Haha. Yeah, close one. Strike to stun is super nasty sometimes; nasty enough in an in person game where you spend the next 30 minutes at the table with your friends defending your stunned butt; perhaps worse in PbP where you have to wait for three weeks for the rest of the group to brawl through a battle.

It's also another example of those things that the game designers didn't completely think through, or atleast expected a GM to have some hand in moderating. For example, there's no reason you can't use Strike to Stun on a Giant. Giants have no armor on their heads. They have an average toughness of 59%. And their big sweeping blows are simulated by having a low WS (33%) and 5 attacks, with Lightning Parry so he can trade attacks for parries. But 33% is a very low chance. So all things considered, getting off a Strike to Stun on a giant is an extremely good tactic, and not remarkably harder than doing so to an ork with a hat.

...But a shrewed GM would feel at liberty of saying "His head is so big and his skull us so tough, he's stunned for 1/3 of the normal number of turns." Or something like that.


Same way that giants and dragons have Unstoppable blows (-30% to parry), but Ogres and Trolls have nothing of the sort - but I sometimes houserule them has having Somewhat Stoppable Blows, (-10% or sometimes -20% to parry). This is both because it seems nuts to think that there should be no difficulty parrying an ogre bull, and because parry is a shade too strong in WFRP in my opinion. You can see this by the way that, given a long enough timeframe, everyone ends up with a best quality axe and best quality shield. I think WFRP could benefit from more reason to use 2 handers. No one does so, because the parry is so vital and, once you have Impact on our one hand weapon, there's no reason to use anything else.

Not advocating for any houserule or anything here; just rambling.