The notion of "ATK" seems to me to be ambiguous

Genghis-Pawn · 17 August 2026 03:27

The notion of “ATK” seems to me to be ambiguous across the reference materials, and especially in connection with Hero Attacks – when trying to get my head around it I was struck by how infrequently this abbreviation is used outside of the context of discussing Companion or Enemy attacks, and I suspect this it related. Italics in quotes below are mine.

Glossary/Index v0.13: the entry for “ATK” defines it as “base attack stat, set by hero weapon”
Rulebook v0.13 (RB):
- RB 8 similarly says: “The hero weapon determines the base combat attack stat (ATK).” However, just above this in the inset image, the text on the top of the Stormforged Pillar card reads “ATTACK: MUSCLE” and the inset callout text reads “Attack Modifier.”
- RB 17 uses “ATK” as an abbreviation for the Hero Attack phase of combat, and this should probably be deleted.
- RB 27 says “Passive abilities include:… Stat buffs (like ARM and ATK)”
- RB 34 refers to “the hero’s ATK modifier”
Learn To Play v0.13 (LTP) LTP 10’s discussion of attacking with Skeggox is a microcosm of how these ambiguities create problems:
- The Skeggox card and Vixen’s Hero card are shown in the 2nd image I embedded above:
  - The top of the Skeggox card reads: “ATTACK: MUSCLE”
  - Vixen’s MUSCLE stat is “+1”
  - The Power on the bottom of the Sekggox card reads “Cleave. +2ATK Overkill.”
- LTP 10 reads: “Vixen attacks with her axe, Skeggox. It requires MUSCLE to wield and so she gains a +1 MOD; A7+F5/4. A Strong Hit. She taps the weapon card and activates her weapon’s Cleave power. This adds an additional +2 damage and Overkill. A total result of 5HP (result [from roll]) +2HP (weapon), less 1 for the Spiderwing’s armour value..”
  - Here Vixens “Muscle +1” stat is said to be a “+1 MOD.” This contradicts the Glossary and the first half of RB 8, coheres with the 2nd half of RB and RB 34, and probably means the same as RB 27, which should then say “MOD” and not “buff.”
    - NOTE: here the “ATK” value is added to the d6 to set the “target” for deciding whether a d8 fate die produces a hit.
  - Notably however, the “+2ATK” abbreviation in Skeggox’s “cleave” power is said here on LTP 10 to be synonymous with “+2 damage” to the attack. LTP 19 likewise says that the text means “Vixen exhausts Skeggox for Cleave: an additional +2 HP” in damage dealt.
    - NOTE: here the “ATK” value is added to the result of the skillcheck. Very different.

In short, I think the notion of “ATK” needs systematic review. The d6-modifier must be sharply distinguished from the Result-modifier – one of these can be called “ATK.” In no case does the Glossary’s definition seem to work quite right.

Once that’s settled, I think it is likely that some information on the Hero cards could be re-organized to help the player sort out Attack values. Unless there are plans for (a) an expansion that would allow Heroes to get new weapons, or (b) a variant where Heroes don’t use their “default” starting weapons, then I’m not sure the Heroe’s default Attack Modifier (the thing they add to the d6 in a combat roll) couldn’t just be explicitly stated. Again, it’s thematically cool that this depends on a specific Stat for the character, but seems like it may be functionally irrelevant. Why ask the player to do math on this if it never changes?

modius · 17 August 2026 05:55

Bestial Gods…

Cast into the bone pit with nothing but a jawbone and your birthday suit.

(This is also true of some other quests not in the current base box.)

Other scenarios…

It’s rare outside of the quest cards, but there are circumstances where you may need to change the hero’s weapon…

This is exactly why the hero’s ATTACK modifier is a stat stated on their current weapon.

It used to be this way for defensive gear as well, but I moved that onto the hero card and settled for the concept of an overlay if needed.

modius · 17 August 2026 06:14

Agree.

The rules have evolved but the language used on some of these cards refers to older renditions and needs to be overhauled.

It should be the following:

hero weapon power ATK; should change to straight damage
hero weapon ATTACK; which is correctly identifying a MOD for the hero attack skill check
denizen card ATK; the base attack of a denizen

Getting into the weeds game design wise…

Denizen complications
Denizen traits/powers often refer to increasing the base ATK value instead of just plain damage. I suspect that 90% of the time this could just be damage. However, in the case of a trait increasing ATK… that would also improve the denizens defence (ie. exhaust the denizen to reduce damage by ATK).

I can’t find any denizens in the base box that have increase ATK as a Trait… only Powers. Perhaps I bite the bullet and replace all references to ATK with damage (or dmg)?

It reduces the design space for denizens only very slightly, and might make things a lot simpler so a simple trade off perhaps?

Weapon complications
Weapons have ATK in their power descriptions as historically it implies that “the attack has to be successful in order to activate the weapon power”. But the current rules no longer explain that idea adequately.

I wonder what is lost by simply replacing ATK in power descriptions with damage? And then clearly stating that for all hero weapons, you can only activate its power if the attack result was 1 or higher (ie. your attack was successful).

Genghis-Pawn · 17 August 2026 14:14

Noted (and probably should have been expected) that indeed, Heroes can gain access to different weapons, and so players do need to do collate info across the Hero card and (e.g., starting) weapon card, rather than having it baked into the hero card. Makes sense.

Not quite sure I follow the idea of an “overlay” here, but it sounds like you don’t want to pursue a similar re-design for attack, and it sounds like you’ve thought about it, so we’ll leave it at that.

