Amount of Dice from linked tests

[OlavBB]

Just a quick question, can you get more than 1D total from linked test to the “end test”.

[luke (Luke Wheel)]

Yes

[NkEnNy]

ie,

To purchase a superior quality bow:

First I test Forest-wise with a Bow Fork (I need the bow made of a special material for magical purposes), lets say this succeeds.
Second I test Haggling, lets say this also succeeds.
Lastly I test Resources with all the accrued bonuses.

My understanding of the rules is +1D (the first one being used on the second test)

edit: Ah luke posted. Well that clears things up.

[Fuseboy]

I recently learned this too, I think something stormsweeper posted. As far as I knew from reading the book, linked tests were always in a daisy chain - test A links into B, links into C, so the final test could only ever be at +1D or +1 Ob.

But it seems that other arrangements are possible, too. Yi-wei might be riding hell-for-leather to Novy Dom to try to raise the alarm (Riding linking into Conspicuous) among the army encamped there. Meanwhile (and in parallel), Gomuka has been training the army there - perhaps Command linked into Instruction.

Both of these chains, separately, could link into the test to see how effectively the army musters (Strategy), rolled by General Mun. The general’s roll gets +2D, +2 Ob, or +1D/+1 Ob from the two chains linking into it.

[Michael_Maleficum]

Can the same character link (multiple times) into his own test? - Never mind, paragraph 3 p.27 says they can, though their more often undertaken by multiple characters complementing each other.

Also, I’ve always thought that ‘linked tests’ were a way to show that some time passes. Otherwise you just FoRK.

Page 27 Linked tests start with the sentance:

Once in a while, the player characters will find themselves in a long-term or complex operation that requires many skills or abilities to overcome.

Example: The last session, I got a linked test with conspicious into my bow-skill, so that everyone in our patrol (= hardened soldiers and the best archers of our Vale) would watch me take down the fleeing ork. I have a Belief about being known as the best archer in the Vale. Though the tests were both relevant - I really wanted everyone to watch, and I guess the ork would have given us less time until the announced Range & Cover next session - but I guess just a few seconds passed.

Note: One of the players told us that BWHQ-practice was that for the really difficult challenges, everyone got to link to the final roll. I guess that also makes players more invested in the final roll as well, feeling that they’ve contributed.

[noclue]

@Michael_Maleficum

Example: The last session, I got a linked test with conspicious into my bow-skill, so that everyone in our patrol (= hardened soldiers and the best archers of our Vale) would watch me take down the fleeing ork. I have a Belief about being known as the best archer in the Vale. Though the tests were both relevant - I really wanted everyone to watch, and I guess the ork would have given us less time until the announced Range & Cover next session - but I guess just a few seconds passed.

I would have called for a conspicuous test, with the failure condition being one of your buddies shoots him first wink

[Dean]

@Michael_Maleficum

Page 27 Linked tests start with the sentance:

Once in a while, the player characters will find themselves in a long-term or complex operation that requires many skills or abilities to overcome.

Bolded characters added by me. There’s nothing saying that complex operations have to take a long time to perform. The only requirement is that the tests involved in a linked test must happen over time. They can not happen all at once. But, from my understanding, they could happen consecutively over the course of a very short period of time.

[Michael_Maleficum]

Sometimes you can’t see the words for the letters, eyh?

Thanks, I see it now. My example clearly was a complex situation - with two good failiures. If I’d missed conspicious* and hit the fleeing ork I’m sure the (currently regarded) best bowman of our Vale would have gotten credit. If I’d missed I’d get blamed (and we’d be smoked in a nightly Range & Cover, instead of getting away**).

*)untrained! opened that very test

**Which we never-the-less avoided by spending a complete looking at runes and felling trees. Oh, and we cleverly got a prisoner and five ork heads to prove they’re there. :rolleyes:

[Dean]

@Michael_Maleficum

My example clearly was a complex situation - with two good failiures. If I’d missed conspicious* and hit the fleeing ork I’m sure the (currently regarded) best bowman of our Vale would have gotten credit. If I’d missed I’d get blamed (and we’d be smoked in a nightly Range & Cover, instead of getting away**).

*)untrained! opened that very test

**Which we never-the-less avoided by spending a complete looking at runes and felling trees. Oh, and we cleverly got a prisoner and five ork heads to prove they’re there. :rolleyes:

I could see it going both ways, depending on how you framed it:

• You notch, draw, and release an arrow in as flamboyant a manner as possible = Conspicuous and Bow being used at the same time. Conspicuous FoRKs.

• You draw attention to yourself first. “Hey everybody watch this! Bet ya 10 crowns I can down that orc at 200 paces!” Then you shoot the arrow. = Two actions being performed over time. Linked test. Conspicuous links to Bow.

I don’t think I would call it as Bow FoRKed into a Conspicuous test though. Sometimes I’ll allow skills to play different roles than they normally do, but only if it’s the only thing that makes sense.

[noclue]

Conspicuous was a Beginners Luck test right? Couldn’t fork.

[NkEnNy]

@Fuseboy

Both of these chains, separately, could link into the test to see how effectively the army musters (Strategy), rolled by General Mun. The general’s roll gets +2D, +2 Ob, or +1D/+1 Ob from the two chains linking into it.

Wait a moment. Allowing multiple Linked-Rolls to intersect is a fairly substantial departure from the rules as written. Albeit not fundamentally broken as far as I can see. Is this covered in the errata or a semi-official post somewhere?

-k

[NkEnNy]

More Forum hunting. Linked Rolls and Linked Rolls (even less ambiguous)

@Rafe

That’s how I understood it. But are you guys saying that 2 people can make separate linked tests to give (if successful) +2D to a second, single roller?

What I thought: X –> +1D Y –> +1D Z

What seems to be said above:

X
…\ +2D -> Z
…/
Y

@luke

Both configurations are correct. It really depends on the situation in the game.

Could this holy verdict be written somewhere semi official?

[luke (Luke Wheel)]

@OlavBB

My question was not clearly stated enough for my GM, mind if I ask again here, since the original thread has derailed.

Example: We’re making shoes.
Linked test 1: Mending to clean the tools and the work space.
Linked test 2: Hunting getting a good piece of leather.
End test: Leatherworking

If both succeed, do you get +2D to the end test, or just +1D?

(secondary, if both fail do you get +2ob)

sorry about the hasle.

-Olav

Yeah, this is valid. It takes time and I can see good risk of failure for both tests: You lose a tool while cleaning up (+1 Ob to the link and your tools are unavailable until you find the tool or get a new one after that test); You’re mauled by a tiger (J/K j/k)…you’re made hungry, you’re lost, you expend all of your arrows, etc.

It’s contextual and utterly up to the GM. If you as the GM feel like your player is bullshitting you or that his case it weak, say yes to the test and move on without the bonus or penalty.

[NkEnNy]

<---- OlavBB’s GM
Excellent. Thanks for the quick response. I ask again. Could this be written somewhere a little more official than yet another forum thread that will soon be lost to obscurity? For the sake of the little children?

-k