[LWMPG] What is the prevailing view of the combat rules?

Discuss Mongoose RPGs here, such as the OGL rulebooks, Jeremiah, Armageddon 2089 and Macho Women with Guns
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

[LWMPG] What is the prevailing view of the combat rules?

Postby hal » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:16 am

Is it:

1. Run down all PCs and NPCs in CS order and allow each to engage in turn? This gives NPCs a faux turn, thought the roll on the CRT is till made by the player.

OR

2. Run down all the PCs in CS order and force the last PC to engage all unengaged NPCs?

The first seems to make the most sense, though they don't actually model PC v NPC combat as this would require 2 rolls rather than 1.

3. An alternative to 1. would be that once engaged, a PC or NPC doesn't get a "turn". The potential damage done when attacked is their effective turn.

For example, Lone Wolf and Silent Wolf take on Giak 1, 2, and 3. CS order is LW, G1, G2, SW and G3.

LW engages G1 and G3. LW makes 2 rolls and G1 and G3 gain +2CS.

G1 doesn't get a turn as he has already been engaged by LW.

G2 engages SW. SW makes a roll.

SW doesn't get a turn as he has effectively attacked G2.
Last edited by hal on Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zager Krahl
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 12:12 pm
Location: Hammerlands

Postby Zager Krahl » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:49 pm

Here we go AGAIN...
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:02 pm

Zager Krahl wrote:Here we go AGAIN...
:) I have read the previous posts on combat and understand the differences of opinion and the lack of any formal clarification - hence my request for the prevailing view.

Personally, the more I think about option 3, the more I like it. It reduces down the dice rolling and is actually easy to keep track of in play.

If anyone has any insights, its appreciated.
Hellebore
Stoat
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:10 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Hellebore » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:26 am

I go with one roll for each PC per round. Enemies that outnumber get the bonus but you can only apply damage to a single target at a time unless you are dual wielding.

I like one roll to resolve it.

Hellebore
"Humanity's insignificance pales in comparison to its ego" (Sir Rumplestiltskin)

"The capacity to think does not assign importance to your thoughts, it merely indicates you can." (Sir Rumplestiltskin)
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:45 am

Hellebore wrote:I go with one roll for each PC per round. Enemies that outnumber get the bonus but you can only apply damage to a single target at a time unless you are dual wielding.

I like one roll to resolve it.
Me too :) That's one reason why I would prefer not to use 1 as it means multiple rolls.

That would require that the PCs divvy up the Enemies first and then have each make 1 roll modified by the Engage Many Enemies roll? Do you force the last PC to Engage all the remaining unengaged Enemies? What if there were more than 4 unengaged Enemies?
Keystonegamingsociety
Weasel
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:39 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Official Clarification PLEASE

Postby Keystonegamingsociety » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:27 am

Hal, thank you so much for posting this. A few months back, before running my first LWM game, I attempted to gain official clarification on these points.

Mongoose, could we PLEASE have an official once-and-for all combat rules clarification with multiple examples of different combat scenarios.

In addition to your questions, Hal, I have wondered about the definition of "engage." In the LW solo books when you engage in a fight you are in that fight until you either win, die, or evade if it is an option. But does "engage" work the same way in LWM or do you have a chance to change opponents each round of combat?

The Keystone Gaming Society is getting ready to play this game for a podcast review in a month or two and I want to run it with the offical-as-written rules without any homebrew patches and guesswork.

Why Mongoose has failed to provided official clarifications with examples is beyond me especially since they are continue to actively release gamebooks every month for this system. CLEARLY the rules as written are not clear or there would not be a dozen or so threads on this forum asking for clarifications. There appears to be a fair number of people who post to these forums that are actively writing material for LWM. Could those people please put together the official combat rules clarifications with examples and post them to this forum? Thank you!
[/i][/u]
Visit www.keystonegamingsociety.com for fun game reviews with attitude, podcasts, geek lore, and gaming news!
Hellebore
Stoat
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:10 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Hellebore » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 am

hal wrote:
Hellebore wrote:I go with one roll for each PC per round. Enemies that outnumber get the bonus but you can only apply damage to a single target at a time unless you are dual wielding.

