Skirmish
I’m working on a move for large-scale battles. As soon as I got wind that large-scale battles would probably come up in the Planets Collide campaign, I picked up The Last Days of Anglekite by Magpie games. But Anglekite’s subsystem with Force dice and generic “harm” stuff didn’t quite suit what I was looking for. I wanted something more in line with Followers from Perilous Wilds.
But the Anglekite battle move had some cool ideas, so I started with that. Here’s my current draft—very much a work in progress—brought back to the drawing board with inspiration from Jeremy Strandberg’s recent work on an alternate Hack & Slash.
Yochai Gal suggested I share it, and I realized that would be a great way for me to uncover obvious problems and possibly make it better. And if it helps anyone else solve the problem, all the better! Here goes.
—
When you lead a force into battle, roll +Loyalty.
* Take +1 if your side has superior equipment, supplies, or intelligence.
* Take +1 if your side has a decisive advantage in this terrain or environment.
* Take -1 if you are clashing with a larger force.
* Take -1 if your side is a non–mythic force clashing with a mythic force (divine, magical, planar, or legendary).
✴On a 7+, the bigger force deals its damage, +1d6 extra, to the smaller force; and the smaller force deals its damage to the bigger force. If both forces are the same size, then they both deal their standard damage. ✴On a 10+, choose 2. ✴On a 7–9, choose 1.
* Your force suffers no casualties from the enemy’s attack: Ignore your enemy’s damage.
* Your force fights with ferocity: Add +1d6 to your damage.
* You hold the line on territory you are defending.
* You claim a new position from the enemy.
—
I’d love to hear any feedback or scorn you can meet out. Iron sharpens iron, people! Bring your iron and fight!
Or, you know, help me out. Ask questions. Or ignore this post and delete your browser history.
Thanks!
[Edit: fix formatting.]
I have a few thoughts.
Firstly, I’m not sure you need to double-dip on size here; you’ve got “you’re clashing with a larger force” as a modifier to your roll, and the larger force also gets bonus damage against the smaller one. The damage bonus seems doubly problematic because it’s non-negotiable (you must decide on which group is bigger), which could end up bogging down play, and because dealing bonus damage or taking no damage are already options on the list.
Secondly, I’m not sure I’m sold on the two fictional options here. Holding territory isn’t always fictionally relevant, nor claiming new position/ground; you could probably sum those up into a single option, and even add another option or two to suit.
Fallen Empires, Vincent Baker’s Weird Fantasy hack of AW, has some rather nice rules for group warfare that I prefer to Anglekite’s systems, but that’s neither here nor there. In the interest of keeping this all contained in a single move, though, what about this as an alternative?
───
On a 7+, each force deals its damage to the other. On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2.
✴ Your force suffers few casualties; they take -1d6 damage.
✴ Your force fights with ferocity; they deal +1d6 damage.
✴ Your force takes definite hold of a contested area or position.
✴ Your force instills fear, doubt, or respect in their enemies.
Since most forces are probably throwing around multiple damage dice, my gut says that reducing damage is probably more appropriate than outright negating it.
Thank you, Cameron Burns! I’ll think it over when I get a chance, and I’ll let you know what comes of it.
Is this the version of Fallen Empires you have in mind?
apocalypse-world.com – apocalypse-world.com/AW2ndEdFallenEmpiresPreview.pdf
I’m not sure I’ve seen it, and I’ll look it over. Let me know if you’re aware of a newer or better version.
John at Deep Six Delver I believe the newest versions are available through Baker’s Patreon, first and foremost.
Yep, I’m in line with Cameron Burns on this. Here’s my version (coupled with his own) :
When you lead a force into battle, roll +Loyalty.
* Take +1 if your side has superior equipment, supplies, morale, or intelligence.
* Take +1 if your side has a tactical advantage (defensible terrain, flanking, etc)
* Take -1 if your opponent is more powerful than your side (larger force, legendary creature, etc)
On a 7+, each force deals its damage to the other.
On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2.
✴ Your force suffers few casualties; they take -1d6 damage.
✴ Your force fights with ferocity; they deal +1d6 damage.
✴ Your force takes definite hold of a contested area or position.
✴ Your force instills fear, doubt, or respect in their enemies.
Cameron Burns’s feedback is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.
To take a step further… if you’re using the Follower moves from Perilous Wilds already, it’s a pretty simple step to apply those rules to military units.
Each unit would have:
Quality (same as followers)
Morale (instead of Loyalty)
A size, from like -2 (squad) to +2 (battalion); modified for the size of the actual creatures. So a squad of ogres or cavalry would actually be -1 instead of -2; a squad of elephants would be +0 instead of -2.
HP: 3 (peasant conscripts), 6 (able-bodied troops), 9 (tough, hardened warriors), modified by some tags
Armor: as per usual creatures, based on the most common armor in the unit
Damage: d4 (not really combatants), d6 (able-bodied), d8 (veteran warriors)
When you deal damage to a larger unit, reduce your damage die size by 1 (down to d2, then down to nothing) per point of difference. When you deal damage to a smaller unit, increase your damage die size by 1 per point of difference (up to d12, then 2d6, then 2d8, etc.).
Instinct: its problematic behavior, the thing it wants to do that causes you trouble (to charge heedlessly; to break and run; to savage the fallen; to break formation; to pounce on a weakened foe; to disregard orders; etc.)
