Well, I haven't got the War Company sheet in front of me right now, but isn't it possible that there's a typo and what Vincent meant was "the largest faction War"? In the example you gave, your 30 man company would have War +2 (their largest faction are the romans, with War +2). Later on, if 15 romans died or disbanded or whatever, the company's war would be +0, as their largest faction would be canadians.

As far as I know, which is very little, escalation has to follow fiction, so when it doesn't make sense fiction wise to escalate, you just can't. So yes, saying "He doesn't want to hear you" is perfectly valid when the fiction calls for it.

Some other times reverse escalating will make sense, though, and you should allow it.

What if you just change Touchstone into 'The Stone', or something like that? I think it kinda is within the spirit of the playbook; she's the one who stands firm against a fucked up world, the one you can hold on to when everything around you is crumbling down.

As for the Maestro D', I'd leave it as it is. the D' could stand for the 'di' in 'Maestro di cerimonie' (MC), which is exactly what the Maestro D' is. I'm not entirely sure that's working in Italian, though; I know it does in Spanish, at least.

And I completely understand your concerns about the translations of AW. The problem with them is that AW relies heavily in slang and highly colloquial expressions to set the tone of the game and give it flavor. All that is at least partially lost in any translation, unless it's exceptionally good.

I got to read the official Spanish translation of the playbooks, and I had similar feelings; instead of the Brainer, the Chopper or the Hardholder, you get the Psychic, the Biker and the Big Boss. And the same with the moves; it just doesn't feel the same.

P.S: Oh, it seems they put a lot of more appropriate slang in a revision of the playbooks and now all is much better. But still...

So if you find all of the options equally interesting, I'd say just go with your gut, with the first one that pops in your head. It'll probably be the best one. For me in this case it would be acting under fire, because of the way I am picturing the situation, with the PC so pinned down every move could mean taking a bullet straight away. But that's just me.

I'm a newbie to AW, so I don't feel confident enough yet to give an opinion about the Abacus' concept, other than the different feeling it gives, which is a good thing for me.

I don't quite get the move Swimming with sharks, though. What would be the harm inflicted if the target chooses to force your hand? Wouldn't it be better to use the move in manipulation rolls, rather than when going aggro?

Hi all,

I'm new around here :D. I recently got AW, and I've been lurking around here for some time, while I was reading and re-reading the rules. I am in love with the game! Unfortunately, I won't be able to MC it anytime soon; I don't have a playgroup for now since I moved here. But in the meantime, I have a couple rules questions, so I thought I could give it a try and ask.

My main issue is with harm in battle, and how it is dealt with differently wether if gangs are or aren't involved. Say Chaplain (boy I love that name!), the Gunlugger, finds himself in a shootout with Dremmer, Balls and Roark, three NPCs. Say, for simplicity's sake, the MC chooses to apply the trade harm for harm move. Now, according to the rules, and some interpretations of them I've read in some earlier posts, there're several ways to handle harm dealt and taken by Chaplain:

   a) Chaplain does harm as established to one of the NPCs, and takes harm normally from each of Dremmer, Balls and Roark.
   b) Chaplain does harm as established, but only takes harm from one of them. Sure, in fiction that could still mean taking a bullet from Roark and a nice stab from Balls, but the harm is abstracted as if only one of them inflicted his harm.
   c) Same as b), but Chaplain takes +1harm, because hey, there's three of them, bullets are raining the fuck down on him.
   d) The bad guys are working together and count as a small gang, so Chaplain does -1harm, and takes +1harm, due to size difference. Gangs take harm at a different scale as well, so more than one NPCs could be killed or disabled with the same roll. This also brings up another of my questions: Is it possible to split the harm a PC inflicts among several individuals, or does it have to be dealt to one and one target only?

Now, I know it is the fiction who should dictate what happens exactly in every case, but I would like to know what would be the default go-to rule. I am especially concerned with the fact that, rules wise, sometimes fighting a gang as a whole is much less dangerous than fighting three or four separate individuals. I don't know, perhaps I'm not looking at the right angle here.

Besides that, I have some doubt as well regarding the sex moves. They read "If you and another character have sex, then X". My question is: do the sex moves apply EVERY time two characters have sex? I mean, if two of them are a couple, for example, it's fair to assume they are having sex regularly. Would the Angel raise Hx every time? Would the Brainer get to deep brain scan every time? I'd say for sex moves to apply, sex has to mean something, or change something, or otherwise be something out of the ordinary; if two characters are getting frisky with each other on a daily basis, then good for them, but no sex move is triggered "just because they had sex". But again, the rule as written suggest there are no exceptions and the moves are always triggered. And plus, some moves make more sense to me if triggered always (Brainer, Savvyhead), while others not so much (Angel, Skinner). So... I don't know.

What do you think?

P.S: Sorry for the long post!