v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[comped]

Originally Posted by mpipes

Yea, its just way too Sweden centric, and its gone from a world war to just a big regional war that only rages in Sweden and Poland and maybe the Czech Republic (at least till the nukes fly). Not believable in the slightest to ANYONE with a modicum of military knowledge.

FL's market is primarily Swedish-focused, so that's why we have Sweden show-horned in as a setting in the first place. Why it's so focused on the country. Because they have a base of fans which will buy the game because it's got their name on it and they can play in Sweden.

[pansarskott]

Originally Posted by Olefin

V1 - NATO sourcebook provides all rank info, weapons, other NATO countries
V2.2. has an entire section in it the details other countries, weapons, ranks, militaries, how to roll up characters etc..

Yes, in additional modules, not in the base game. The V4 is only the base game, and it has more info on other nationalities than V1 base game.

But I've never heard of a NATO Sourcebook. Only Vehicle Guide / Combat Vehicle guide, and they don't have that info.

RDF Sourcebook (1986) has info on US other than Army) and other countries. But that's two years after the original game.

Correct about V2, I didn't check that. Never got into playing it so I'll always check V1

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by pansarskott

Yes, in additional modules, not in the base game. The V4 is only the base game, and it has more info on other nationalities than V1 base game.

But I've never heard of a NATO Sourcebook. Only Vehicle Guide / Combat Vehicle guide, and they don't have that info.

RDF Sourcebook (1986) has info on US other than Army) and other countries. But that's two years after the original game.

Correct about V2, I didn't check that. Never got into playing it so I'll always check V1

V1 NATO Vehicle Guide was published in 1989 so yes it was a few years after the original players guide for V1 - RDF had full info for the UK and French but you are right not for everyone

Still its a glaring error in the Alpha - and they were sold the rights to the game - thus they could have just copied literally the V2.2 section for the Alpha and said we will detail them out better in the official release - there is literally nothing in the Alpha about them

again this is a Swedish/Polish centric game - and the US info is lacking a lot - would have been very easy to detail what states had seceded from the US (how much effort does it take to type a list of States)

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by comped

FL's market is primarily Swedish-focused, so that's why we have Sweden show-horned in as a setting in the first place. Why it's so focused on the country. Because they have a base of fans which will buy the game because it's got their name on it and they can play in Sweden.

Supposedly they were long term players - if that is true then they knew that this is not a Euro centered games

V1 has modules/sourcebooks that take place in Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Korea, United States, Mexico, UK, Grenada, Spain, Italy, Greece, Libya, Romania, Norway - and Challenge releases for adventures in Canada plus info on the Mexican Army

V2.2 adds Thailand and East Africa/Liberia to the list and at least one Challenge article set in Japan

Its very obvious that they either didnt study the original releases at all or ignored the fact that this is a world war

and all it would take is about a five minute look at the member base here to see how international the fan base is

So writing a T2K V4 for Sweden is frankly DUMB

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by Olefin

So writing a T2K V4 for Sweden is frankly DUMB

Yea. Just how many copies do they plan to sell in Sweden versus the rest of the world. And this won't sell to anyone here I am afraid.

Its supposed to be a WORLD WAR!!! Is that a hard concept for them to understand, because according to this backstory, it is a pure Central Europe tussle. Or is Sweden suppose to be the predominant center of the universe in their version?

[Olefin]

I still dont get how they ignored the UK fan base with no UK characters or ways to create them - the Secret Handout has a whole UK Corps in the final offensive - so the chances of running into a UK player is very high

Plus since there are US troops fighting the Soviets in the UK it would make sense that at least some people would want to play a campaign in the UK - but then nothing offered to do so - this isnt V1 or V2.2 where the UK is an interesting place to visit if you are a US character - they were a big part of what stopped the "Soviet Sea Lion"

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

this isnt V1 or V2.2 where the UK is an interesting place to visit if you are a US character

V1's treatment of the UK was terrible. You know how you feel about V4? That's pretty much how I feel about the UK in V1 canon. I remember the crushing sense of disappointment that I felt when I bought the Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom (in the Virgin Megastore on Princes Street in Edinburgh) and rushed home to read it. That was undoubtedly my worst T2K experience, far worse than anything V3 or (to date) V4 has produced. If you think that the UK was an interesting place to visit in V1 we'll need to agree to disagree.