I like one roll to resolve it.
Me too :) That's one reason why I would prefer not to use 1 as it means multiple rolls.

That would require that the PCs divvy up the Enemies first and then have each make 1 roll modified by the Engage Many Enemies roll? Do you force the last PC to Engage all the remaining unengaged Enemies? What if there were more than 4 unengaged Enemies?
PCs get to gang up too. I would still allow NPCs to move around a bit a get into melee, I'd just give the PCs first dibs so to speak. If the PCs leave NPCs unattended then the GM can have them move into melee or whatever based on the circumstances.

So PCs act based on CS rating, ganging up if they wish. Then any anengaged enemies that the GM considers to be within 'threat range' (say an arbitrarily determined charge distance) can then move into combat.

Then the PCs make their attack roll in the same order, determine damage and then move to the next round.

Hellebore
"Humanity's insignificance pales in comparison to its ego" (Sir Rumplestiltskin)

"The capacity to think does not assign importance to your thoughts, it merely indicates you can." (Sir Rumplestiltskin)
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:50 am

Hellebore wrote:PCs get to gang up too. I would still allow NPCs to move around a bit a get into melee, I'd just give the PCs first dibs so to speak. If the PCs leave NPCs unattended then the GM can have them move into melee or whatever based on the circumstances.

So PCs act based on CS rating, ganging up if they wish. Then any anengaged enemies that the GM considers to be within 'threat range' (say an arbitrarily determined charge distance) can then move into combat.

Then the PCs make their attack roll in the same order, determine damage and then move to the next round.
Nice thanks.
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Re: Official Clarification PLEASE

Postby hal » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:54 am

Keystonegamingsociety wrote:In addition to your questions, Hal, I have wondered about the definition of "engage." In the LW solo books when you engage in a fight you are in that fight until you either win, die, or evade if it is an option. But does "engage" work the same way in LWM or do you have a chance to change opponents each round of combat?
I would say not until all those engaging him have been defeated.
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:59 am

Actually the more I look at the text, the more I am convinced that my intepretation 3 is correct. It also matches what I would like to see :)

Thanks all for the help.
Random Code
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:23 pm

Postby Random Code » Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:13 am

hal wrote:Actually the more I look at the text, the more I am convinced that my intepretation 3 is correct. It also matches what I would like to see :)
I agree. Option 3 all the way.
jolt
Mongoose
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:09 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Official Clarification PLEASE

Postby jolt » Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:04 pm

Keystonegamingsociety wrote:Mongoose, could we PLEASE have an official once-and-for all combat rules clarification with multiple examples of different combat scenarios.


Why Mongoose has failed to provided official clarifications with examples is beyond me ... snip[/i][/u]
Possibly, because LW has never been more than a niche product for them and will likely never be more. The mega-deal is, and for the most part always has been, behind schedule. Though new stuff is released for the rpg there's virtually no follow up on it. Not to mention that Mongoose is now shifting away from an rpg-centric company to one branching out into boardgames and minis (and the later requires a lot of time and resources) so I wouldn't hold out the expectation for much improvement. I've been complaining about Lone Wolf for over three years and the fact is, they simply don't care; not enough anyway.

Personally, I'm converting the Lone Wolf rpg stuff over to Steve Jackson and Ian Livinstone's Advanced Fighting Fantasy System. I'm tired of fighting Mongoose to get small scraps of info that turn out to be wrong half of the time anyways.

jolt
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:17 pm

Random Code wrote:I agree. Option 3 all the way.
Cheers. I am tempted to rewrite the combat chapter based on that option to provide clarity. I will post it up here for comment.
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:53 pm

Thoughts?
BATTLES for Lone Wolf Multiplayer Gamebook
(a revision replacing the Battles, Ganging Up, Engage Many Enemies and In Battles section of Chapter Three; Defeating Enemies)

The previous section deals with how combat is worked out when it is just you and one enemy going toe-to-toe. More often, you will have several friends on your side and your enemies are likely to have allies as well! If you have several characters fighting at once, the following rules apply.

