Is there a difference between Gang Up and Engage Many Enemy?

[Blustar]

I think either the rulebook is in error or I'm misunderstanding something.

In the Ganging Up section it states that "...gain a temporary +2 bonus to CS if the enemy already fought one character, +4 if the enemy has already fought 2, etc..."

So, if 4 Kai lords attack one opponent then the first one attacks normal the second one gets a +2 bonus to CS, the 3rd one gets a +4 and the 4th one gets a +6 CS , this is correct right?

Now under Engaging Many Enemies it states,"...all of the enemies...will immediately receive a +2 Bonus to CS for every enemy present after the first."

Following this rule since it states that the bonus is applied immediately if a Kai Lord engages 4 enemies all the enemies would get a +6 CS bonus!!!

Is this right? Why the discrepancy?

thanks

 

[Xex]

Both rules are the same. One applies to players, the other applies to enemies.

 

[Sado]

Both rules are the same. One applies to players, the other applies to enemies.

No, they aren't. The ganging up rule has each additional attacker getting progressively higher CS bonuses, while the multiple enemy rule has all enemies getting the same (high) CS bonus.

So if you have 3 Kai ganging up on 1 enemy:
Kai #1 attacks with normal CS
Kai #2 attacks with CS +2
Kai #3 attacks with CS +4

But if you have 3 enemy ganging up on 1 Kai:
Enemy #1 attacks at CS +4
Enemy #2 attacks at CS +4
Enemy #3 attacks at CS +4

At least if Blustar is reading correctly. I don't have my book with me to double check right now

 

[Balgin Stondraeg]

It's still effectively the same. What you need to bear in mind is that the combat ratio is always worked out from the point of view of the player.

If a Kai Lord with CS 18 is attacking a Giak with CS 14 (a very deadly giak) then the combat ratio is +4.

If the same giak is attacking the same kai lord then the combat ratio is still +4. It's not -4 (since -4 would actualy put the kai lord at a significant disadvantage).

The ganging up/being outnumbered effectively shifts the combat ratio one column to the left, or right for each additional combatant, efectively making the fight easier, or harder, for the warriors involved. Note that the +0 column is separate so ganging up shifts adjacent to it might move 2 columns.

However, the way the combat rules are written it's not even clear if the monsters get a go at all. If they do it would mean they could gang up too. And it would also mean that everyone gets to fight two rounds of combat during a single round (you attack them, then they attack you back).

 

[Sado]

It's still effectively the same. What you need to bear in mind is that the combat ratio is always worked out from the point of view of the player.

If a Kai Lord with CS 18 is attacking a Giak with CS 14 (a very deadly giak) then the combat ratio is +4.

If the same giak is attacking the same kai lord then the combat ratio is still +4. It's not -4 (since -4 would actualy put the kai lord at a significant disadvantage).

If two Kai Lords with CS 18 attack a Giak with CS 14, the CS ration is +4 for the first Kai, and the CS ratio is +6 for the second Kai. Only the second Kai gets a bonus.

If two Giaks with CS 14 attack a Kai with CS 18, the CS ratio is +2 for both Giaks. Both Giaks get the bonus. This is not how it works for the Kai, when only one of them would get a bonus.

If the rules were consistent, then either:

-both Kai would attack in the +6 column in the first example, or;
-the first Giak would attack in the +4 column, and the second Giak would attack in the +2 column in the second example.

Intersting point you make about whether enemies get their own "attack", though. That's how most other games do it, so it's easy to assume that they do in LW too. But there's really no need since one attack roll accounts for both sides' attacks.

 

[Zipp Dementia]

NO, ENEMIES DO NOT GET A TURN IN LONE WOLF.

I know, they really needed to clarify this, but enemies don't get to attack. The closest thing to an attack they get to do is pick a target under certain circumstances (which is really just forcing the player to attack them).

Combat in Lone Wolf is a simultaneous affair, just like in the gamebooks. The enemy "attack" is factored into the combat results table.

As for bonuses, I think the way it works is that attacking multiple enemies incurs major penalties while joining forces with your comrades gives bonuses.

So... we have Silent Storm (CS 15) and Cheerful Falcon (CS17) attacking a Gourgaz (CS 22) and three giaks (all CS 13)

Silent Storm valiantly takes on all the foes. Because there are four of them, each one gets +6 to their combat skill, making this an incredibly tough round for the poor girl.

On his turn, Cheerful Falcon attacks the Gourgaz. Since two Kai Lords are attacing the Gourgaz, Falcon's CS is increased by 2 for this round.