As for V2 / 2.2 the only references I'm aware of are those in the Big Yellow Book.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

V1's treatment of the UK was terrible. You know how you feel about V4? That's pretty much how I feel about the UK in V1 canon. I remember the crushing sense of disappointment that I felt when I bought the Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom (in the Virgin Megastore on Princes Street in Edinburgh) and rushed home to read it. That was undoubtedly my worst T2K experience, far worse than anything V3 or (to date) V4 has produced. If you think that the UK was an interesting place to visit in V1 we'll need to agree to disagree.

As for V2 / 2.2 the only references I'm aware of are those in the Big Yellow Book.

V2.2. had complete information in the players guide on making a British Military character for the Army, Navy, etc.. which is a big step up from the Alpha - V1 once the RDF was released did give good information on running a UK military character

And yes I completely agree with you on the UK survivors guide - what has been produced since then by people like you was FAR superior

But at the least V1 and V2.2. had good information on the UK - so far I am not seeing that here

[comped]

Originally Posted by mpipes

Yea. Just how many copies do they plan to sell in Sweden versus the rest of the world. And this won't sell to anyone here I am afraid.

Its supposed to be a WORLD WAR!!! Is that a hard concept for them to understand, because according to this backstory, it is a pure Central Europe tussle. Or is Sweden suppose to be the predominant center of the universe in their version?

Probably more than a few I suspect, but not as many as they hope world-wide.

[Southernap]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Because a number of the games made these days seem to be about "muh feelings". They give players a lot of opportunity to force their own narrative into the story without any regard to the story the GM is trying to tell. They focus a lot on a character's personal feelings but never seem to give any purpose for this, other than to supply unthinking players with some sort of motivation for playing the game - "If I don't have a Role, how do I know how to play my character?"

I mean having some ideas on what your character is supposed to do, feel, or act can open up some interesting options for the GM and the players. I know I have been reading some GM prep books and even seen some "How to" videos on youtube about how to get a better experience in RPGs. That losing yourself into a good background or even work on building that background while playing can open up all manner of wonderful narrative options. Still, making it forced on turn 0 is silly and stupid in my honest opinion. Rather, and I have experienced this on the table, the ability to present a situation to the players and have a PC drop hints that the situation isn't healthy for them.

Allows for the GM or even the PC to get more out of the role playing experience. Heck, I have had some GMs express to me (and other PCs at the table) that we need to forget about our real lives and think about these characters that we are building right now. Give them some life otherwise it is a boring time around the table and almost mechanical feeling of stepping through the rules, but not really enjoying the game.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Or just do what needs to be done, fire the writers, keep the artwork, scrap the Alpha and try it again

Not going to happen. Tomas is one of those writers, and in fact probably 95% responsible for the entire background. It was after all he who I watched in real time doing all the edits.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not going to happen. Tomas is one of those writers, and in fact probably 95% responsible for the entire background. It was after all he who I watched in real time doing all the edits.

Well then the V4 is truly screwed - FYI he seemed unaware of the last line on page 148 of the Players Manual showing every division associated with Reset was overrun and destroyed - but not sure if that was malarkey

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It seems to me that looking for supplies in the Free League reboot seems a bit too difficult.
If I understand it correctly, each hex is 10 kilometres but only one person can forage or hunt or scrounge or fish in a hex at a time.
The implication is that if others want to do so at the same time, then they need to wander off to another hex so that the characters end up about 10 klicks apart from each other - a profoundly stupid idea when you have hostile forces potentially in the vicinity.

Upon a success, you find one ration of food and I think you can only score up to two success. Living off the land seems to be so damned difficult I can't imagine anyone with real experience of being in the wilderness would find this game satisfying or enjoyable

I didn't really like the Year Zero rules to begin with and if anything, the rules they are hashing together for their reboot of T2k reinforces my bias against Year Zero rules.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

If I understand it correctly, each hex is 10 kilometres but only one person can forage or hunt or scrounge or fish in a hex at a time.

