Dako#7395 asks:

Nose for Trouble

@Jay Dako asks:

Let's read it!

So, the answer is yes.

Roughrider and Charging

Q. A couple of questions cropped up regarding the Seasoned Traveller Talent.

3) This is super easy

Witch! and casting spells

Legality of Witch! spells

Tests and Actions

Fast SLs clarifications

Yes. It balances Advantage and ensures it doesn't spiral.

Andy Law thoughts on FastSL

Fast SL and Talents

Fast SL and balancing encounters