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

[Random Code]

The siimultanoeus rule will also allow you (the GM) to group similar creatures into one mass to allow a PC to effectively fight them all as one opponent.

I'd also add a house rule to increase EP to simulate a larger group although that's not completely necessary.

 

[Troll66]

or lose so many EP and then reduce CS?

 

[Smiling Fox]

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.

Seems reasonable. I would say that since all rolls are made by the player regardless if they're being attacked or attacking, they have acted although out of their regular turn. Even if the low CS character acted before characters with higher CS, they hadn't got the choice to pick who they were fighting. What you need to do is keeping track on rounds which can be messy.

 

[Random Code]

or lose so many EP and then reduce CS?

You could, I guess, but I don't see why. My suggestion was trying to simulate the option as represented in the gamebooks where multiple opponents of one type are often fought as one creature but with increased CS and EP.

 

[Troll66]

well if they are combined into single CS stands to reason that if you kill some (lose EP ) then there are less of them to contribute to the CS hence lowering it. That was my thinking any hell.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Wow... some serious discussion on this topic. Have we ever received official clarification from Mongoose?

Here's a scenario:

Lone Wolf goes up against four Giaks.

In round 1, Lone Wolf goes first and attacks Giak #1 only.
Giak #2, unengaged, decides to attack LW. Does LW roll again and deal MORE damage to another opponent?
What about Giaks #3 and #4? They're "ganging up" but do they all get the opportunity to attack and additionally take attacks from LW? This means LW would attack four times in one combat round!

 

[beowuuf]

None.

And yeah, this was back when I was arguing the other side, I think.

I already answered in the other thread, but as I'll say again yes, to me Lone Wolf deals more damage. Think simulataneous combat, rather than one at a time.

Four giaks come at Lone Wolf basically at the same time. He has a fraction of a second to pick one to concentrate his attack on. He then tries to spin his weapon at the others. Obviously, in turn each has a fraction of combat round longer to avoid the coming attack, and also has had a fraction of a combat round longer to size up his weakness.


Think of the gamebook itself. Lone Wolf can fight multiple enemies as one, and autokill them in a round. That's because it's assumed he can deal damage to them all, and they can all damage him.


As I think I said in the other thread, think of a normal fight scene in any film, and then think of the 'coming at the person one at a time' in a Kung Fu film.



One of the big reasons for arguing 'player only' for a comat round, and the reason I came around to it from 'players and enemies are the same' is when you actually think of GM tactics/how the narrative would actuyally go.

Think of the situation like this:

Helghast
Kai lords (slightly less CS)
Giaks

If the enemy get to melee attack in battle order, and enemy can engage multiple opponents at once, then the Helghast engages all kai lords at once. The players now get no turn (they are already engaged). There's probably no compelling reason to allow evasion.

If the party has no magical weapon, then they are stuck until the GM - using the giaks and ganging up - basically kills them.

There's sort of weird loopholes like this that seem bad if enemy take a turn, that close off if players are the only ones to get a turn. They get to tactically decide the combat for their characters.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

One of the big reasons for arguing 'player only' for a comat round, and the reason I came around to it from 'players and enemies are the same' is when you actually think of GM tactics/how the narrative would actuyally go.

Think of the situation like this:

Helghast
Kai lords (slightly less CS)
Giaks

If the enemy get to melee attack in battle order, and enemy can engage multiple opponents at once, then the Helghast engages all kai lords at once. The players now get no turn (they are already engaged). There's probably no compelling reason to allow evasion.

If the party has no magical weapon, then they are stuck until the GM - using the giaks and ganging up - basically kills them.

There's sort of weird loopholes like this that seem bad if enemy take a turn, that close off if players are the only ones to get a turn. They get to tactically decide the combat for their characters.

I think in that scenario the heroes might be screwed no matter what they do or what the rules are. That's just a killer GM, right there.

I agree with your assessment of "simultaneous attacks" but I think there's a big difference in rolling for the hero and the enemy. If LW is +8 CR to his enemy, when his enemy rolls he would be at MINUS 8! So the enemy would still be taking more damage even on his turn. I just think the "player only" interpretation of the rules gives the players too much control over the flow of combat. Basically the villains stand there like dummies and get slaughtered.

I'll propose two alternates in another thread.

Thank you for your responses, though. It's a shame Mongoose hasn't deemed this game worthy of actual rules clarifications. It has real potential to be fantastic but the rules are TOO skimpy to function well.

 

[beowuuf]

One hero engages the Helghast bravely fighting, while the rest run or deal with the Giaks. Or a BCS with Lightning Hand does his thing afrom a distance that he can't do in melee combat with Lightning Hand.

I still say if you pitch enemies too close to players, the players are dead. LW isn't like D&D, healing isn't thrown around after ever combat. There are no clerics, no fifty healing potions, no healing surges. Manging EP across an entire adventure is a consideration that the occasional Laumspur, Healing disicpline, etc buffers.

If a player has a +8CR against a foe, why shouldn't he be deal while only inflicting a little damage? It seems weirder that if the player has that muych of an advantage, he sudden;y slips up and takes alot of damage and sudden'y deals less.

The enemy's turn is wrapped up in the combat results table. He deals the hero damage while the hero deals him damage. There are no turns in a 1-to1 situation. The difficulty of dealing with multiple opponents/combatants is mostly working out when two opponents deal with each other, and who has what advantage at the time.