 

[Xex]

There are certain times when enemies get a 'turn'. For instance, asuppose a band of Drakkarim Archers ambushes a party. Since the Drakkarim have bows, they make an attack on the pc's during the surprise round.

 

[beowuuf]

I think the point is that the combat round is conducted as a combat round from the player PoV always. The Drakkar do not get a turn to attack, the players nominated get a turn being attacked where they are not able to do damage (unless they had a bow primed in hand and the GM decided they could react quickly enough)

 

[Sado]

NO, ENEMIES DO NOT GET A TURN IN LONE WOLF.

I know, they really needed to clarify this, but enemies don't get to attack. The closest thing to an attack they get to do is pick a target under certain circumstances (which is really just forcing the player to attack them).

Combat in Lone Wolf is a simultaneous affair, just like in the gamebooks. The enemy "attack" is factored into the combat results table.

As for bonuses, I think the way it works is that attacking multiple enemies incurs major penalties while joining forces with your comrades gives bonuses.

So... we have Silent Storm (CS 15) and Cheerful Falcon (CS17) attacking a Gourgaz (CS 22) and three giaks (all CS 13)

Silent Storm valiantly takes on all the foes. Because there are four of them, each one gets +6 to their combat skill, making this an incredibly tough round for the poor girl.

On his turn, Cheerful Falcon attacks the Gourgaz. Since two Kai Lords are attacing the Gourgaz, Falcon's CS is increased by 2 for this round.

Are you saying when a Kai is engaging multiple enemies, you only make one roll representing the Kai vs all the enemies at once? If so, what is the CS ratio for the bolded part of your quote above, since the gourgaz and the giaks have different CS?

Or does Silent Storm make four separate rolls/pick four separate numbers, once for each enemy, with each enemy getting a +6? Then we're back to the original issue, all enemies get the same +6 bonus, while if the situation were reversed and four Kai were attacking one enemy, the Kai would not get the same advantage-only the last Kai to attack would get a +6 bonus. The other three would get no bonus, +2 bonus, and +4 bonus, in that order.

 

[Balgin Stondraeg]

NO, ENEMIES DO NOT GET A TURN IN LONE WOLF.

I know, they really needed to clarify this, but enemies don't get to attack. The closest thing to an attack they get to do is pick a target under certain circumstances (which is really just forcing the player to attack them).

Whilst I'm okay with that it can lead to unengaged enemies. if there are 4 giaks and 3 kai, and each of the kai selfishly decides to only attack 1 giak. Then the 4th giak doesn't get to fight (since the giaks have the lowest initiative and don't get a turn anyway).

There needs to be some common sense GMing to ensure that unengaged monsters who are able to, still get to fight.

And by "who are able to" I mean ones who could reasonably get involved. There are many reasons why an unengaged foe could not fight (such as if the hero were backed into a corner).

Are you saying when a Kai is engaging multiple enemies, you only make one roll representing the Kai vs all the enemies at once? If so, what is the CS ratio for the bolded part of your quote above, since the gourgaz and the giaks have different CS?

Or does Silent Storm make four separate rolls/pick four separate numbers, once for each enemy, with each enemy getting a +6? Then we're back to the original issue, all enemies get the same +6 bonus, while if the situation were reversed and four Kai were attacking one enemy, the Kai would not get the same advantage-only the last Kai to attack would get a +6 bonus. The other three would get no bonus, +2 bonus, and +4 bonus, in that order.

Silent Storm would fight one round and the monsters would gain a +6 bonus. I don't think +6 each. One (probably the Gourgaz) would be the fighting monster, and it would gain a +6 CS bonus. The giaks would not fight (because they don't geta turn). At least that's the way I'm reading it.

However... I seem to remember something in the combat chapter about the word "character" being used throughout the chapter to refer to any combatant.

But, if everyone only gets to fight once....

The each kai would get to fight 1 giak and the 4th giak would get a turn, because he hadn't fought. If one of the kai bravely fought 2 giaks, then the 4th giak would not geta turn (because he'd have already been in a fight) and this would prevent a kai lord from having to fight a second time (because of the 4th giak attacking him).

That could make for some very interesting tactical gameplay.

 

[beowuuf]

Whilst I'm okay with that it can lead to unengaged enemies. if there are 4 giaks and 3 kai, and each of the kai selfishly decides to only attack 1 giak. Then the 4th giak doesn't get to fight (since the giaks have the lowest initiative and don't get a turn anyway).

