Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Some Dude" data-source="post: 9660991" data-attributes="member: 6980080">The Zweihander Revised core rulebook had optional rules for greater differentiation in Weapon Damage. It's on page 372, Alternative Weapon Damage. Both systems are also in WFRP, by the way. And, in both cases, Weapon Qualities mean that, no, a shiv does not do the same Damage as a Zweihander, even if using the standard weapon rules. A shiv cannot inflict Grievous Injuries, and a Zweihander has the option of doing an extra die of damage at the cost of an extra Action Point.Edit: I think you're complaining that the Alternate Weapon Damage rules weren't included? Which, I can understand, but the editions are still back compatible.100% incorrect as to the first part, totally subjective on the second part.Again, 100% incorrect. At a mere skim, I've noticed some significant changes. Yes, it is designed to be fully back compatible with Zweihander revised, which is great. But to say it's the same book is simply not true.It seems like you have a bone to pick with the author, which is fine, but there's no need to say things that are demonstrably untrue. How is that helpful or productive? You characterization of this as a &quot;scam&quot; speaks to personal animus, not truthfulness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Some Dude, post: 9660991, member: 6980080"] The Zweihander Revised core rulebook had optional rules for greater differentiation in Weapon Damage. It's on page 372, Alternative Weapon Damage. Both systems are also in WFRP, by the way. And, in both cases, Weapon Qualities mean that, no, a shiv does not do the same Damage as a Zweihander, even if using the standard weapon rules. A shiv cannot inflict Grievous Injuries, and a Zweihander has the option of doing an extra die of damage at the cost of an extra Action Point. Edit: I think you're complaining that the Alternate Weapon Damage rules weren't included? Which, I can understand, but the editions are still back compatible. 100% incorrect as to the first part, totally subjective on the second part. Again, 100% incorrect. At a mere skim, I've noticed some significant changes. Yes, it is designed to be fully back compatible with Zweihander revised, which is great. But to say it's the same book is simply not true. It seems like you have a bone to pick with the author, which is fine, but there's no need to say things that are demonstrably untrue. How is that helpful or productive? You characterization of this as a "scam" speaks to personal animus, not truthfulness. [/QUOTE]

Verification