Two on one combat

[thirtythr33]

Perhaps simplify Reach Control with multiple opponents to;
1) If you land a blow against anyone, you gain reach control
2) If you get struck by anyone, you lose reach control

You're basically ignoring all weapon lengths and allowing multiple characters to have Reach Control at the same time. It should also fit with current turn structure.

It still gets into weird situations where attacking Enemy A will give you bonus dice against Enemy B and where one Spearman can have Reach Control over another Spearman, but it works for most normal cases and removes a LOT of the ambiguity.

[higgins]

It still gets into weird situations where attacking Enemy A will give you bonus dice against Enemy B and where one Spearman can have Reach Control over another Spearman, but it works for most normal cases and removes a LOT of the ambiguity.

Yup. Reach should be dead easy. There shouldn't ever be head scratching involved.

When the fight is one on one, reach factor is huge. When there's a third person in play, reach will still help, but it's being outmaneuvered that does you in.

With that in mind, the third option would be to simply give the reach control to the longest weapon. So, your strategy would be to kill or tie down the longest weapon first, until YOU have longest weapon to keep the others at bay. If the opposing team matches your weapon reach, nobody gets control as normal.

I'm liking that the best since a) it still makes reach a factor and b) it's a realistic tactic to use.

Did you find any flaws with this one?

[thirtythr33]

Did you find any flaws with this one?

It's good that it is dead simple and unambiguous, but it loses the feel of Reach Control ebbing and flowing back and forth between combatants. It also never gives Reach Control to the shorter weapon, like 2 men with daggers sneaking up on a guard with a Spear. It also can be weird in that the person with reach control is often not even going to be in the fight. Eg 1 shortsword vs 1 broadsword and 1 spear. Reach is determined and is given to the spearman. They then roll for positioning. If the shortsword wins, it is a 1v1, shortsword vs broadsword and noone has reach.

Actually... The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me to move Positioning Rolls to before Determining Reach Control and Initiative in the turn structure (Both in 1v1 and 1v2). Positioning in 2v1 is already breaking the rules in terms of determining Initiative and it's going to with reach as well. If you make Positioning first in the turn most of the headaches disappear:

1. Positioning Rolls
a) Lone combatant wins.
b) Tie.
c) Multiple Opponents win.

2. Determine Reach Control
a) No problem, do as normal 1v1.
b) No problem, do as normal 1v1.
c) ??????

3. Determine Initiative
a) Assigned to lone combatant
b) Assigned to multiple opponents
c) Assigned to multiple opponents

2a) and b) is usually going to be Reach Control to longer weapon or no bonus for equal lengths. This make sense since the lone combatants has to continually keep running around to prevent them from being ganged up on. If however the lone combatant has the shorter weapon and managed to win the positioning roll twice in a row (to isolate the same enemy) and managed to score a hit, he could still theoretically get Reach Control at the shorter distance. Also, 2 c) is not a problem if everyone involved in the clash has an equal weapon length.

So 2c) with unmatched weapons is the only problem, but we also have the extra information of the results of the positioning roll to make a rule for it, namely who is in the combat and who is not (whereas before, if it was 1v5, we didn't even know WHICH two enemies would be in the 1v2), and who won the positioning roll. Then I think the best options are:

* Each enemy that has a longer weapon than the Lone Combatant, has Reach Control.
OR
* If the weapon lengths of the Lone Combatant and the winner of the Positioning Roll are not equal, the winner of the Positioning Roll is assigned Reach Control.

[higgins]

It's good that it is dead simple and unambiguous, but it loses the feel of Reach Control ebbing and flowing back and forth between combatants.

IMO that feel gets lost in real life too, as you no longer have a single clear line between two combatants -- you have one between you and each of your opponents. Reach still matters, but blindsiding matters way more.

It also never gives Reach Control to the shorter weapon, like 2 men with daggers sneaking up on a guard with a Spear.

Not an issue. Ambush gives automatic Reach Control to the attacker anyway.

It also can be weird in that the person with reach control is often not even going to be in the fight. Eg 1 shortsword vs 1 broadsword and 1 spear. Reach is determined and is given to the spearman. They then roll for positioning. If the shortsword wins, it is a 1v1, shortsword vs broadsword and noone has reach.

The Reach Control will give spearman more dice, thus aiding them in the positioning roll, making them more likely to engage the lone character. AND if short sword wins, he better try and take out the spearman or that +4 dice comes back to haunt him the next Phrase. Especially if the spearman has actually used up some of their bonus dice for maneuvering, giving the short sword better chances to get at him.

Actually... The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me to move Positioning Rolls to before Determining Reach Control and Initiative in the turn structure (Both in 1v1 and 1v2).

I was pondering that option on the autobahn, but that'd mean knife vs spear situation would be "fair" at first (no modifiers), and the spearman would benefit from his reach ONLY if he won the Positioning roll in the first place. That's not what we want.

[Benedict]

Actually... The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me to move Positioning Rolls to before Determining Reach Control and Initiative in the turn structure (Both in 1v1 and 1v2).