Terms
Attack – An attack by a character or an enemy during a combat.
Character – A player character
Combat – Where a player makes a picks a number from the Random Number Table for the Combat Results Table; it involves an attack by a character and an attack by an enemy
Combat round– A segment of time in which each character and enemy has the opportunity to fight a combat
Enemy – A non-player character
Engage – To initiate melee Combat
Order of Battle – The order in which characters and enemies engage each other or take other actions

Order of Battle, Engagement and Combat Rounds
Characters and enemies have the opportunity to engage each other in the order of COMBAT SKILL, with the highest COMBAT SKILL going first.

If the character or enemy is not engaged then the character or enemy is free to attack anyone he wishes, even if the target is already engaged.

If the character or enemy is engaged then the character or enemy, he has to attack the character or enemies he is engaged with.

A character or enemy that has fought a combat this combat round does not get to engage others or take another action. In effect they have acted in this combat round already. This usually means the characters and enemies with low COMBAT SKILL will rarely get a chance to choose who they will fight, unless their side outnumbers the other.

Once all characters and enemies have fought a combat, the combat round ends. Characters and enemies that are still engaged at the end of the combat round, remain so at the start of the next.

Combat
When a character or enemy is engaged and the bonuses to COMBAT SKILLS have been worked out, combat takes place as normal i.e. the player pick a number from the Random Number Table and turns to the Combat Results Table to determine the result.

Engage Many Enemies
A character (but not an enemy) may choose to engage up to four multiple opponents, diving forward into their midst. This is dangerous but very heroic!

All of the enemies will count as being engaged by the character and they will immediately receive a +2 Bonus to their COMBAT SKILL for every enemy present after the first.

The player then picks a number from the Random Number Table for each enemy and turns to the Combat Results Table to determine the results.

Ganging Up
It is quite possible for multiple enemies to gang up on a single character, or vice versa. So long as the Kai Lords stick together, most combats should be like this.

The attacker gains a temporary +2 Bonus to his COMBAT SKILL if the defender has already fought one attacker, +4 if the defender has already fought two and +6 if the enemy has already fought three.

A maximum of four attackers can attack one defender at any one time.

The player then picks a number from the Random Number Table for and turns to the Combat Results Table to determine the result.

Breaking Engagement
Engagement is ended in two ways. The first is to defeat all the opponents in the engagement.

The second is to Evade Combat. This is worked out as normal and, once done, the character or enemy is free to flee or to engage others as normal. When attacked by an enemy, a character may decide to evade combat by forgoing their potential to do damage in the combat.

Ranged Weapons
Ranged weapons are quite often used right at the start of a battle as combatants rush towards one another. However, once a character or enemy is engaged, he may not use ranged weapons at all. He must switch to a normal weapon.

It is possible for you to use a ranged weapon throughout a battle, so long as you are not engaged. You may use your ranged weapon against an opponent already engaged by one of your allies but your COMBAT SKILL will temporarily drop by 6 points during the attack, as you will be trying very hard not to hit your friend!
Last edited by hal on Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Random Code
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:23 pm

Postby Random Code » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:56 pm

hal wrote:Thoughts?
... That Obi Wan has taught you well.

[I think you, but just you mind, will really get this one]

:wink:
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:10 pm

Random Code wrote:[I think you, but just you mind, will really get this one]
Yeah, it sucked how the Mongoose Forums already had my usual handle taken before I registered! Same for the WotC forums (not that I frequent there a lot).
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:19 pm

Actually, I may start a new thread for this.
AguilaSaber
Stoat
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:31 pm

Postby AguilaSaber » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:34 pm

Fairly sure 3 is the way it is intended.

But notice that ranged attacks (and similar) does not engage someone. So someone who has not been engaged in melee is free to act and attack someone.

This because you do not deal damage back to a ranged attacker.
hal
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:36 am

Postby hal » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:38 pm

AguilaSaber wrote:Fairly sure 3 is the way it is intended.

But notice that ranged attacks (and similar) does not engage someone. So someone who has not been engaged in melee is free to act and attack someone.

This because you do not deal damage back to a ranged attacker.
I agree.
markrusell
Shrew
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:17 am

Postby markrusell » Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:34 pm

I proceed with one roll for each PC per round. Enemies that outnumber get the bonus but you can only request impairment to a lone goal at a time except you are dual wielding.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests