FASA Games, Inc.

I think it is ether a case where some developers see / write it one way, while others see it a different way. It might also be a case where consensus opinion shifts over time. Someone who actually wrote a rule might find themselves interpriting it in a non-texual way a few years later.

That thread can pretty much be summed up with the question: does "all tests" mean "all tests"? and I think the answer is very clearly no, but what is or is not included in "all tests" might be a matter of individual interpretation.

The interpretation that I walked away from that discussion with, is that:
(a) "All Tests" is an abbreviated form of writing "All Action Tests", and does not necessarily mean "All Tests".
(b) If you choose to, you can interpret Effect tests as being Action Tests, or you can choose to interpret them as being something different. I choose to interpret them as being something different and not Action Tests at all. If you choose to interpret them as being a different category, then many of the phrases "All Tests", meaning "All Action Tests", don't refer to Effect Tests.
(c) If you go down that route, then the example where initiative was reduced for being knocked down, could be, if the GM chooses, an obsolete usage.
(d) There might also be specific instances in which the GM chooses to interpret the phrase "All Tests" as meaning exactly that.

Chris am I right that your roll20 sheet treats “all tests” to be all tests?

Although I would usually agree that 'all tests' might actually be 'shorthand' for 'all ACTION tests', in this specific example (Knocked Down penalties) that would not be the case since the description specifically states 'including his next initiative test'.

In my games, all tests are Action Tests, while Effect Tests are a sub-set that have special rules (they represent a Value, not just Success/Failure degrees, and ignore Rule of 1, etc).

ED4 Player's Guide, p. 35 (emphasis mine)

Effect Tests
Sometimes the test result represents a value. The most common examples of these tests are Damage tests, which determine the amount of damage inflicted on a target; Initiative tests, which are used to find out who acts when and in what order during a combat round; and Recovery tests, in which the die roll result equals the amount of damage healed. These types of tests are known as Effect tests.

Yes, that means Wounds affect your Recovery Tests. But that is where you have to go with a ruling... I wouldn't apply a Knockdown penalty for resting comfortably on the ground (even if using the Rec test in combat via a Potion or some Ability). But lying in broken bloody ground trying to gulp that Healing Potion down? Yeah, I probably would apply the penalty there....

Recovery tests have an explicit penalty for wounds (p381): the result of the roll is reduced by the number of wounds the character is suffering from, and normal wound penalties explicitly do not apply to recovery tests (also p381)

sigfriedmcwild wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:04 pm

Chris am I right that your roll20 sheet treats “all tests” to be all tests?

That is the default behavior, but the other is supported as well.
One of the options for "Special Functions" in the advanced section of the last tab is a way for GMs to change behaviour. One of the options is to set Effect Tests are Action Tests. to yes or no. This is a global thing.
The other option, is that if Effect Tests are not Action tests, then you can set bonuses or penalties to Effect Tests whenever you set them for Action tests.