I was pondering that option on the autobahn, but that'd mean knife vs spear situation would be "fair" at first (no modifiers), and the spearman would benefit from his reach ONLY if he won the Positioning roll in the first place. That's not what we want.

Still I feel its unrealistic. In a real fight the spearman should try to maintain his reach by moving around and use the terrain to stop his attacker(s) getting too close. Cause the moment he/they do its game over unless he uses the spear as a staff or switches to a shorter weapon. Historically spears/pikes and the like were employed more in unit tactics instead of individual combat. 10 spearmen in rank? Tough deal. A single spearman? Usually easily outmaneuvered and butchered, unless we are talking about a highly trained shaolin, a thing unheard-of in Europe. Not to mention that most historical spearman units always carried short blades to deal with close quarters situations.

And a note. I understand that most of us have some combat training/experience. Keep in mind that a real fight is entirely different than a tournament fight with set rules. In a real fight the single warrior with a long weapon (usually) gets the first strike. If that's not sufficient to incapacitate/keep at bay the opposition, chances are he must switch to shorter range or be defeated.

[thirtythr33]

I was pondering that option on the autobahn, but that'd mean knife vs spear situation would be "fair" at first (no modifiers), and the spearman would benefit from his reach ONLY if he won the Positioning roll in the first place. That's not what we want.

No... The spearman doesn't get disadvantaged by losing the positioning roll. It is purely a case of X-A+B = X+B-A. It would only make a difference if the spearman wants to use some of his final 4 dice for positioning.

Example:
Dagger vs 2 Spears (everyone base CP12)
Everyone assigns 4 dice to positioning
Say dagger wins. He narrows it down to a 1v1
Reach is now calculated and it becomes:
dagger 8CP vs Spear 12CP

This is identical to:
Dagger (12) vs 2 Spears (12+4=16)
Everyone assigns 4 dice to positioning
Say dagger wins. He narrows it down to a 1v1
dagger 8CP vs Spear 12CP

Moving the order of the rolls around only makes things easier. It just means you don't have to go through the headache of "who has reach control" until you have FINALIZED who is fighting. This is important, because if a 1v5 ends up being a 1v1 or a 1v2 with equal length weapons then there is no problems at all! Trying to figure out how to assign reach in a 1v5 before you know who is even going to be participating in the fighting is madness!

In fact, using the operation I outlined above, it only makes it EASIER for the longer weapons to use Reach Control because he will always be GUARANTEED to get the extra dice if he is participating in the combat, whereas under your proposition it is possible that you end up with a participant in the combat with the longer weapon and not get the bonus. (as shown in my 1 shortsword vs 1 broadsword and 1 spear example).

[higgins]

Still I feel its unrealistic. In a real fight the spearman should try to maintain his reach by moving around and use the terrain to stop his attacker(s) getting too close. Cause the moment he/they do its game over unless he uses the spear as a staff or switches to a shorter weapon.

This is absolutely true. I was simply saying that keeping at bay isn't modeled by the exact same mechanics in these two situations.

In 1vs1, getting inside spear range is modeled by reach control. The keeping at bay is an assumption of the successful maneuvers. In 1vs1 we get an acute sense of reach and we don't really care to model the positioning unless it gets drastic.

This changes in 1vsMany, as while reach still matters, I'm way more worried about being run over or blindsided, aka being in the striking distance of multiple opponents at once. In other words, I'm primarily concerned about failing my positioning roll. Losing reach control sucks, but it isn't the end of the world. Getting swarmed probably is. So, keeping at bay is a function of the positioning roll.

Now we have a choice to make. In 1vsMany, do we want the weapon reach to matter more in the positioning stage, or the individual stage? I felt the first was more important, and as such, some abstraction on reach in this situation wouldn't kill me, as it isn't really in the focus.

Example:
Dagger vs 2 Spears (everyone base CP12)
Everyone assigns 4 dice to positioning
Say dagger wins. He narrows it down to a 1v1
Reach is now calculated and it becomes:
dagger 8CP vs Spear 12CP

Ah! For some reason I thought that idea was paired with the "positioning roll winner gets the reach control" concept.

[Korbel]

33, if I play just like in your examples, when do I declare Favoring (and make the corresponding Positioning Rolls, if desired)?

[thirtythr33]

Favoring would be the first thing, before even positioning.

I would make the turn structure as follows:

1. Favoring
2. Positioning
3. Initiative
4. Reach
5. Clash

I think Initiative should go before Reach because depending on how Initiative is determined it can affect the Reach Control. Take the example of a swordsman ambushing a spearman.

In the current structure resolving Reach first, you would conclude that the Spearman has the longer weapon and should have Reach Control. Then you go to resolve Initiative and see that in an Ambush the swordsman is meant to have Reach Control, so you have to "back up" and fix it.
Resolving Initiative first, you see that in an Ambush the attacker automatically gets the Reach Control. Then you resolve Reach control and you know who it goes to.

In 99% of cases it isn't going to really matter, the results will be the same no matter what order you do Positioning, Initiative and Reach in anyway, but in general steps should only modify how later steps are resolved. Ie, if positioning can affect how Initiate or Reach are determined then it needs to be resolved before either of those.