I forget the wording, but you cannot have unengaged enemies. Either the third Kai is forced to fight the remaining enemies, or the last giak would get appended onto the first kai's next turn. I have a feeling it is the previous statement (too busy to hunt for book to recall which is mandated, but do not worry it is mandated)

 

[Balgin Stondraeg]

until everyone is engaged in combat

After every character has fought a combat at least once, a new round of combat begins. If a character is no longer engaged (because he has defeated the enemy he was fi ghting), he may move to attack another.

So everyone gets a go untill everyone's engaged in combat (nobody can be left out).

And once everyone's gone the new round begins.

But...

Since the players tend ot have a higher CS, if all the players go first, and there are unengaged monsters left over, then if the monsters don't get to have a turn, they don't get to fight.

Which gives the players an unfair advantage that they don't need. They already have fair advantages.

This is why I'm pondering the "do monsters get a turn" issue because I don't want anyone to fight twice in the same round. Although players ganging up means the monsters have to fight again (and so take more damage) than the players do. Monsters ganging up either each attack separately (with a bonus) in which case the player gets to fight a lot and spread a lot of damage about, or the monsters attack once with one bonus.

And the monsters attacking separately only makes sense if they get a turn.

So here's what I'm thinking: the monsters get a turn if they haven't already been attacked. So high CS monsters will actualy be able to pic their victims whereas the low CS monsters will have to deal with whoever picks on them first.

 

[beowuuf]

Hmm, getting a chance to look over the section again, and I'm almost ready to completely rethink my entire position!

Maybe enemy do get a turn if they are not engaged when their combat turn comes up...though I would still assume the ratio is comparing player characters to enemy not vice versa.

Also, ganging up is slowly adding an attack upon an attack upon an attack, creeping the bonus up against the player each attack. While engaging many enemy is when the player decides to occupy all enemy at once.

So technically, a player could choose to engage two enemies at once - they get a flat bonus of +2CS each. However, then another two enemy could decide to gang up - the first gets a +4CS bonus to the attack because of the previous two attacks, and the last gets a +6CS bonus.

It seems to me that while the bonuses work out correctly in the end, that engaging enemies at once instead of lettign them gang up means the player gets a much nastier fight. However, it almost means he controls the battle and stops unengaged enemy going after his weaker friends/charges.


So there we go, to answer the original poster, the disrepancy seems to be because engaging multiple enemies lets you control the battle, so is more dangerous than letting enemy gang up and allowing the chips to fall where they may.

To answer the questions of 'do enemy get a turn' I think - not really. Players trigger a combat roll with the creature they choose to attack, or multiple rolls if they engage multiple enemy (each getting a big bonus)

Any unengaged enemy when it's their turn gets to trigger an attack against a person of their choice, invoking a 'ganging up' bonus if the player has already fought other enemies.

Players, too, if all enemy are engaged, can attack an enemy on their turn and get the ganging up bonus.

This falls to the ground with the phrase "A character may not attack one enemy if he has already been engaged in combat by another - he has to attack the enemy who attacked him"

Unless, of course, what that means is 'you can't trigger a second combat roll this round if it's your 'turn' if an enemy has already forced a combat roll out of you'

 

[beowuuf]

Ok, so an epic battle ensues - two gourgaz and a horde of giaks attack!

Four Kai Lords stand ready to defend!


The CS order is as follows:

Lone Wolf
2 x gourgaz
Lame Wolf
3 x Berzerker Giaks
Nice Wolf
4 x Giaks
Deadmeat Wolf
Slow giak.



Lone Wolf heroically declares he's engaging both gourgaz. That means he triggers two combat rolls, each one at +2CS to his enemy (so two rolls at -2 to the usual CR). What a hero!

The gourgaz are both engaged, so they don't trigger any combat rolls.

Lame Wolf is a bit of a prat, so he decides to sneak attack one of the gourgaz. He triggers a combat roll with +2CS to himself.

The berzerker giaks Lame Wolf decided not to heroically engage are completely free to attack who they want. Each one decides to attack Lone Wolf. This triggers a combat roll from Lone Wolf where the first gets a +4CS bonus to its attack (so -4CR). The second gets a +6CS bonus (for a fourth combat roll at -6CR).

The third would have attacked Lone Wolf too, but Lone Wolf has engaged four enemy now. Instead, the third berzerk giak goes for Nice Wolf, triggering a combat roll at normal CR.

Its Nice Wolf's turn. In a perfect world, he'd like to engage multiple enemies and keep the last giaks from Deameat Wolf. Unfortunately, because he's already been engaged, Nice Wolf is not allowed to attack anything else. And he's already had his combat roll triggered for him.