I think an example would help, so that GMs can flesh out the rules. After all, having twenty pages of combat examples defeats the rules-lite feel of the game, but I think the rules as written are one step too light, and it's easy to mis-enterpret the meaning.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

If a player has a +8CR against a foe, why shouldn't he be deal while only inflicting a little damage? It seems weirder that if the player has that muych of an advantage, he sudden;y slips up and takes alot of damage and sudden'y deals less.

I agree that the combat table is very.... attacker friendly. But I think combined a roll at +8 and one a -8 would balance out. OR perhaps when the enemy rolls their roll they still roll in the +8 column, and damage is still assigned as indicated to the Player Character and Enemy.

I agree that combat has to be treated very differently by both GMs and players in this game. Healing isn't right around the corner by any means. I would actually say that this is a brutally unforgiving game. Essentially when two opponents engage in battle, one of them dies no matter what. YIKES!

 

[Zager Krahl]

Essentially when two opponents engage in battle, one of them dies no matter what. YIKES!

Not true. There are Evasion rules for exactly this purpose.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Granted, evasion allows an escape but only in a few cases. Using the books as a basis, I'd say only 1 in 6 or 7 combats actually allow for evasion. Looking at the available adventures that have been published by Mongoose, it seems evasion of combat may actually be a rarer opportunity than that in the Multi. RPG.

 

[Srehtorc]

...or the player makes one attack against one giak, with a lower combat ratio- the extra damage taken is easily justified as coming from giak #2

 

[Zager Krahl]

Granted, evasion allows an escape but only in a few cases. Using the books as a basis, I'd say only 1 in 6 or 7 combats actually allow for evasion. Looking at the available adventures that have been published by Mongoose, it seems evasion of combat may actually be a rarer opportunity than that in the Multi. RPG.

The ability to evade depends on the ingenuity of the GM. In the gamebooks, this was hampered due to obvious constraints.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Granted, evasion allows an escape but only in a few cases. Using the books as a basis, I'd say only 1 in 6 or 7 combats actually allow for evasion. Looking at the available adventures that have been published by Mongoose, it seems evasion of combat may actually be a rarer opportunity than that in the Multi. RPG.

The ability to evade depends on the ingenuity of the GM. In the gamebooks, this was hampered due to obvious constraints.

Dude, you are totally missing the points I'm making here!

I said, "essentially, when two combats engage, they fight to the death." Which, in the gamebooks is mostly true. This defines ENGAGE - You start combat and are locked into combat with that person until death or evasion.

Then you said, "Yes, but you can evade."

To which I said, "But evasion is rare in the books!"

To which you replied as quoted above. Totally missing the whole point!

Using the solo action books as a basis (which is clearly in bounds considering how literally the rules were translated to the RPG), evasion only can occur in extraordinary circumstance - not in normal everyday combat. The heroes have to have a MEANS for evasion- one which it is the player's duty to provide, not the DM. A player doesn't get to evade combat every time their tail is being whipped! Evasion usually carries with it some negative consequence as well (lose a weapon, lose health, lose a backpack item, get lost, etc.).

ADDITIONALLY, I think the rules should be amended to include BREAK ENGAGEMENT in addition to evasion. When you EVADE you are OUT OF COMBAT TOTALLY (using the gamebooks as a guide and there is nothing in the LWM rules that contradict this - after all, how would it make sense to evade combat only to be attacked by the same Giak the next round?). But when if you're engaged in combat and want to simply engage a different foe? Breaking Engagement would allow you to aid a compatriot even after you've been engaged by an enemy without leaving the combat altogether. This is how Breaking Engagement would work:

1) Declare you have broken engagement.
2) Roll a combat result - take damage, but don't give it
3) In the same round, engage a new opponent
4) Roll damage as you would normally

 

[Zager Krahl]

A player doesn't get to evade combat every time their tail is being whipped! Evasion usually carries with it some negative consequence as well (lose a weapon, lose health, lose a backpack item, get lost, etc.).

You answer yourself there: a player CAN evade whenever their tail is being kicked, but then it is up to the ingenuity of the GM to penalise them accordingly. In the gamebooks, Dever had a limited section count to work with, so obviously evasion chances were scarce. In the MP version, we - any decent GM - do not suffer from that constraint.

Also, 'evade combat' is not the same as 'take a time-out at the edge of the field and chug some Laumspur'. Evading combat against one combatant does not take you completely out of ALL combat for the rest of the fight - it merely takes you out of combat against that opponent. The GM should then have the sense to note that the player does not want to, or cannot, fight that opponent, and occupy them with another activity.

 

[Balgin Stondraeg]

I agree that the combat table is very.... attacker friendly. But I think combined a roll at +8 and one a -8 would balance out. OR perhaps when the enemy rolls their roll they still roll in the +8 column, and damage is still assigned as indicated to the Player Character and Enemy.

That would be correct. The combat ratio is always worked out from the player's perspective. Likewise the damage on the table is player & foe, not attacker and defender. The table is not attacker friendly. It's player friendly.

And that alone is one of the reasons why someone who's badly injured shouldn't get picked on twice and my reasoning for everyone getting a turn unless they've already ahd one forced upon them.

The vile Giak moves to attack you, defend yourself!