As GMs, we are Rank people, not Point people. That's explained in the rules, but let us touch upon that because it makes a big difference. If, for example, Character A is Third Rank in a Stat, and Character B is Fourth Rank in a Stat... A will defeat B in average to optimal conditions. However it is entirely possible for B to tie against A, or defeat A if there are enough environmental conditions to justify it. Ultimately, what is best for the story will govern the decision, but that's how were going to examine the confrontation. The part you should bear in mind is that the number of points spent by the two characters for their Ranks really falls behind environmental factors, Endurance, and what is best for the story.

We are not going to have an auction, nor are we going to advertise anyone's ranks, even if they are the best. We're going to leave sharing of abilities up to the players as they wish to share their backgrounds with other players.

Psyche is pretty much like it is in the book. At this writing we can not thinking of any special notes regarding it, though players will want to review how psyche relates to trumps (in the powers section). Psyche battles will never let you 'program' another character however. Freeze them in place, hurt them, and steal thoughts yes, but we don't want to de-protagonize players with post-hypnotic mind control suggestions and the like.

Warfare is pretty much like it is in the book. However when it comes to personal combat, "outnumbered is outnumbered". In the First Series, Random loathes to take on three big guys without an ambush. The famous stairway ascent was one fight at a time. Elders are often threatened and brought down by superior numbers. And while we accord that Benedict may stand a better chance against superior numbers than anyone else, he can not really anticipate the presence of invisible ninjas before they strike.

Endurance is the official tie-breaker (along with environmental factors) of conflicts between Stats. Since we're using Ranks and not Points, we see this making Endurance more important than perhaps players are used to. It too, is mostly as you see it in the rule book.

---

STRENGTH is the attribute that has been adjusted significantly. Nothing that is commonly thought of about Strength has been taken away. It is still considered to be the measure of raw strength. It is still considered to be the measure of hand to hand combat (and/or martial arts).

The first difference about Strength is how we look at it in contrast to Warfare. Both are considered combat skills, and have been commonly interpreted as a measure of physical skill- albeit Warfare is with tool weapons, and Strength without. Simply put, we think a Strength Rank can be interchangeable with a Warfare Rank for raw reaction time during those times when the nature of the conflict is unclear.

Too often as players we have seen situations where two characters oppose each other. One with a good Strength and one with a good Warfare. The confrontation goes to combat. The Strength character intends to do a grab, and the Warfare character intends to draw his sword. The ruling has come back that the Warfare character has withdrawn his sword, and the fight will be based on the Warfare attribute. How was initiative determined? On the Warfare attribute score! Under that sort of interpretation we ourselves don't know why anyone would want to sink any points in Strength either. Similarly, if a character has knives thrown at them across the room, it stands to reason that if they wish to pick up a serving tray and deflect them they would use their Warfare attribute; but what they just want to duck and dodge out of the way? (They might be a great martial artist after all).

Likewise, if you review the first conflict between Corwin and Julian in Arden, you might be surprised. Corwin jumps out of the car, unarmed and barefoot, Julian already has his sword out and is swinging it from on top of Morgenstern. Wujcik would suggest a Warfare comparison. However, Corwin ducks underneath the sword and reaches up and grabs Julian by the arm, yanks him olff of Morgenstern and slams him hard to the ground, and then takes Julian's own sword where it lies abandoned and points it at his brother's throat. Is this a Warfare comparison or a Strength comparison? Armed or unarmed?

It's not our intention to rewrite the rules from scratch, undervalue Warfare, or over complicate a system designed for simplicity. So, a sword fight is still governed by Warfare, and hand to hand combat is still governed by Strength. However, during moments when the nature of the conflict is uncertain, or when a logical application of the Strength attribute can be used, it might be interchangeable with (but not replacing) Warfare for examining raw reaction time.

Secondly, Strength is also a factor in how much damage one can take. We realize that's usually strictly a function of Endurance. We split the two attributes this way; Strength would be where you would derive something like hit points in a crunchy game. Endurance is how long you can go being injured without suffering any negative impact on any of your other actions or abilities. Endurance still governs stamina, plague resistance, drinking, sleep deprivation, regeneration, and it's still the Attribute tie-breaker. We just can't see anyone being able to heft a school bus actually having a glass jaw, that's all.

We see these two additional factors as making Strength more valuable than it is usually considered.

(We're not actually using hit points by the way, it's just a comparison of values)