The four normal giaks go after Deadmeat Wolf, the first at a normal combat ratio, the next at -2RC, the third at -4CR, and the fourth at -6CR.

Deadmeat Wolf is still alive, but can't do anything as he's already been attacked.

The slow giak finally gets to go, and attacks Nice Wolf, triggering a second combat roll there at -2CR.



Does this sound about right then?

 

[Balgin Stondraeg]

Maybe enemy do get a turn if they are not engaged when their combat turn comes up...though I would still assume the ratio is comparing player characters to enemy not vice versa.

That's what I'm thinking.

So if the iniative order is as follows:

True Blade
Giak 1
Swift Fox
Moon Owl
Giak 2
Wild Foal
Giak 3
Giak 4

Then it could go as follows:

True Blade engages Giak 1
Giak 1 does not get a turn because it's already fighting.
Swift Fox attacks giak 2
Moon Owl attacks giak 3
And then Wild Foal attacks Giak 4.

However, if True Blade does not attack giak 1 then things get messy.

So let's say that True Blade attacks Giak 2.

In this case Giak 1 gets a turn, and gets to pick a Kai lord to pick on. if it attacks True Blade, then it gets a ganging up bonus because True Blade has already fought giak 2 this turn.

If it attacks another kai monk (let's say it attacks Swift Fox) then they fight each other. And yes, the combat ratio is still worked out from Swift Fox's perspective. I did aplaytest working it out from the giak's eprspective and it completely broke the system as the ganging up bonuses were actualy making the giaks less effective, and die quicker, when they were the ones doing the outnumbering. The easiest way to think of the ganging up/being outnumbered bonuses is sideways shifts along the combat results table (right for the players, left for the foes). and the 0 column gets skipped over because it's the only one that's not a 2 point step away from the others on either side of it.

Now Swift Fox does not get a turn because he's already been picked on by someone higher up the initiative order.

And so the round continues.

So my thinking is that monsters get a turn, if they haven't had it denied them by players (and likewise high CS monsters will be able to pick their victims and deny a player their turn by singling them out).

Complicated or what? Hopefuly now you see why I wanted to start a thread about wether mors got a turn or not (and why I was so grateful that someone started it so I wouldn't have to work out how to write teh opening post).

 

[Balgin Stondraeg]

Does this sound about right then?

I think you're seeing it the same way as I am now. Everybody gets a turn unless it's denied them by another person's actions. if someone attacks you then you don't get to attack them back on your turn because you've already fought them.

However, I've just seen a nasty permutation.

If a character is no longer engaged .... he may move to attack another.

So let's assume that True Blade, Swift Fox and Wild Foal are fighting a Drakkarim and 3 giaks.

Initiative order:

True Blade
Drakarrim
Swift Fox
Moon Owl
3 Giaks
Wild Foal

True Blade attacks 2 of the Giaks
The Drakkarim attacks Wild Foal
Swift Fox rushes to Wild Foal's aid and sorely wounds the Drakkarim, nearly finishing him.
Rather than face the lone Giak, Moon Owl charges in and finishes off the Drakkarim.
The lone Giak can take his pick of the Kai, and, snarling, goes for Swift Fox.

Wild Foal is no longer fighting the Drakkarim. Does she get a turn?

I believe the answer is no, because the Drakkarim engaging her earlier in the round denies her her chance to act, regardless of how things later play out. However the ambiguous wording implies that she gets to mvoe to engage another foe, but that once everyone's fought at least once, the round ends (so it ends when the Lone Giak attacks Swift Fox).

So the way I see it is this: if a person becomes unengaged during a round then they may act, provided they have not fought back against an attack.

So if the Drakkarim had survived round 1 then round 2 might go something like this:

True Blade fights another 2 rounds of combat against the deadly pair of giaks that he faces (with them both getting ganging up bonuses, again).

The Drakkarim lashes out at Swift Fox in recompense for wounds suffered last round.

Swift Fox slays the Drakkarim.

At this point Wild Foal becomes unengaged and, since she has not been attacked, will get her turn at the end of the round if nobody else attacks her before then.

 

[Balgin Stondraeg]

No official word on this then?

 

[The Wolf]

That's an interesting way of looking at it Balgin.

 

[Zager Krahl]

If I may.

Gang-up = player characters sequentially attack the same NPC target - and therefore get sequentially increasing CS bonuses. How can you give the first player attacker a +6 CS bonus if you do not know that two more players will be attacking that same target?

Many Enemies = multiple targets attack a single player simultaneously, and therefore all get the same CS bonus at the same time.

 

[Troll66]

ah clarity at last...misty confusion dispellled thanks