So in an area of 86.6 square kilometres, only one person can forage, hunt or whatever, and can find a max of 2 man-days of food.....
Right....
Sounds a little low even for somewhere like the central Sahara or inland Antarctica.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So in an area of 86.6 square kilometres, only one person can forage, hunt or whatever, and can find a max of 2 man-days of food.....
Right....
Sounds a little low even for somewhere like the central Sahara or inland Antarctica.

Either Tomas and his guys have never foraged or hunted before or the game/wild berrries/etc. situation in the game is a hell of a lot worse than anything I have ever heard of - thats a hell of a lot of territory for such a little gain

[Raellus]

Maybe the scarcity is that areas near human habitations have been repeatedly picked over by scavengers, military and civilian. By 2000, anything within a few clicks of a settlement of any size would have been picked over real good. You'd have to be really skillful or lucky to find useable supplies, forage, or game.

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I could agree if it was specifically stated that settlements and other obvious attractive targets for scavenging were mentioned but the rule appears to apply for every hex regardless of what is found in that hex.
From the talk I see on the Free League forum, the rule seems to be heavily influenced by one of their earlier games. However there appears to be some agreement that the rule works for the earlier game but seems overly harsh for a T2k setting.

[Legbreaker]

"Overly harsh"?
Hmm, seems like you're being too kind to them.

Even in populated areas there's still going to be plenty to find - overgrown and forgotten vegetable gardens, rabbits, rats, pigeons, and a host of other options we may turn our noses up to in better times.
And that doesn't even account for caches of canned or bottled food tucked away in odd places.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So in an area of 86.6 square kilometres, only one person can forage, hunt or whatever, and can find a max of 2 man-days of food.....

Ok a math nut chime in here.

I have walked 70 miles (112km) in 20 hours (flat paved terrain). I'm gonna say that is near human max to allow for scanning for food (I know super endurance people would laugh at that number but they move too fast to forage). Assuming I could see 50 m in each direction (and spot a mushroom at that distance) and not allowing for ANY time for forage or hunt, that allows me to "cover" 11,200,000 meters.

86.6 Square Kilometers = 86,600,000 square meters so even with insanely exaggerated numbers it would take a minimum of 8 people to just scan the terrain, cursorily

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by kato13

86.6 Square Kilometers = 86,600,000 square meters so even with insanely exaggerated numbers it would take a minimum of 8 people to just scan the terrain, cursorily

Yup, you're seeing the problem. That particular rule, if it's being reported accurately, is insanely bad. There are entire farms feeding many people that are less than 1% of the size of an FL hex. Even taking into account the possibility nobody is actively growing food or raising livestock anywhere in that area, there's no possible way 86 square Km couldn't feed an absolute host of people, except as I mentioned previously, in some very extreme circumstances.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by kato13

Ok a math nut chime in here.

I have walked 70 miles (112km) in 20 hours (flat paved terrain). I'm gonna say that is near human max to allow for scanning for food (I know super endurance people would laugh at that number but they move too fast to forage). Assuming I could see 50 m in each direction (and spot a mushroom at that distance) and not allowing for ANY time for forage or hunt, that allows me to "cover" 11,200,000 meters.

86.6 Square Kilometers = 86,600,000 square meters so even with insanely exaggerated numbers it would take a minimum of 8 people to just scan the terrain, cursorily

That gives a very good perspective on the situation. I am left to wonder if Free League have done their thing simply for gameplay purposes without any deeper considerations taken into account.
I know from my own experience that when foraging for mushrooms and berries in the Australian bushland, we had multiple people pick over one spot because there was always the chance that one person spots something the first person missed.
And we weren't spreading out over a 10 kilometre area to do so, we probably foraged an area no more than a few kilometres for half a morning or thereabouts (so in game terms say, roughly one to two 4 hour periods).

And the Australian bushland does not have the amount of wild food freely growing that you could expect in Europe but we still left sites without finding all the wild food that was there. How do I know? Because other people would go to the same site the next day and come back with the foodstuffs we missed.

