Is harm suffered by gangs cumulative during combat?

  • 18 Replies
  • 9828 Views
*

lumpley

  • 1293
Re: Is harm suffered by gangs cumulative during combat?
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2013, 11:25:56 AM »
Don't let the armchairers get the better of you! They weren't there.

-Vincent

Re: Is harm suffered by gangs cumulative during combat?
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2013, 07:28:30 PM »
Yeah. I didn't mean to criticize. I was genuinely curious was all. "I can't think of a reason" should be read as "I'm interested to know your reason".

Re: Is harm suffered by gangs cumulative during combat?
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2013, 04:03:09 AM »
I think the climate of this forum is one of the best i've encountered on internet. I never feel criticized in a bad way here :)

I'll have a go at explaning the situation with the battle. Feel free to comment!

The hardholder knew there would be an attack from the local warlord. It's been brewing for a long time. When there was shouting from the north of the island he ordered his gang to move there and defend. The attackers was led by the warlord and his lieutenant so i say the need to take 4-harm to break (strong leader present).

The hardholder made a 10+ on his leadership roll so he decided to stand fast against an attack. We rolled for seize by force for the confrontation (question: maybe we should have rolled for act under fire here?). I think the results where something like 1 harm to each of the sides. I did however forget that the hardholder should take as many harm as his gang.

Now there is commotion for the center of the island where the holders live. An old enemy siding with the warlord have gotten behind the lines and started infecting people (we play a zombie game). The battlebabe handles the situation and starts following the old enemy.

Back to the fight between the gangs. The warlord and his troops have digged in among the rocks and there is some fire exchange. The chopper and his gang attack from the flank on their jetskis and smash into the ranks of the warlord with full force. We roll a seize by force (i don't think i used pack alpha here, maybe i should?) and harm is exchanged (1-harm to each side).

So now we have 3 gangs, 2 for the PC (chopper and hardholder) and 1 for the attackers (warlord). The warlord's gang has suffered 2 harm.

Now someone brings out and RPG in the warlords gang and aims it on the palisade. I think the battlebabe tries to hinder him but he misses his roll (act under fire i think i used). And the shot is fired. Hardholder rolls for act under fire, don't remember exactly what the result was but he suffered 2 harm i think so it must have been a miss. He lands on his as and there is splinters and debris everywhere :)

The hardholder gets all crazy and orders his troops to make an hard advance screaming from the palissade (he's got 2 holds left from his leadership roll). He rolls another seize by force and both sides suffer 1-harm. While this is going on both the battlebabe and the chopper moves for the lieutenant and the warlord. Lieutenant is dropped in an exchange by the battlebabe but the warlord gets away on a boat. I think this was from a missed act under fire roll and some goons get in the way due to that.

A boat chase commences where the chopper and one of his gang manages to catch up with the captain while he fires away with a SMG (successfull act under fire). The chopper boards the boat and a fierce hand to hand combat commences.

Anyways, this was about the gang combat. I don't remember where all the harm to the hardholders gang came frombut i did roll seize by force 4 times with them suffering 1-harm each time. It was in the spirit of this example. But the gangs had a strong leader present, so they fight to 4-harm, right? Maybe someone should have taken definite hold of the whole battle, but each roll we made where for a part of the battle, not the whole one.

Re: Is harm suffered by gangs cumulative during combat?
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2013, 12:51:53 PM »
OK, that sounds much cooler than four consecutive Seize rolls! Some of it just comes down to play styles, I think. If the Hardholder isn't trying to surround the enemt or force a surrender or something, he's just wiping them out then yeah, he's just wiping them out.