2nd Edition Kickstarter

Thanks for the explanation, Vincent; it makes more sense to me now.

I have a question about The News.  So, it seems that the radio station is pretty well hidden, unless you take the flaw that it really isn't.  I know there is some variance on this based on player input, but on average how easy should it be for your average schmuck to stumble on the place.  Added to that, how easy should it be for your average schmuck to find the place if they wanted to find it?  Are we talking one or two hot rolls to get the general area out of an informant, and then a sharp roll once you get to the area?  Or should it be basically impossible unless The News fucks up royal?

Vincent,

I'm looking at the "Single Combat" move, and I'm very tempted to add two options to it:

* You seize an advantage. (Take hold of a weapon within your reach or take +1forward.)
* You press hard or give ground, moving the fight to a nearby area of your choice.

Should I, or shouldn't I, and why so?

I like the idea of the fight being a little less static, or changing meaningfully from turn to turn.

(Options chosen by both parties cancel out, as usual. It would probably also make sense to increase the options chosen to 2/3, like Seize moves.)

This seems even more relevant with Fallen Empires. Pressing or giving ground can be used to change the range of engagement, so you can, for example, get inside your opponent's guard and stick them with your knife...

Oh lord Paul, run screaming from that line of thinking. It's already a bad idea in Apocalypse World, and Fallen Empires' weapon reach system is predicated on there being absolutely no such thing.

First of all, you've been thinking of battles as lasting rounds, and they don't. They sometimes go into a second round, and almost never into a third. Even between two heavily-armored high-hard crushers, by the end of round 2 one of them can see which way the wind is blowing and that it's time to cut their losses.

But even so, in no case is it to your advantage to give up the +1harm or the +1armor for a +1 to your next roll. You'd prolong the fight in return for giving your opponent a leg up. The math on that is clear! +1choice would be break even; +1 to the roll is for chumps. Similarly, for a change in venue to be worth choosing, it would have to guarantee you better than +1choice.

And in Fallen Empires, it's strictly your environment and your weapons, not any character's action, that determines the range you're fighting at. If we're in an open courtyard and I have a longsword and you have a knife, we're fighting on the field, and there's nothing you can do about it. If you roll way better than me, so that you inflict terrible harm and suffer little harm, we can explain it by saying that you got within my guard, but "getting inside my guard" comes after the fact, it's not a game-tactical move.

-Vincent

Interesting!

Thanks, Vincent.

I'm not sure I agree 100% (after all, in Fallen Empires, changing the range means a +1 harm for you, and an effective -1 harm for your opponent), but your point is taken!

How did you go from the original version of "both roll Seize by Force" to this new formulation of "Single Combat"?

Here's 2 mechanical questions and a maybe-bigger development question:

1) Do Leadership and Combat Driver give +1 choice even on a miss (that is, a minimum of 1 choice for most battle moves?)

2) If a PC and their gang are in the same fight, can they do two different things? ("Lay down fire, gals, I'm going to assault a secure position!"

3) What marked the operator for death and dismemberment?

Paul: Right. It's a huge advantage. The tactical consideration is where we fight, because given our weapons, that's what determines which range applies. If I have a longsword and you have a knife, you attack me in a kitchen or a narrow hallway, you don't meet me in an open courtyard. You might make any number of moves to get me into the kitchen or the hallway, but they come before we fight. Once we're fighting, the range is set and we have to live with the choices that put us there.

Seizing something by force is built on the idea that there's something other than killing that both want. When a fight's just for killing, neither party chooses to take definite hold of anything anyway, so it might as well be out of consideration.

Hobbesque: (1) Yes. I think the battle moves with choices all give you 1 on a miss, so with leadership or combat driver, you get 2 on a miss.

(2) Sure. The player would roll for both their character and their gang. You can also split your gang up and have some of them do one thing, some do another, and the rest do something else, or whatever.

The tradeoff is that you calculate harm and armor separately for each. In your example, when you assault the position, you inflict and suffer harm as an individual, not as a gang.

(3) It started when I saw Fury Road and decided that the driver needed improving. That had me eyeing the operator's moves. Then I decided that spending barter for living expenses needed to be per session, not per "month," and that had me eyeing the operator's gigs.

I went into my workspace and the MC said, sure, no problem, but you'll have to take the operator apart, and that was that.

-Vincent

Rad.  I will miss the operator (mostly because I played it real hard once), but that totally makes sense.

It also answers one of my other questions, namely, "the new emphasis on vehicles is totally because Fury Road was awesome, right?"

So about those:

What do power/looks/weakness mean without A No Shit Driver?

How do the hard holder/MC define their vehicles? Utility vs. Battle means what? (and do small holds gained by advance get any, or is that like gangs?)

Power / looks / weakness are out of the rules as stats! Now it's all about speed, handling, and mass, with looks and weaknesses as tags only (the way they always were for the chopper). Redownload the preview file to see what I mean.
http://apocalypse-world.com/AW2ndEdPlaybooksPreview.pdf

There will be complete rules for creating vehicles in the text. For now, copy the driver's rules, and for specialized battle vehicles, just add +1armor and a mounted weapon or two.

-Vincent

I went into my workspace and the MC said, sure, no problem, but you'll have to take the operator apart, and that was that.

-Vincent

I don't have a question, I'm just really excited that Vincent sees himself as a Savvyhead, I don't know why but its just so cool that he's *in* his own game.

Have I missed the bit where it says The Driver starts play with a vehicle? It feels like it's implied, but whereas everyone else gets the option under Gear for a vehicle, The Driver as written suggests you need the Collector or My Other Car is a Tank move to have a vehicle at start of play.

I think The Operator was a small price to pay to give every playbook a slice of gigs - it's motivation all around.

@Tim Ralphs

The wording of  the Collector or My Other Car is a Tank moves (2 *additional*, *other* car), the number of car slots on the sheet, and the vibe of the class suggest that they are supposed to start with one. It's probably just an oversight that it doesn't explicitly say it.

The Creating A Driver summary line explicitly says "choose ... car", distinct from gear, so there's car #1.

That's the line I was missing Borogrove. Thanks!

Hey Vincent,

First of all, just wanted to say that I'm loving 2nd Edition as I read over the moves and other new changes.

I did have one question: With the "Battle Moves" now defined as they are, has the definition of being "In Battle" changed from what it was in 1st Edition?

In particular I'm thinking of that line on pg. 225 in the Gunlugger's move section that says "...going aggro on someone or acting under fire or even seizing something by force doesn’t make it automatically a battle. It has to be a battle."

But now the "Battle Moves" heading in the new Basic Moves section says under it: "When you're in battle, you can bring the battle moves into play."

Bottom Line Question: Is Single Combat a "Battle"?