[Legbreaker]

Maybe it's intentional? A badly thought out mechanic to keep PCs on the move?
Yeah, I don't think so either.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Maybe it's intentional? A badly thought out mechanic to keep PCs on the move?

That actually makes a lot of sense. Hasn't FL described their approach to T2k as a "hex crawl"? I have a sense of what a hex crawl is, but I'm not sure I really grasp the concept, or see an obvious connection to traditional T2k RPG'ing. Hopefully, someone here can explain it to me.

-

[pansarskott]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Maybe it's intentional? A badly thought out mechanic to keep PCs on the move?

That would fit in with the rules for encounters when players ares stationary. Those rules are ambiguous when it comes to spotting (implies automatic discovery of PCs), and encounters get more severe as time passes.

[Southernap]

Originally Posted by pansarskott

That would fit in with the rules for encounters when players ares stationary. Those rules are ambiguous when it comes to spotting (implies automatic discovery of PCs), and encounters get more severe as time passes.

Reading the part about stationary players, seems like they are forcing the players to keep move all under the assumption that there are enough Russians and hostile Polish troopers to round up all the fleeing NATO troops.

The risk of being stationary seems directly opposite of what is supposed to happen when you need to brew up a still of alcohol fuel. Since if you have a small still you can only produce 5 liters of fuel per shift. While a larger still can produce a 50/liters a shift. Or fight hunger or find that part to fix the vehicle you have.

With a Hummer taking 95 liters of fuel, an M113 taking 360 liters, a couple of the Swedes vehicles taking 80-100 liters. Taking a quick look at the vehicle stats.

So the way they have the rules written, you move. Roll an encounter, set a watch, brew up fuel, forage for the next movement to the next hex and run out of fuel again, repeat steps 1 through 4. Oh and you have to have a body that can watch the still as well. So there is less than two PCs out of your team that need to stay by the base camp.

Makes no sense. Then combine that with the rules that rest does a body good to heal from wounds and stress. Means your watch you set might as well be the most broken PC in the team at the moment. With the still operator as the 2nd most broke team member. While all the more able body folks run through foraging, fishing, hunting, whatever per a shift.

Unless I am misreading these rules or misunderstanding the intent here. Seems like the idea is forcing the PCs to be on the move almost constantly and that someone in the group will always have stress on their person.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This is very much the impression I am getting from the alpha rules (for what it's worth, I have the same understanding of the rules as you do).
I'm finding it a tad difficult to figure out what the actual point of the game is, if its design is to keep you moving for "reasons".

Originally Posted by Southernap

Reading the part about stationary players, seems like they are forcing the players to keep move all under the assumption that there are enough Russians and hostile Polish troopers to round up all the fleeing NATO troops.

The risk of being stationary seems directly opposite of what is supposed to happen when you need to brew up a still of alcohol fuel. Since if you have a small still you can only produce 5 liters of fuel per shift. While a larger still can produce a 50/liters a shift. Or fight hunger or find that part to fix the vehicle you have.

With a Hummer taking 95 liters of fuel, an M113 taking 360 liters, a couple of the Swedes vehicles taking 80-100 liters. Taking a quick look at the vehicle stats.

So the way they have the rules written, you move. Roll an encounter, set a watch, brew up fuel, forage for the next movement to the next hex and run out of fuel again, repeat steps 1 through 4. Oh and you have to have a body that can watch the still as well. So there is less than two PCs out of your team that need to stay by the base camp.

Makes no sense. Then combine that with the rules that rest does a body good to heal from wounds and stress. Means your watch you set might as well be the most broken PC in the team at the moment. With the still operator as the 2nd most broke team member. While all the more able body folks run through foraging, fishing, hunting, whatever per a shift.

Unless I am misreading these rules or misunderstanding the intent here. Seems like the idea is forcing the PCs to be on the move almost constantly and that someone in the group will always have stress on their person.