The rule as written at the top of RB v0.13 p.35 is “exhaust the enemy and reduce damage by the enemy’s base ATK value” and this could be emphasized further (“base (unmodified) ATK value”) to get the desired interpretation. It’s something a player could be wrong, but I think this complication is not so problematic.

Maybe best, the way the QR for Hero Attack does it: “Include “bonus result”, boost, and weapon powers (on [strong hit icon]/[weak hit icon]).” Likewise, e.g., for Skeggox: “+2 damage and Overkill (on [strong hit icon]/[weak hit icon])”

I think something like this may work best, though I do think “Attack Result” risks introducing another somewhat ill-defined Attack/ATK concept just when we are trying to standardize and minimize them. If I’m keeping pace, there is a “Hero Attack” action that the player can perform during the “Attack Phase” of combat, and this is done by performing a (generic) “Skill Check with Result.” In discussing this skill check, the rules often refer to an ATTACK stat and an ATTACK MOD.

I now think these remaining references to an ATTACK stat or ATTACK MOD may not be fully coherent or necessary. The text at the top of Skeggox essentially communicates: “For your Hero Attack, Check MUSCLE(1).” There’s no special “Attack” stat/value that is getting Modded, rather the card is just telling you that MUSCLE is the Stat that “modifies” the d6 Action Die’s value as in any skill check.

The idea of “ATTACK” is an abstraction that really means “Whatever Stat was set by the Hero’s weapon as the one to check in a Hero Attack.” You seem to now be using “ATTACK MOD” to mean the same thing. Having the generic “ATTACK” concept eases some summary, e.g., in the QR the first step for Hero Attack Phase is “Nominate a target, then check ATTACK(ATK).” But this could be replaced with “Nominate a target, then perform a Skill Check with Result using the Stat shown at the top of your Hero’s weapon card.”

I don’t see any Item card that utilizes a similar “ATTACK” abstraction. Moreover, nearly all references to MODs on Item cards have their own internal logic that doesn’t hook into combat.

Stonehide Serum is an exception, including a reference to “-1MOD DEFENCE.”
Clockwork Gizmo refers to “+1 Attack” but this is always a Denizen’s ATK stat.
Phase Glove allows the player to spend Mastery for +1ATK – unclear if this is intended to be +1 damage or an actual MOD of the “attack action score”.

Genghis-Pawn · 17 August 2026 15:53

just noticing that this thread doesn’t seem to be appearing in the main Topics page, not sure why, probably something to do with how it was spun off from my initial post?

modius · 18 August 2026 02:50

Make sure the icon on the thread has not accidentally been set to “Mute”.

modius · 18 August 2026 03:19

What about something like:

Nominate a target, then perform a tally check ATTACK(1), where ATTACK is the stat shown at the top of your Hero’s weapon card.

ATTACK/DEFENCE are only used with respect to the hero combat phases at the moment.

Stonehide Serum is an exception, including a reference to “-1MOD DEFENCE.”

Makes sense.

Clockwork Gizmo refers to “+1 Attack” but this is always a Denizen’s ATK stat.

The word Attack here refers to a literal attack by the denizen; that is, you could remote control the clockwork denizen to attack multiple times.

Phase Glove allows the player to spend Mastery for +1ATK – unclear if this is intended to be +1 damage or an actual MOD of the “attack action score”.

This is just bad language. +1ATK is only +1 damage. It’s supposed to imply that the glove can only deal additional damage if the underlying attack was successful.

Probably should be something like:
Add Piercing damage with Overkill to a successful melee attack ( +1Dmg)

Genghis-Pawn · 18 August 2026 12:29

This is sensible enough, but my point is that this single rule is turning out to be just about the only place where the rules refer to the stat at the top of the hero’s weapon card using the special term “ATTACK.” If that’s right – if you don’t actually make much use of it anywhere else – then it seems clear that you/the rules don’t need it, and I doubt very much that the player needs it.

Writing “Check ATTACK(1)” (without the explanation) gives the impression that there is some special stat called ATTACK, which sets the player on a quest to work out where that stat is specified, or how to do the math to calculate it. But there is no math to do since, as you note elswhere “There are no derived secondary skills” and thus there is no special ATTACK stat.

“ATTACK” must in every case be immediately swapped out for the actual Stat the player will check, as determined by the Hero’s weapon. Once you include that explanation, it’s like writing “Check X(1) where X=Y.” Why ever mention X if, in every case, it will immediately be thrown overboard as only a placeholder for Y?

(ps yes I had muted the thread somehow)

modius · 18 August 2026 12:44

Does the suggested change work? Or we need something more informative.

Genghis-Pawn · 18 August 2026 14:33

The clearest version, to my ear, would abandon the notion of “ATTACK” since (a) this is used nowhere else in the rulebook or referenced on any card and (b) it has no functional meaning. This is the skill check that a player performs during a Hero Attack Action but there is no Stat named ATTACK that is invoked in that action/skill check – at best, “ATTACK” is always just a roundabout way of naming another stat (namely, the one shown on the weapon card).

Using the language of the rewritten rules for a “tally skill check,” you already have the placeholder of “STAT(x)” to use in cases where you want to generically refer to a stat that is further-specified elsewhere. That is what you are trying to do here, so I would use that:

Nominate a target, then perform a tally check STAT(1), using the STAT shown at the top of your Hero’s weapon card.