Strong, present leader.

I have a question about "When a gang suffers harm".

One of my fronts is a warlord and he has a gang. I treat this gang as a part of "warlord threat", right? Let's say its 3-harm large 2-armor.

One of my PC (funlugger, ofc) attacked some of the gang members, there is not a whole gang present, so let's say it's 3-harm small 2-armor (about 10+ people).

My question is - who is considered a leader of that gang? A warlord itself (in fiction, leader of the holding)?

Or maybe it's NPC who was introduced as a sergeant and warlord's second in command, and is present in the scene?

Good question. I'd like to hear the 'official' take on it, but here's what I think:

I don't know if the text specifies any "chain of command" rules, however I would think it'd be reasonable to implement some kind of situation where you could have "sub-leaders". The easiest method would to make anyone not the leader, a weak leader.

That way, the gang doesn't suffer the consequences of having both a weak leader and an absent leader if they have a "sub-leader" there.

Well, the situation in fiction (session I'm MCing) is: first, there was said that this NPC is a sergeant and warlord's second in command. And some time later PC decided to revisit him and attack him. I think it would be reasonable, if he will be a "temporary" leader, but I can be wrong, right?

Well, the situation in fiction (session I'm MCing) is: first, there was said that this NPC is a sergeant and warlord's second in command. And some time later PC decided to revisit him and attack him. I think it would be reasonable, if he will be a "temporary" leader, but I can be wrong, right?

I'd say go with what the fiction tells you. If it makes sense for him to be the leader of that gang, he's the leader.

Yeah, if the second in command has a hold over the overs, if they listen to what he or she says, then she can act as a leader. Do what honesty and your prep demands. I think what would be wrong here would be if the gunlugger attacks some random goons, separated from the leader, and you're like, "Oh but uh... one of them works as a leader for them even though they're just a bunch of goons! Yeah! That's the ticket!"

I think what would be wrong here would be if the gunlugger attacks some random goons, separated from the leader, and you're like, "Oh but uh... one of them works as a leader for them even though they're just a bunch of goons! Yeah! That's the ticket!"

Well, naturally I don't want to do things like this!

But in the first scene my NPC Dork was introduced, funlugger visited him and I described Dork as a sergeant, working for Foster (NPC, leader of the holding). I said Dork's job include stuff like leading members of the gang; I mean, in a fight / battle.

Now, in the fight scene, we have funlugger, Dork and some gangers. I think it's crystal clear that Dork will lead them.


My point is, this rule about gang fights refers to gang leader. If it's a PC - chopper, hardholder, other characters that bought a gang as an improvement - it's all clear. it's their gang, they are leading it (with "pack alpha" or "leadership").

But when a gang consists all of NPC, and this gang is a part of "warlord" threat. The leader of the gang can be anyone. Fiction in the first place.

A gang can have multiple leaders in a hierarchy. Take out Dork, for instance, and the gang goes from strong, present leader to absent leader, because leadership of the gang reverts back to the warlord.