[Benedict]

Question about positioning in 1 vs Many.

Can some from the side of Many assign 0CP to the positioning roll and still be able to participate?

For example there's a warrior with CP18 vs a team of three with CP8 CP8 CP16. Could one of the 3 assign 8CP to positioning and if he wins have his teammates join in when they have assigned 0CP, provided he has the required MoS on positioning?
Or in order to be able to join the melee each must assign at least 1CP to simulate the effort taken to gain a better placement on the field?

[EinBein]

Question about positioning in 1 vs Many.

Can some from the side of Many assign 0CP to the positioning roll and still be able to participate?

For example there's a warrior with CP18 vs a team of three with CP8 CP8 CP16. Could one of the 3 assign 8CP to positioning and if he wins have his teammates join in when they have assigned 0CP, provided he has the required MoS on positioning?
Or in order to be able to join the melee each must assign at least 1CP to simulate the effort taken to gain a better placement on the field?

2. Since it only takes a single winner of the positioning roll for your entire team blob to gain initiative and "get the rest of the gang in...", is it a viable tactic to get a single representative person to pump all his dice into positioning on behalf of everyone else (is discussion among party members possible?), rather than each one having to sacrifice dice individually for positioning and everyone ending up with sub-par individual rolls?

The winner of the positioning roll must engage the lone combatant as "the rest of the gang" 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 guess spending CP on the positioning roll is no prerequesite to join the fight. At least there is nothing about it in the rules.

[Benedict]

I guess spending CP on the positioning roll is no prerequesite to join the fight. At least there is nothing about it in the rules.

True, the rules state nothing of the short, at least clearly.

pr 109: Each character allocates CP towards positioning and rolls individually as normal. The character with the highest number of successes is declared the winner, and their side starts with initiative in the first tempo, ignoring the normal rules for determining initiative. They gain an additional benefit depending on which side they were on.

pg 105: Positioning rolls are made by allocating dice from your combat pool, and then rolled against either an Ob set by the GM, or (more often) the opponent’s own dice allocated to the same.

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.

In a narrative sense, I believe that allocating dice to any action shows that you are trying to accomplish something directly. While opting not to allocate dice to an action shows that you don't try to accomplish something directly. It's like opting to parry a blow or not. When you parry you try to divert the blow, when you are not you are hoping the opposition will miss or your armor will save you as illustrated here.

pg 108: When someone is swinging a sword at you, the logical thing is to in some way prevent it from hitting you. On the other hand, a character can always choose to go on the offensive. If your opponent throws a particularly weak attack, you’re confident in your armor, or you develop a sudden masochism, you can choose to make an attack instead. Resolve the opponent’s attack as normal, and subtract any impact from the dice you’ve allocated for your own attack first. If you have any dice remaining in that attack, you may roll your own attack unopposed.

Tbh the way the rules are written right now, as a GM I'd probably ask anyone willing to join the fight to allocate at least 1CP to illustrate the effort taken to "get into a good position to strike" as stated in the rules. Allocating 0CP in the positioning roll means that you are holding back from the actual melee in disengage range.

But since its not clear, some official clarification would be very much appreciated.

[EinBein]

But since its not clear, some official clarification would be very much appreciated.

I can see your point now and share your sentiment. Let's wait on the author's opinion.

[thirtythr33]

I think it can make sense for someone with 0 investment in the positioning roll to be included. In this case, you could think of it as the person investing 10+CP as "herding" the lone combatant into one of their allies.

A suggestion I made a while ago in another thread was that positioning rolls should use your SPEED attribute as a basis which can be increased with CP, just like in Preempting. This means that even if you aren't "investing" you would still be rolling a few dice for the contest and it makes Speed a bit more powerful (Speed is currently almost strictly worse than Cunning at the moment). I also like that it can give some less combative types a more reasonable chance of being able to use positioning rolls well. Thinking of the Frodo vs the Cave Troll fight in the LOTR movies, I imagine Frodo is using positioning rolls to stay away from the Cave Troll; something that wouldn't be possible to do if Frodo has a CP of ~10 and the Cave Troll CP ~20. Giving Frodo ~4 dice from Speed to position with vs the Cave Troll's 2 would go a bit of a way to helping that.

[Benedict]

I think it can make sense for someone with 0 investment in the positioning roll to be included. In this case, you could think of it as the person investing 10+CP as "herding" the lone combatant into one of their allies.

A suggestion I made a while ago in another thread was that positioning rolls should use your SPEED attribute as a basis which can be increased with CP, just like in Preempting. This means that even if you aren't "investing" you would still be rolling a few dice for the contest and it makes Speed a bit more powerful (Speed is currently almost strictly worse than Cunning at the moment). I also like that it can give some less combative types a more reasonable chance of being able to use positioning rolls well. Thinking of the Frodo vs the Cave Troll fight in the LOTR movies, I imagine Frodo is using positioning rolls to stay away from the Cave Troll; something that wouldn't be possible to do if Frodo has a CP of ~10 and the Cave Troll CP ~20. Giving Frodo ~4 dice from Speed to position with vs the Cave Troll's 2 would go a bit of a way to helping that.

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