Experience for stat replacing moves

Hi, sorry if I am too stupid for search.

AW Playbooks include stat replacing for basic moves.

Example: Gunlugger with Battle-hardened (roll+hard not roll+cool for doing something under fire) and highlighted cool.

Does he get no experience for doing something under fire, because he rolls+hard? Would he get experience if his hard would be highlighted, because now he is using hard?

Could not find anything here or in the MC Book.

Thanks,
Max

It's in there somewhere, but I don't remember where.

He's rolling Hard, so if his Hard is highlighted, he gets experience, and if his Cool is highlighted, he doesn't.

When someone goes to highlight his Cool, he should say "hey, I don't roll Cool. Highlight my hard or something else instead!"

-Vincent

Thanks Vincent,

there are some optional battle moves using other stats. So you suggest to allow highligthing only after those come to play? Or do Ice Cold, Battle-hardened overwrite those stat rolls to case by case?

Max

Oh, yeah, no. It's not _disallowed_ to highlight his Cool. And no, battle hardened doesn't let you roll Hard instead of Cool all the time, just for acting under fire.

So, yes, a gunlugger with battle hardened, you can still highlight his Cool, it's just impolite. And maybe he'll still get to roll it, in battle, or if there's a custom move, or if for some reason he grabbed a Cool move from another playbook.

But if I'M the gunlugger, I'm going to look at the odds of any of those things being true, and I'm going to ask my fellow player to be a pal and highlight something else instead, please.

-Vincent

But if I'M the gunlugger, I'm going to look at the odds of any of those things being true, and I'm going to ask my fellow player to be a pal and highlight something else instead, please.

Wow, does this work Vincent? Cause you play with much nicer players than I do if so. :)

A houserule that my table plays with (harvested from someone else on this board) is that when you highlight a Battle-hardened character's Cool, you're actually highlighting Act Under Fire. So when he Acts Under Fire, even though he rolls Hard, he gets an XP because Cool is marked. It keeps stat-sub moves from messing with what I think is the best part of highlighting, which is incentivizing behavior, at the cost of being slightly less intuitive.

Ooooh I like that idea! I think I may implement that in my next game.

A houserule that my table plays with (harvested from someone else on this board) is that when you highlight a Battle-hardened character's Cool, you're actually highlighting Act Under Fire. So when he Acts Under Fire, even though he rolls Hard, he gets an XP because Cool is marked. It keeps stat-sub moves from messing with what I think is the best part of highlighting, which is incentivizing behavior, at the cost of being slightly less intuitive.

I've played both with this variant and without. I think I prefer it.

A houserule that my table plays with (harvested from someone else on this board) is that when you highlight a Battle-hardened character's Cool, you're actually highlighting Act Under Fire.

What about all the other moves – even custom moves – that use Cool? You get no experience when rolling those?

So when he Acts Under Fire, even though he rolls Hard, he gets an XP because Cool is marked. It keeps stat-sub moves from messing with what I think is the best part of highlighting, which is incentivizing behavior, at the cost of being slightly less intuitive.

It seems the simplest way to do that is to highlight that character's Hard, if that's the stat they'll roll when doing what behaviour you want to see.

Highlighting only a specific move is nerfing the incentive, I think. Stats are broader than specific moves, and highlighting stats is meant to cast a broader net than a few specific moves.

Sorry, you're right, I left out custom moves. It should be "You're highlighting the moves that are under Cool, such as Act Under Fire." You would absolutely get XP for the other ones, too.