Battle rolls - Am I doing it right?

Second session in, and the players have razed a rival hardhold. Felt a little uncertain as I barfed forth apocalyptic battlefield violence upon them and called for rolls. If anyone would like to clear these situations up with me, it would be appreciated. Here's how I interpreted the rules in the end:

- Sneaking into the hardhold, you roll Acting under fire. (Getting spotted is the fire)
- If someone spots you and fires upon you with a 2-harm weapon, they inflict 2-harm on you by default, automatically.
-- Fighting them, you roll Sieze by force (And can then choose to suffer little harm, 1-harm instead of 2-harm)
-- Taking cover or running away, do you roll Acting under fire or Sieze by force (Siezing a cover or an escape)? And, if successful, do you avoid harm entirely or what?
- To stat up gangs, I basically give them a harm rating and an armor rating based on their equipment, just as I would with an individual, plus assigning gang size... Right?

Thanks!

If you're taking cover or running away, it's acting under fire. You need 10+ to not get shot, but only 7+ to actually take cover or run away.

You can also use stay the fuck down (p 213) for taking cover.

Just a note, if you're trying to take cover or run away from another PC, that's probably interfering with their seize by force or go aggro roll, rather than acting under fire.

As to whether or not to deal harm on a successful avoiding-harm roll, remember that your job is the make Apocalypse World seem real, and keep the character's lives not boring. Is it plausible that they could avoid all harm? Would it be interesting for them to do so? Sometimes you're like "Man, there's way too many bullets whizzing around to dodge all of them. Take 1-harm from incidental fire, and give me that suffer harm roll." Sometimes you're like, to yourself, "Hmmm, I don't want them to be too knocked up by this skirmish, or they'll just run off to the Angel. Let's let them get cocky and press the assault into more interesting territory" and then you say "You dodge out of the way, and find cover from the hailstorm of lead and fire. Want to send some of that lead back to them, with interest, then?"

I'll just add to what Ben says -- which I think is good stuff -- by encouraging you to think about the details of the scene. If you as MC say "hailstorm" when you're describing gunfire, then I won't be too surprised when you tell me I take incidental harm, like wood splinters from a tree behind me that just got torn to shreds by the v-r-r-r-p of that machine gun.

Ben, Matt - Yeah, good stuff.

As a side note, I think my main problem in last session was feeling overwhelmed by the situation, so I didn't describe the situation thoroughly and let the events of Apocalypse World call for rolls, ("You're spotted and they're firing your way") but rather the characters intentions. ("You want to sneak through the besieged hardhold, roll Acting under fire... Oops, looks like you caught some incidental fire...")

I'm still a little confused about where Acting under fire ends and Sieze by force begins. I haven't started using the optional battle rules, so...

Taking cover behind a wall and laying down supressive fire, is that Sieze by force (Siezing and holding a safe spot) or Acting under fire? (Acting to keep foes away)

Get to an exit, is that Sieze by force (Siezing an exit, an example in the game text) or Acting under fire? (Acting to get out of there)

Or can they be both?

Taking cover behind a wall and laying down supressive fire, is that Sieze by force (Siezing and holding a safe spot) or Acting under fire? (Acting to keep foes away)

That sounds like two actions: taking cover and laying down suppressive fire. Taking cover is probably acting under fire, while laying down suppressive fire could be any of: going aggro (if you come out of there you get shot), seizing by force (seizing their attention, therefore preventing them from doing anything else for the moment), supporting another PC's move (if you are suppressing them while another PC does something), interfering with another PC's move (if you are suppressing a PC with your fire.)

Of course if the suppressive fire part is not actually doing anything important, it could just be part of the description of how they effectively take cover -- in which case it would just be acting under fire. But if the goal is to do two important, separate things -- both prevent yourself from being fired upon and then suppress the enemy position -- that should require two actions and two rolls.

think of "seize by force" as "someone else currently has control of it." If there's a guard in front of the exit actively blocking your way, then you need to probably seize it by force. It assumes you're dealing harm to someone and they're dealing harm back.

Quote from: Arvid on August 09, 2010, 10:27:02 AM

Taking cover behind a wall and laying down supressive fire, is that Sieze by force (Siezing and holding a safe spot) or Acting under fire? (Acting to keep foes away)

That sounds like two actions: taking cover and laying down suppressive fire. Taking cover is probably acting under fire, while laying down suppressive fire could be any of: going aggro (if you come out of there you get shot), seizing by force (seizing their attention, therefore preventing them from doing anything else for the moment), supporting another PC's move (if you are suppressing them while another PC does something), interfering with another PC's move (if you are suppressing a PC with your fire.)

Of course if the suppressive fire part is not actually doing anything important, it could just be part of the description of how they effectively take cover -- in which case it would just be acting under fire. But if the goal is to do two important, separate things -- both prevent yourself from being fired upon and then suppress the enemy position -- that should require two actions and two rolls.

That makes sense, thanks!

I'm not so sure about opening up the door on rolling for both acting under fire and sieze by force at the same time - One could argue that siezing by force is always acting under fire as well, and thus get a "free saving throw" to avoid getting harmed. Sure, you might fail the Acting under fire roll, which is bad, but rolls tend to succeed. What do you think?

Definitely not at the same time. If they're doing two things, it's two rolls and two separate actions -- assuming that, after the result of the first roll, they are still interested in their original plan.

I would say something about never having two rolls for the same action, but I went and wrote a custom move for a threat in my game that does just that -- so no moral high-ground for me. But I don't think you should ever have someone Acting Under Fire to see if they get to make a second roll or not.

If you want to run away, and nobody is trying to stop you, and nobody's shooting at you at that moment, that's not a move, you just run off.

If somebody is shooting at you, you are acting under fire, roll+cool to avoid the danger. If what you are trying to do is not otherwise a move, it's just acting under fire. If what you want to do is also a move, you are making two moves: acting under fire and the move you want to make.

Same if another PC manipulates you to not attack them, and you're acting under fire if you do. Then if you do attack them, you're acting under fire and going aggro (or seizing by force).

If you need to use violence in order to escape, you're going aggro or seizing by force. If you're using force against somebody who is fighting back, that's seizing by force, with no acting under fire. If a third party is attacking you, then you'd probably also be acting under fire.