Tags, moves, and special qualities as per monsters or followers. A couple tweaks, like:
organized when it fights in formation, counts as +1 size
terrifying enemy forces must make a Morale Check to engage, and always lose 1 Morale (in addition to other effects)
(those are actually the only ones I can come up with right now)
Then, swap out Order Followers with Morale Check (basically the same, just swapping out Morale for Loyalty). Use Do Their Thing as written. Use GM moves to set up situations, ask what they do, what they expect their allied units to do, etc.
Maybe add some moves for fighting as part of unit, or sending orders, or whatever. But I bet you can get by without them.
John, I like where you’re going. Here is my feedback:
– “Clashing with a larger force”: You may want to add “significantly”, since I doubt one person will tip the scales. Right now I’d get a minus 1 if my opponent has 1,001 soldiers and mine only has 1,000.
– I personally don’t like the one-sidedness of the available bonuses/penalties: What if my opponent has superior equipment/supplies/intelligence? What if my opponent has a decisive advantage in terrain? What if I have a larger force, or a mythical force? Currently I get no bonuses/penalties for these. While I understand your desire for brevity, I’d personally feel a bit cheated out of a possible +1. Maybe replace the two penalties with bonuses for the reverse (larger army and mythical force), and that way I (the PC) will always get bonuses from my advantages?
– What about a bonus if my soldiers (or leaders) have better training, or a bonus if I have special units (cavalry/healers/mages/etc.)?
– Does “suffers no casualties” mean the same as “take no damage”? If so, then say so. If not (and you still take damage), explain what it means.
– Both “hold the line” and “claim a new position” are very similar. Could you combine them into something like “You claim a tactically advantageous position”? This would cover other effects like opening a hole in their battle lines.
– The effects should encompass other possibilities like: finding a weak spot in their battle strategy; killing a general or other important person; damaging artillery or supply lines; demoralizing or routing the enemy. Maybe you could add a few options that would allow for these effects, like: “You create an opportunity”; “You damage something/someone valuable”; “You damage their morale”; etc.
Hmm, not so sure I’d like to have to stat each unit on the battle though.
I’d much prefer a move where stats of the units are implied and not needed.
I’d drop damage dice and HP, for example.
In my mind, a unit doesn’t really need HP, it needs conditions. The unit is either Fresh, Attrited or Routing.
📌
To avoid confusion, I might phrase ‘intelligence’ differently so people don’t think a leader with superior intelligence is what grants the bonus (versus what I suspect you mean — operational intelligence, which you might rephrase to mean ‘superior information about their force, their weaknesses, or their capabilities).
Thank you all!
In thinking about Jeremy Strandberg’s suggestions, I feel really adverse to having a whole separate class of entities with scores. But it gives me an idea. Here’s what I’m toying with:
“Forces” are Followers (or Monsters, if they are controlled by the GM), that have a scale tag (like a Steading’s Population) that indicates their order of magnitude. When a Force takes any damage, the controlling player may choose to ignore the damage and split the Force into 3 Forces at the next smallest scale.
The smallest scale tag for a Force is the Group tag from Perilous Wilds. If a Group splits, there are 3 surviving named individual Followers.
Named Followers could likewise have the Mounted tag. In addition to the fictional positioning benefits of being mounted, a player can make the same choice when a Mounted Follower takes damage: Ignore the damage, and the follower loses her mount (or, if the player prefers, the mount could survive, and the Follower is skewered.
This would be an alternative to the ways Group Followers take damage discussed here: plus.google.com – Perilous Wilds: Hirelings, Hit Points, and the Group tag +Jeremy Strandberg,…
When the player chooses to sacrifice the magnitude of a Force in lieu of damage, it’s would be up to successive GM moves whether the missing personnel were slain, routed, taken prisoner, or fell to some other fate.
I think Jeremy is right that I could just use the regular Follower moves to handle battle stuff. What this method does is eliminate the need to scale the hit points and damage dice of followers based on their relative magnitude, which is what sounded too fiddly for me.
Esteemed colleagues, what do you think?
John at Deep Six Delver Kind of serious, kind of teasing question:
Do you really think that:
When a group suffers damage, you can ignore the damage and split it into 3 new smaller groups of followers/individuals” (each of which now has Loyalty, their own HP, their own fictional position)
is less fiddly than…
When a group deals damage, increase/decrease the damage die by 1 step for every difference in Size.
I mean, maybe it is? Because when one group/unit damages another, you’d probably have to assess whether the casualties caused the group to split, or effectively be reduced in operational effectiveness.
But at the same time, splitting a group or reducing it’s effectiveness seems more like a GM move (and/or a cost/consequence on a Do Their Thing move) than a player choice made for their followers in the heat of battle.
Jeremy Strandberg, thanks for helping me sift the ideas. I see your point.
> (each of which now has Loyalty, their own HP, their own fictional position)
I was assuming these would be cloned from the original Group, until such a time that they become distinguished from each other in the conversation. That is, we wouldn’t have to suddenly make 3 new stat-blocks in the middle of play. At worst, I thought you might suddenly have to track their fictional positioning, and 3 HP meters instead of 1—and the latter, only when 1 of them takes an additional injury.
I obviously need to think it over more. “Splitting” them is a cool idea for a cost and consequence on Do Their Thing, and I see it could fit there nicely—as one option among the many.
Hmmmm…
I see my thinking was faulty on the “3 new HP meters”, because HP isn’t the only numeric countdown—you’re right that Loyalty is a possible countdown too.