2
\$\begingroup\$

Is there a documented penalty for firing into melee suggests in the first comment that a single WFRP tag might not be enough. Of the editions, 2nd and 3rd probably garner the most attention (3rd if only for current edition) with 2nd a strong runner-up (knowing in the community that 2nd has a large number of "refugees," of which I count myself). 1st is mainly a grognard edition (of which I also count myself, sono foul called; WFRP 1e is the only game I kept when I purged my collection 12 years ago).

The asker makes an assumption about the edition and can only tag with a single WFRP tag, so clarification must be asked for or the answerer must make the assumption, or cover all three editions.

I believe it's time for edition tags for WFRP. Thoughts?

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

If a game has editions, and the rules are non-trivially different between editions there definitely should be tags. However, it's not useful to create the tags for which there are no questions, so in this case we would want to create the appropriate tag after we know what edition the question is for.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Perfect. I reread the question and it contains enough 3rd edition terms to warrant being tagged 'wfrp-3e' I think. \$\endgroup\$
    – javafueled
    Mar 26, 2012 at 13:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ Should there also be a tag for generic questions in the setting that are not edition specific? And if so, should the edition specific questions be tagged with this also? \$\endgroup\$
    – Chuck Dee
    Mar 26, 2012 at 17:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @wraith808 I agree that a generic tag should ride with the edition specific tag, but there is not consensus if you look at D&D questions. \$\endgroup\$
    – javafueled
    Mar 26, 2012 at 17:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .