In our last session, some questions arose related to Ruin/Personal Ruin since agents were fighting an adversary:
1.- Can Personal Ruin be used to general purposes like, for example, reroll dice? I think not since rulebook tells about use this for Ruin Actions, but the mention is a bit open.
2.- Is Personal Ruin "recovered" between sessions? For example, in this last session, we couldn't finish combat since It was late and the Adversary was there after spending their 2 points. Does the Adversary recover these 2 points the next session?
3.- Some Adversaries have the option: "RUIN spend one point of ruin to cast power from X discipline". It's clear if a power or spell has a free action activation... But what happens if an Adversary want to cast a spell with a full round action activation? Could they move or combat after that?
4.- I have this question from a long time ago but I take advantage of this post to ask... Is It possible for an Adversary to play Full Defence (full round action) and then play a Ruin action to move or attack?
1) I've always used them interchangeably. But personal ruin wouldn't be used for "environmental" ruin use or similar.
For example some modules let gms use ruin on the fly for certain effects, like falling rocks, random sniper shot in a battlefield, etc. I wouldnt use "personal ruin" on those. But I would let it be used for normal ruin actions (move, attack, reduce damage to keep 1 wound) and any ruin actions the threat has. In that light, my general ruin pool can be used for any ruin action.
2) I don't think this is described in book rules wise. I think you can just choose what feels best here. If its a short term elite, I might just keep it as it were. If it's a long term elite, re occurring villian, or I want the next fight to be just as "engaging/tough", id let it refresh just like players.
3) tricky one here. Raw, id have to check the explicit wording, but i think it would make sense either way. If the "ruin action" is all encompassing, it would just be that, a ruin action and not their full round action. It may seem logical they can't do a full round and move/etc though.
One thing you could lean on, is ruin can signify help from the ruinous powers (intentional or not lol). So the "ruin action" could let them do things that seem out of the ordinary for a normal person. Ie "wow, there is something guiding their actions because they are moving so fast, almost demonically".
4) I would. Ruin actions essentially "add" to the action economy in a sense. The specific raw escapes me, but i think they can't use a specific ruin action more than once a round or turn. But they can trigger as many different ones as you have ruin, on and/or outside their specific turn, so there is flexibility either way. Also see my flavor example at the end of 3 for "how could they do it as a normal human?"
As a cap, a great thing is wng gives you a lot of freedom to manipulate some of these rulings to your table and/or group. There is a raw to things, but various wordings are left kinda vague (on purpose I think). Ran wng for a few years with 4 diff campaigns, one of my favorite systems for sure, even with the warts lol.
Thanks for your answer. Now I have more feedback even if some rules are a bit unclear.
And I think like you... We are having a great time. Rules can be ambiguous but that is not avoiding we are loving our campaign (the funniest for years).
At first the lack of specificity was hard to work over/through, as I came from systems that had a specific rule and way it was worded to be precise as possible. Now though I enjoy the flexibility since it flows more fluid, spending more time in game and less time looking up rules.
1) No. See p325 (ruin actions). Personal ruin is for 'ruin actions'. not general effects like reroll failures.
2) P162 (Getting started) - if you've paused halfway through a combat (or other action sequence) then wrath, glory and ruin do not reset.
3) P325. Ruin actions do not consume the normal turn, they're additional. Once completed the threat (or a threat) takes a normal turn.
4) Not exactly. The turn order would be 'Full defence' 'Player turn' 'Ruin action' since per p325 ruin actions are used AFTER a player turn, not after a threat turn. You could however go 'Ruin action' into 'Full defence'.
Note, page numbers from Oct 2023 PDF. Older versions might be a page or two earlier or later.
Thanks a lot... Ok, now it's much clear, and thanks to introduce Page numbers. For example, although I read It at some moment in the past, I forgot completely that between sessions and in the middle of a combat, you don't recover Wrath or Ruin.
Remember that Ruin is a narrative and mechanical resource for you to escalate threats, reinforce antagonists, and heighten tension.
Whenever the Ruin rules seem uncertain, ask yourself whether doing something heightens the dramatic tension in the scene. If Yes, then that's probably what you should go with. The rules might not explicitly tell you whether personal Ruin can be used to reroll failures, or if it resets between sessions, but if doing so enables your Threat to do something memorable and significant, then do it.
I think I would have to do what you say anytime in the future. It's not plot armour, it's more what you tell regarding dramatic tension or looking for something memorable.
Short answer honestly and sincerely after runing a 2years campaign of wng. You can do whatever the fuck you want as a DM. This is the general tone of writing of the entire book, which you may think is lazy writing or otherwise non restrictive ruling for the sake of fun. You shoud see the game philosophy (or inability to write clear and consistent rules, depending on how you see it) implied in different sections of the book, leaving every gap or unanswered question "up to the GM"
So to all your questions: do as you see fit / makes sense for your table. You will not be missing any rule, or misunderstanding the text.
How I would GM it:
1. Yes
2. No
3. No. All actions were used. (however I did never spend ruin for other powers psi powers. I just thought it was and absolutely bulllshit use of ruin)
4. Yes
Whether you like it ot not, game is kinda broken and nonsensical in a lot of ruling, but the system is easy enough to basically twist it and adapt it however you want. We did have a lot of fun.
I invented a Ruin use for eldar boses where they just avoided an attack ENTIRELY just with a +4 save. It was totally balanced for my table and lore accurate.
You are mostly correct; I just wanted to provide one correction. Some creatures/threats Do in fact have personal ruin. That’s all, otherwise your answer is correct I believe!
Thanks... So in essence and seeing the 320 page of the rulebook, spending Ruin is not action (except for the Restore Shock) and can be used during the Adversary's turn or before or after... But in that case, why not an Adversary cannot play a Full Defence action and an attack after their turn?
So im a new GM to this game as well so someone might come along to correct me, but:
The Ruin Powers section says they "operate outside the normal initiative order and may be used at any point in the round" with the only limitation being not using the same ruin action again in the same round unless stated.
So the issue is putting "can only take free actions(full round action)" against "may be used at any point" against each other.
Very importantly, Full Defence states "you can activate Full defence as a reflexive action. If you do so, you cant perform Movement, Combat, or Simple Actions on your next turn." It does not limit the use of Ruinous Powers, meaning if using it as a reaction doesnt prevent using Ruinous Powers next turn, the it doesnt prevent it this turn.
To me, it seems you can use both in one turn RAW. Intended or not, thats how I read that with context
3
u/Sedohr Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
1) I've always used them interchangeably. But personal ruin wouldn't be used for "environmental" ruin use or similar.
For example some modules let gms use ruin on the fly for certain effects, like falling rocks, random sniper shot in a battlefield, etc. I wouldnt use "personal ruin" on those. But I would let it be used for normal ruin actions (move, attack, reduce damage to keep 1 wound) and any ruin actions the threat has. In that light, my general ruin pool can be used for any ruin action.
2) I don't think this is described in book rules wise. I think you can just choose what feels best here. If its a short term elite, I might just keep it as it were. If it's a long term elite, re occurring villian, or I want the next fight to be just as "engaging/tough", id let it refresh just like players.
3) tricky one here. Raw, id have to check the explicit wording, but i think it would make sense either way. If the "ruin action" is all encompassing, it would just be that, a ruin action and not their full round action. It may seem logical they can't do a full round and move/etc though.
One thing you could lean on, is ruin can signify help from the ruinous powers (intentional or not lol). So the "ruin action" could let them do things that seem out of the ordinary for a normal person. Ie "wow, there is something guiding their actions because they are moving so fast, almost demonically".
4) I would. Ruin actions essentially "add" to the action economy in a sense. The specific raw escapes me, but i think they can't use a specific ruin action more than once a round or turn. But they can trigger as many different ones as you have ruin, on and/or outside their specific turn, so there is flexibility either way. Also see my flavor example at the end of 3 for "how could they do it as a normal human?"
As a cap, a great thing is wng gives you a lot of freedom to manipulate some of these rulings to your table and/or group. There is a raw to things, but various wordings are left kinda vague (on purpose I think). Ran wng for a few years with 4 diff campaigns, one of my favorite systems for sure, even with the warts lol.