[Legbreaker]

If that's the intention then it makes staying put and trying to hole up impossible. Firstly their rules mean you WILL starve before long and secondly, with the encounters ramping up, you WILL be killed.
The ramping encounters also lends weight to the "uber soviets" complaint most of us have.

Has anyone found anything that actually WORKS with these mechanics?

[Tegyrius]

I've been tinkering with some solo play (which, for me, is really more of writing prompts). The v2.2 encounter tables and travel rules, combined with Jed McClure's hex overlays of the original boxed set maps, seem to work fairly well for sandbox gaming. What you guys are describing sounds like it's more story- than simulation-focused, and leaning very hard toward survival RPG play.

- C.

[pansarskott]

Some stationary encounters issues:
* Increased severity of encounter for longer stays . (stationary encounters table).

detection rules:
Allow the PCs a RECON roll to spot the scouts (opposed roll). If spotted, the scouts might attack, retreat, or negotiate, depending on their goals.
* Automatic discovery of the PCs and the enemy know when the PCs have detected them?

* Some parts implies automatic detection of PCs, other parts says RECON is necessary to spot a hidden camp.

[Black Vulmea]

First time poster, so be gentle . . .

Originally Posted by Southernap

If we don't use their 9 archetypes to play the game. Then you have to use the life paths. The rules as written doesn't have a character generation worksheet included to walk through this path, unlike what GDW did for us in V1 and V2.

The Alpha rules provide a step-by-step description for creating characters sing the life-path on page 31, and a step-by-step example of creating a character on page 39.

Originally Posted by Southernap

1. There is only 4 major nationalities to pick from right now.

T2K v1 PH didn't even have that: it detailed US Army soldiers, said you could play a foreign soldier attached to an American unit, but that Americans were in charge, no matter what.

Originally Posted by Southernap

2. Everything seems to be a D6 role to start with, based on that A-D attribute skill roll. Why not just say, roll a D6 or D12 to get this score? If the little attribute score chart isn't on the Ref's screen. It will be flipping back and forth too much to roll up my character.

I'm not clear on what you're saying, to be honest. Could you give an example?

Originally Posted by Southernap

3. Why the roll for the childhood on 1D6 well after one has filled out their attributes. That seems particularly silly, since I might have tanked one of my attributes scores that would give a reason for my skills. I am also troubled by the forced taking of skills via dice roll.

That's a fair point, but it's also part-and-parcel of random character generation, and even if the specialty you roll doesn't play to your character's strengths, it significantly improves on their weaknesses, frex, making a success five or six on d6, improving your character's chance of success from 16% to 33%

That said, while I personally prefer random character generation, if I'm the referee I'd strongly consider just letting players choose their specialties if they prefer. Optimized characters don't bother me much.

Originally Posted by Southernap

4. . . . Yet, you only get a chance to pick one of 6 skills based on the career choices that I see.

It sounds like you may be confusing skills and specialties. Can you cite a page number?

Originally Posted by Southernap

In addition it appears they made officer a separate category of career for the military paths. When it should have been pick a military path and if your attributes are B or better all across three of the categories then you can be combat arms and an officer or Special Ops and and Officer. With maybe a pair of 2D6 rolls for skills.

An officer does pick a branch as well: "OFFICERS must qualify for both the Officer career path and for the functional area in which they want to serve. They also get to choose which of the two columns to use for each career bonus" (page 32).

Originally Posted by Southernap

Similarly, their breakdown of the "Intelligence" civilian career field has the career path of "Assassin", which I am sure seems cool; but it also seems very Pulp novelist like. Also, why not have a similar path of "hit man" in the Crime field?
The whole thing for the civilian career paths makes no sense.

It allows players to opt for different skill sets before getting swept up as draftees once the war starts. That's not really my personal cuppa - I prefer the familiar T2K conceit of a band of brothers and sisters in arms - but they're trying to make a dollar and cent here, and if increasing the diversity of character options helps their bottom line, then they'd be fools not to do it. I seriously doubt their business plan was 'sell a copy to everyone who played this game since the Eighties.'

