Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4.0 Gang up rules

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 4.0 Gang up rules

    Am I reading them wrong or "A" on this picture (where B are allies and C are enemies) suffer no gang-up at all with the new rules? Is this intended? It's quite different for any previous version.

    Text version:

    CCC
    A
    BB


  • #2
    I think you are misreading it. the last sentence says: This means troops in opposing lines, such as a medieval formation where each man has three adjacent foes and two adjacent allies, doesn’t get the bonus unless actually flanked.

    That would mean that the formation would need to be:
    CCC
    BAB
    to avoid the gang up bonus.

    IMO the confusion really shows up when you have this:
    _C_
    CAC
    B_B
    I think that would give solo enemy a +2 but the other two would be +1.

    Sort of confusing I agree.
    I have way too much time but do not always edit myself properly. Please do not take offense.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think javierrivera is right, the way v4 reads there would be no gang up bonus in his example. But I also think Erolat is right in that this is not the intent.

      Assuming the intent is that allies engaging with enemies cancel out their ability to gang up, that first sentence of that second paragraph should be:
      One or more allies adjacent to an attacker cancels out any Gang Up bonus from that attacker. Each ally can only cancel out the Gang Up bonus from one attacker.

      Perhaps that could be worded better. But with that wording the results are:

      CCC
      _A
      BB

      The C's get +2 vs. A
      -------------------------------------------------
      CCC
      BAB

      Nobody gets any gang-up bonus
      -------------------------------------------------
      _C_
      CAC
      BB

      Nobody gets any gang-up bonus
      The way v4 is currently worded, A and B's get +1 vs. the left C.
      -------------------------------------------------
      _A_
      CCC
      BBB

      A's and B's get +1 Gang Up vs. C's. C's get no Gang Up.
      The way v4 is currently worded, the C's get +2 vs A. A's and B's get +1 Gang Up vs. C's



      Comment


      • #4
        I think the simple solution is to say that each ally adjacent to the defender can negate the gang up of one attacker they're adjacent to; which might be the intent. I don't currently have a better way to word that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jounichi View Post
          I think the simple solution is to say that each ally adjacent to the defender can negate the gang up of one attacker they're adjacent to; which might be the intent. I don't currently have a better way to word that.
          Consider this formation:
          _A_
          CCC
          BBB

          With that wording, none of the B's can reduce the gang up on A, since they are not adjacent to A. So we have the C's get +2 vs A and A's and B's get +1 Gang Up vs. C's.
          I guess this is not a huge problem, though it does not sit right with me that even with a numeral advantage the A's and B's suffer the single worst Gang Up bonus against them. It kind of implies the C's would turn their backs on the B's in order to focus on A which does not seem realistic.

          Also consider this formation.
          _ _B
          ACC
          _ _B

          With your wording, since none of the A's and B's are adjacent to each other they can't support each other. So C's get +1 Gang Up vs. B's.
          The B's get no bonus vs. Cs. Edit - The B's get +1 vs the left C and no bonus vs the right C.
          A gets +1 vs. the left C.
          Again, even though it's 3 vs. 2, the 2 end up with a better Gang Up situation than the 3. Edit - Gang Up situation is about even based on the above edit. I still think the side with the numerical advantage should have an advantage, but at least they don't have a disadvantage as I originally said.

          With my wording A gets +1 vs. the left C. Nobody else gets any bonus. So the side with the numerical advantage has a Gang Up advantage.





          Last edited by JamesG; 01-15-2019, 10:11 PM.

          Comment


          • JamesG
            JamesG commented
            Editing a comment
            I think it is instructive to look at the evolution of this rule. V3 made no mention of adjacency, it just said that enemies not engaged with someone else contribute to gang up. Then people questioned what "engaged" means and they said they would work on the wording.

            While I agree your wording does a better job of defining engaged than the one in v4, I think my wording is better still. I don't see what being adjacent to an ally really has to do with engaging the enemy. Being adjacent to the enemy is what should matter.

            PS - Good catch on my mistake on the last formation. I'll edit my post to correct.

          • Jounichi
            Jounichi commented
            Editing a comment
            If we're going to look at the evolution, then we also need to look at where it is now. You're discounting that. The ally is required to be adjacent to the defender because they're supporting the defender just by being close. They're fighting as a unit.

          • JamesG
            JamesG commented
            Editing a comment
            I suppose I am discounting it, because I thought the v3 rules on this were good and that they were just trying to clean up the wording and not change the rule. I guess that is what house rules are for.

            But in any case I hope at the least they revise things to use your wording, because as written now it leads to the somewhat ludicrous situation described in the original post in the thread.

        • #6
          I agree this is a step more complicated than the old rules, but also more realistic. The good thing is, thanks to years of experience playing bloodbowl, I am used to this concept. It does open a nice design space and you can get a few ideas from bloodbowl itself. For example:


          Tackle
          Requirements: Novice, Agility d6+, Strength d6+, Fighting d6+
          You always give gang-up bonuses to allies, even if you are in melee.

