Two on one combat

[Korbel]

+1 to that one. Solves the above issue, plus it makes Speed more meaningful in combat.

That's true. When the idea was presented the first time, I was going to playtest this. As you can see - I forgot.

[EinBein]

[...]positioning rolls should use your SPEED attribute as a basis which can be increased with CP, just like in Preempting[...]

I like this. Only disadvantage I can see is that you have an exception to standard Positioning rolls...

[thirtythr33]

Only disadvantage I can see is that you have an exception to standard Positioning rolls...

I was actually suggesting that ALL positioning rolls be Speed + CP by default. If the situation doesn't fit (like fighting on a wet surface) you could substitute for another Attribute like Agility + CP.

[Benedict]

Only disadvantage I can see is that you have an exception to standard Positioning rolls...

I was actually suggesting that ALL positioning rolls be Speed + CP by default. If the situation doesn't fit (like fighting on a wet surface) you could substitute for another Attribute like Agility + CP.

Yes, I understood from the first post that you meant all positioning rolls. But I wouldn't use Agility for this, after all CP=Agility+Cunning+Proficiency. I'd say Speed for physical tasks and Acumen for mental tasks or physical tasks that need extra consideration (like the slippery surface example).

[higgins]

In the above example of lone (18cp) vs many (8, 8, and 16cp) having the guy with 16cp spend full his pool and his comrades 0cp results in a situation where they have 50% chance to beat the loner if he spends 16cp too. Not only its cheap and open to exploitation, its also unrealistic.

As I recently explained, the winner of the positioning roll MUST engage the lone combatant as "the comrades" are additional combatants to him. So, if he decides that entering the fight with zero CP and probably dying is worth it then... it possibly CAN be a viable tactic? Main question is, is it worth dying though?

That said, we discovered during writing our massive example that even I and Agamemnon have interpreted some of the positioning rules differently, which is one of the reasons the skirmish chapter has been delayed as long as it has. So, there's bound to be clarifications on positioning, 2 vs 1, etc.

[Benedict]

In the above example of lone (18cp) vs many (8, 8, and 16cp) having the guy with 16cp spend full his pool and his comrades 0cp results in a situation where they have 50% chance to beat the loner if he spends 16cp too. Not only its cheap and open to exploitation, its also unrealistic.

As I recently explained, the winner of the positioning roll MUST engage the lone combatant as "the comrades" are additional combatants to him. So, if he decides that entering the fight with zero CP and probably dying is worth it then... it possibly CAN be a viable tactic? Main question is, is it worth dying though?

That said, we discovered during writing our massive example that even I and Agamemnon have interpreted some of the positioning rules differently, which is one of the reasons the skirmish chapter has been delayed as long as it has. So, there's bound to be clarifications on positioning, 2 vs 1, etc.

The bug is this. The guy from many who enters with 0CP wears a full plate suit, covered from head to toe. He manages to reach MoS3 against the loner, bringing his two friends for the ride with full CP. One of them disarms the lone warrior with full pool, the other attacks to a lethal wheel at full pool. Most probably it's game over for the loner. This can be a cheap way for a GM to get rid of an annoying player at best. At worst players will exploit it as much as they can, killing the fun for everyone.

[higgins]

The bug is this. The guy from many who enters with 0CP wears a full plate suit, covered from head to toe. He manages to reach MoS3 against the loner, bringing his two friends for the ride with full CP. One of them disarms the lone warrior with full pool, the other attacks to a lethal wheel at full pool. Most probably it's game over for the loner. This can be a cheap way for a GM to get rid of an annoying player at best. At worst players will exploit it as much as they can, killing the fun for everyone.

The easiest way to fix this bug would be to amend the Throw maneuver and allow the static husk to be thrown AT one of those other guys and force them to dodge

[taelor]

As I recently explained, the winner of the positioning roll MUST engage the lone combatant as "the comrades" are additional combatants to him. So, if he decides that entering the fight with zero CP and probably dying is worth it then... it possibly CAN be a viable tactic? Main question is, is it worth dying though?

I dunno. If I'm the long combatant, I'm probably going to be too busy worrying about the guy with a full CP trying to killing me to put too much effort into punishing the 0 CP static husk.

[nemedeus]

+1 to that one. Solves the above issue, plus it makes Speed more meaningful in combat.

That's true. When the idea was presented the first time, I was going to playtest this. As you can see - I forgot.

Hah, i made that suggestion a few weeks ago... completely forgot that 33 already suggested it before.
(If a smart guy like him and a dimwit like me think alike...)

[thirtythr33]

So lets break this down into something a little more specific. Lets take a look at some different combinations, all assuming that the Loner assigns dice after the Group:

Loner CP 15 vs Alice CP 10 and Bob CP 10
Alice puts 8 towards positioning and Bob puts 0.
Loner can respond by either
a) Not contesting. He then fights CP15 vs CP2 and CP10. (Loner is doing well!)
b) Adding 11 CP to positioning. He (likely) wins and fights CP4 vs CP2 (Loner is doing well!)

Loner CP 15 vs Alice CP 10 and Bob CP 15
Alice puts 8 towards positioning and Bob puts 0.
Loner has to respond as he did with b) above.
(Not contesting leaves CP15 vs CP2 and CP15, which is a bad)

Loner CP 15 vs Alice CP 15 and Bob CP 10
Alice puts 12 towards positioning and Bob puts 0.
Loner can respond by either
a) Not contesting. He then fights CP15 vs CP3 and CP10. (Loner is doing well!)
b) Adding 12 CP to positioning. This breaks down into 50% chance of each of:
i) Loner wins and fights CP3 vs CP3. (average result)
ii) Loner loses and fights CP3 vs CP3 and CP10 (terrible result)

So we can see that as long as the Loner has a CP atleast as large as the largest CP of the group and is allowed to assign dice last, they have very good responses to the "invest everything to bring in your friend" tactic. The loner is only really left without good options if there is an attacker that they couldn't beat 1v1 or there are 3 or more attackers... But if you are in that situation, then yeah, you should be in big trouble.

Also, note that if all participants are meant to pick and reveal simultaneously then the Group shouldn't be able to coordinate who is assigning all their dice and who isn't so it would be a very risky tactic in that situation. If the Group assigns dice after the Loner and are allowed to coordinate their rolls they will utterly destroy the Loner. If the group assigns last but isn't allowed to coordinate, they still have to risk both using the same tactic (both go all in, or both go 0 in is really bad) and will end up wasting a reasonably large amount of dice by both attempting to contest the roll separately.

[Benedict]

Ok, another question that came up and is somewhat related. At the establish CP step does the GM tell the player how many dice each combatant has? Cos if he doesn't you have to spend one phrase counting dice to establish their pool, which in this 1v2 scenario is bad.

[thirtythr33]

In my opinion the GM doesn't have to tell you what the enemy CP is (or any NPC stats or attributes for that matter). Not knowing how skilled your opponent is at the outset is a good reason not to throw red at the start of every fight.

If an enemy were particularly nasty and skilled and wanted to toy with you, he might not even use his entire CP in phrase 1 in order to trap you later.

[higgins]

In my opinion the GM doesn't have to tell you what the enemy CP is (or any NPC stats or attributes for that matter). Not knowing how skilled your opponent is at the outset is a good reason not to throw red at the start of every fight.

If an enemy were particularly nasty and skilled and wanted to toy with you, he might not even use his entire CP in phrase 1 in order to trap you later.

This!

[taelor]

In my opinion the GM doesn't have to tell you what the enemy CP is (or any NPC stats or attributes for that matter). Not knowing how skilled your opponent is at the outset is a good reason not to throw red at the start of every fight.

The GM presumably knows what the player's CPs are. Is the GM expected to disregard this knowledge? Or is the imbalance simply an intended part of the game?

[Korbel]

The GM knows, but his NPCs? Not always. If the player wants to fool an NPC, always use this NPC's knowledge.