Originally Posted by Southernap

5. Aging rules seem overly complex. Why not just say that each term is 4 years like before? So you go from 18 to 22 to 26 to 30 and so on. By saying roll 1D6 for aging. Then roll again against the number of terms that I have completed to figure out if I have lost some attributes. If you do it this way from the start, then you could be figuring attribute loss on a 24 year old PC. I mean I know I probably was starting to lose something at 24, but I didn't feel it when I compared myself to being at mid 30s or even now in my mid 40s.

I took that to represent the possibility of an injury, abandoning a workout plan, &c, but that said, I'm not wild about it either and would house rule this if it stays in the final version.

Originally Posted by Southernap

They then want you if the war doesn't break out to add three years to your age. Seriously.

• Aging starts at 18
• Then roll a 1D6 to age your character
• Then add three years to that current age if war hasn't broke out
• Then roll 1D6 and if you roll <current number of terms you lose an attribute score by one step
• Then add three to your score.
  ************************************
• So lets play this out. Start at 18. Roll 1D6 and I get a 6.
• Now I am 24 years old. Roll 1D6 and get a 3, so no attribute loss
• Roll 1D8 to see if war breaks out. Recieve a 2. No war. Add three to my current age.
• Second Term starts at 27 (since 24+3 is 27). Roll a 1D6 and I get a 1.
• Now I am 28, roll 1D6 again and get a 1. Now I have to lose an attribute? At 26? That makes no sense.

That's incorrect - you roll d6 for the length of the term in years, and once the war breaks out, your final term is three years without rolling, so that everyone's life path concludes with the same three years, syncing up the characters. It's not 1d6+3 every term.

Originally Posted by Southernap

5. Trying to figure out the hit capacity and stress took me a while. Their example wasn't clear. It appears the rules have you take one of the attribute types die size + another attribute die size. Average them together (say Attribute B and D, which is 10+6=16. Divide by 2 to find the average is 8) then divide that by 2 to get the half of that number (or 2 if I am using the example). Why not make it simple math and say "add attribute scores together and find the quarter of that sum"?

Agreed - the wording is wonky; that said, telling people to divide by one-quarter doesn't really improve on that, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Southernap

6. The unit morale, moral code and dreams and the other fluff listed on pages 16 and 17 of the Alpha players manual means nothing. Where are the contacts that used to exist?

Contacts are v2, yes? My own experience is limited to v1, and I don't recall that.

The Moral Code, Big Dream, and Buddy rules seem to follow tagging Aspects in FATE. That's literally the only thing I like about FATE, so I'm curious to see how they work in v4.

Originally Posted by Southernap

This is a game where everyone is together trying to survive and get home or to some form of a home and survive. The boundaries of morals and ethics will be tested by the GM about trying to maintain a shred of civilization and sanity.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Southernap

Similar the unit morale means what exactly?

It can give you another die to roll to avoid Stress and remain Cool Under Fire.

So, last night I created a character using the life path rules, and I can walk you through the steps.

Character is an American with Coolness Under Fire D (d6). Starting attributes are Strength B, Agility C, Intelligence B, and Empathy B; I don't favor or slight any of the attributes, which would allow me to increase an attribute to A at the cost of dropping another attribute to D - a nice call out to v1 there.

The Alpha rules suggest a referee can allow the player to choose his childhood, but since I don't really have a character concept in mind yet, I'll roll: Working Class. I can choose from Brawling, Stamina, and Tech as my starting skills; I take Stamina and get the Load Carrier specialty - that's a lucky confluence of skill and specialty, and speaks to the idea that characters should get to choose their specialty to match their skill, or roll for the specialty first, before choosing the skill to take or improve. A possible house rule there.

His first term will be spent getting an Education - I think I'm going to go for officer here. He meets both minimums, for Liberal Arts and Sciences, and I elect to Sciences, getting Recon D and Tech D. I have to make skill roll to earn a specialty, which is d6 and d10 to roll a six for success, and I miss on both dice - no specialty. I roll for term length duration and get a 4, and add four years to the character's age. Since I can't roll under a 1 (1st term), there's no risk of losing an attribute level yet. At the end of the 1st term, my guy looks like this.