          Comment


          • #7
            Better wording of my suggestion, inspired by Jounichi's wording:
            Each ally adjacent to the attackers can negate the gang up of one attacker they're adjacent to.

            Comment


            • #8
              Lol at dentris' comment. This discussion was also really making me think "Blood Bowl".

              Comment


              • #9
                How about this: Each ally adjacent to the defender cancels out one point of Gang Up bonus from an attacker adjacent to both.

                Yes, the intent is that:

                * In an equal line of troops, no one gets a Gang Up bonus.
                * In a line of five troops vs 6 troops, the 6 get a +1 bonus on the guy at the end of the line of 5.
                * If I'm behind a friend who's blocking a doorway, and he's got three foes on him, they get a +2 bonus (I don't help him because I'm behind him and not adjacent to the enemies).

                Clear?

                Thanks!

                Comment


                • ogbendog
                  ogbendog commented
                  Editing a comment
                  what if your friend is blocking a door, and facing one goblin. You are behind your friend with a reach weapon and thus not adjacent.
                  Do you get +1 gangup from your friend in the doorway? RAW says, "Each additional adjacent foe", but then you aren't adjacent.
                  Does your friend get +1 gang up from you ? You aren't adjacent, but your spear is poking the goblin

                  I would think RAI is yes to both questions.
                  If so, how does that effect the last example, if the person behind has a spear, does that lower the gang up to +1

                • mattprice516
                  mattprice516 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Seems pretty clear to me!

                • javierrivera
                  javierrivera commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Yes quite clear.

              • #10
                Originally posted by PEGShane View Post
                How about this: Each ally adjacent to the defender cancels out one point of Gang Up bonus from an attacker adjacent to both.

                Yes, the intent is that:

                * In an equal line of troops, no one gets a Gang Up bonus.
                Consider this formation, with A's being allies and C's being allies:

                A
                CC
                A

                Even though there is an equal number on each side, the C's get +1 Gang Up on the A's and the A's get nothing vs the C's. (I know you said "line" not "side", but not all combats are fought in lines).

                I would think allies can support each other even if not adjacent to each other by engaging with one of the enemies trying to Gang Up.

                And ogbendog has a good point about Reach.

                Assuming Reach should factor into Gang Up bonuses, how about:

                "An ally of the defender can cancel out one attacker's contribution to the Gang Up bonus provided the ally is within Reach of that attacker."

                Also the rules for applying Gang Up should probably be revised to account for Reach (or the rules for Reach could be revised to note that attackers within Reach of the Defender can contribute to the Gang Up bonus).

                If you don't want to address Reach at all in the Gang Up section, then my suggestion becomes:
                "An ally of the defender can cancel out one attacker's contribution to the Gang Up bonus provided the ally is adjacent to that attacker."

                If you want to keep the requirement that the allies are adjacent, then I think your new wording is clear. Other than questions about Reach, which it shares with the rest of the Gang Up section.

                Edit - Even better example showing the issue with requiring Allies to be adjacent.

                A _ A
                CCC
                A _ A

                The A's outnumber the C's 4 vs 3 yet the C's get +1 Gang Up vs. the A's and the A's get nothing vs. the C's even with the new wording.
                With my wording the C's get no Gang Up bonus and the A's get +1 vs. the middle C, nothing vs. the C's on the end.




                Last edited by JamesG; 01-18-2019, 07:05 PM.

                Comment


                • Jounichi
                  Jounichi commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Being able to attack is not the same as being able to protect your buddy. The rules have *always* drawn a clear distinction between a weapon's reach and characters being adjacent to one another. (As an aside, the First Strike text on page 42 does not jive with the notes on page 60. That should be addressed.) For example, you only get free attacks on a foe withdrawing from melee if they began their turn adjacent to you; regardless of whether or not your weapon has Reach.

              • #11
                Holy Crowd! (I watched too much Wildcards recently). Please no more changes to Gang Up.

                I really like the v4 version, mostly because its simple and reduces the issue we had before that fights got strictly deadlier when there was a crowd of people fighting (which might not be that unrealistic by the way).

                Please Shane, don’t make things more complicated than needed. Leave it as is or add a sentence that the adjacent allies need to be able to help the character where the GM has the last word on whether they can or not. One could argue that guys from behind can help if there is empty space in fromt of them (they threaten to move in, can help parry by doing a step foward, or something like that). But in the doorway scenario they can’t because of the confined space.

                The “guy in the doorway” is not ideal as it is but I don’t think it warrents making things complicated. I love Savage Worlds for beeing elegant, not for beeing super realistic.

                Comment


                • #12
                  I agree with Philipp! Really not needed to cover every possible situation. The GM should be able to make some calls during the game.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X