Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4.0 Gang up rules

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

  • javierrivera
    started a topic 4.0 Gang up rules

    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


  • javierrivera
    commented on 's reply
    Yes quite clear.

  • Jounichi
    commented on 's reply
    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.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Philipp
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mattprice516
    commented on 's reply
    Seems pretty clear to me!

  • JamesG
    replied
    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, 06:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ogbendog
    commented on 's reply
    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

  • PEGShane
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesG
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • Jounichi
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • mattprice516
    replied
    Lol at dentris' comment. This discussion was also really making me think "Blood Bowl".

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesG
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesG
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • dentris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X