My Guy, Age 22
Strength B (d10) - Stamina D (d6)
Agility C (d8)
Intelligence B (d10) - Recon D (d6), Tech D (d6)
Empathy B (d10)
Specialties: Load Carrier
CUF D (d6)

Second term is military service and he's qualified to be an officer, so he commissioned as 2LT; with four years in Education, maybe he's ROTC? or USMA? He's eligible for three of the four branches - needs AGL B for Special Forces, so that's closed to him - and opts for Combat Arms; I thinking cavalry if he gets the Tanker specialty. I'm required to take Ranged Combat D and choose Stamina C - two of the six specialties are gunners, so he's gotta be ready to hump a load. I roll a skill check against Stamina - because his Stamina improved, I roll d6 and d10 and get my six this time, gaining the specialty Combat Engineering. As my fellow pirate Captain Jack Sparrow says, that's very interesting. Blowing shit up is cool. Because I passed the skill check, he also gets promoted to 1LT and his CUF goes up to C. I roll for term length, get a one. This time I roll for both aging and the start of the war; neither die comes up a one, so on to term three. At the end of two terms, here 's where he is.

1LT My Guy, Age 23
Strength B (d10) - Stamina C (d8)
Agility C (d8) - Ranged Combat D (d6)
Intelligence B (d10) - Recon D (d6), Tech D (d6)
Empathy B (d10)
Specialties: Load Carrier, Combat Engineering
CUF C (d8)

Third term I can choose two skills, and this time I take Command D from the officer skill list and Stamina B. I roll another skill check against Stamina, this time with d10 and d10, easily beating six on both dice and d10, picking up another Combat Arms specialty, Tanker; that actually works well with being a combat engineer, because it also covers bulldozers. My Guy's taking shape! Because he made his skill check, he is promoted to CPT and his CUF is now B. a d6 says two years pass,, and I roll again for attribute loss and war; he doesn't lose an level, but the war d8 comes up 1 - it's on! As he ships out for Europe, here's how he looks.

CPT My Guy, Age 25
Strength B (d10) - Stamina B (d10)
Agility C (d8) - Ranged Combat D (d6)
Intelligence B (d10) - Recon D (d6), Tech D (d6)
Empathy B (d10) - Command D (d6)
Specialties: Load Carrier, Combat Engineering, Tanker
CUF B (d10)

CPT My Guy is now At War; he can increase two skills by one level each - he goes Command C and Tech C - and gets an At War specialty automatically: Improvised Munitions. I hoped for NBC or Ranger, but IM tells me a lot about how he spent his time in combat.

Now it's time to give him a name and fill in some of his other blanks.

CPT Tomas 'Tom' Andrej Ruzicka, USMA '94, Age 28
Strength B (d10) - Stamina B (d10)
Agility C (d8) - Ranged Combat D (d6)
Intelligence B (d10) - Recon D (d6), Tech C (d8)
Empathy B (d10) - Command C (d8)
Specialties: Load Carrier, Combat Engineering, Tanker, Improvised Munitions
CUF B (d10)

Appearance: blond crew cut, grey-eyed, rock-jawed
Moral Code: Duty, Honor, Country
Big Dream: We all get out of this alive
Buddy and How You Met the Group : TBD

Born in Kewaunee, WI, moved to Green Bay at age 6. Attended Xavier HS in Appleton, living with an aunt. Father's family is Czech; mother's family Norwegian and German. Dad's a roofer, and Tom helped out during the summers, humping bundles of tar sheets and plywood. Solid grades; lettered in football and basketball, inside linebacker and small forward respectively - not the most talented, but coaches respected his toughness. Accepted to USMA, played football, deep on the depth chart; only made the travel team twice, but once was against Navy so it was all worth it. BS, Civil Engineering; AOC 12B, Combat Engineer, CO, 'B' Company, 7th Engineer Battalion, 5th ID (Mech) - served as battalion XO in Poland for six days, battalion CO for about three hours . . .

He needs a nickname.

My first impression is v4 characters tend to be less capable overall than their v1 peers, but that may be deceiving; I think I'll try re-creating this character in v1 to see the differences.