>Nope, under the rules (some people have suggested modofications) each
>additional time you have to defend you get the -3 Multiple attacker
>penalty.
>Since a composite greoup attacks only once, you don't have to worry about
>it.
So the official rule is that the -3 is only if more than one contest is being fought at once?
Oh dear. That means one of favourite rules in Hero Wars was the result of me misreading the rules. It also means that the opposition should insist on fighting seperately. "Okay its Harrek against you, the 250 stickpickers throwing stones. We can treat this as one contest where you get lots of APs, but lose every roll, or we can treat it as 250 seperate contests in which case Harrek gets a -747 on his ability..."
This also means that the results change depending on how the GM splits the groups up, which seems unfair.
The more I think about it, the more I think I will go with my idea. To wit, we can treat them all seperately, or you can all go enmasse, and there's a -3 for each extra one of you. Means loan heroes CAN'T stomp through legions of normal guys, thus encouraging them to have their mates along. This does break down for large battles, 'cos sheer weight of numbers means far more than skill, but I don't see that being a problem in my games, since I'm not hugely interested in roleplaying such battles.
Alternative thought - completely untested - how about adding all the skills on both sides together, cancel masteries and resolve on a single dice roll (transferring APs as needed.) Thus you can take on five times your numbers if you have five times the skill. That sounds about right.
Graham
-- Graham Robinson. Dept. Computing Science, Glasgow. gjr_at_... http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~gjr Tact, noun: The unsaid part of what you are thinking.
Powered by hypermail