HeroWars gives the mechanic of supporters offering their leader Action Points, that may swing a close combat, but have little effect if ratings are significantly divergent. It also offers a many-to-one penalty of -3 for each defence after the first, with no impact on the attack of the One onto one of the Many. These seem implausible even in a heroic game, and certainly not in a realistic one. There's anecdotal evidence that real fighters, unless very skilled, are nervous about any many-to-one fights. Even cinematically, few like to take on more that one at a time.
If the ratings concerned are "contest" ones (see my previous post), then it feels about right (finger in the air) that the pair, taken as one, gain a mastery over their basic skill in both attack and defence if they have freedom to manoeuvre and have a clue about how to exploit it. The ideal for the "one" is to force the situation into a pair on one-on-ones separated in time. This suggests there a parallel "control the contest" challenge going on, that could radically affect the bonuses available. However, let's ignore this "control the contest" idea for now.
Four onto one therefore seems reasonably to be yet a further mastery, suggesting three onto one should be perhaps +13, and the fourth just adding +7. After this it seems likely that the multiple attackers will severely get in each others way – perhaps the fifth +4 and the sixth +2.
If we know two attackers rating as a pair, what should they be individually? Well, the one has to basically win two contests, so it sounds like each should be at (plus a mastery, minus five = +15). "Minus five" because we concluded that for a contest ability +5 equates to winning two combats in a row.
If we know the attackers rating as a trio, what should they be individually? Well, the one has to basically win three contests, so it sounds like each should be at (plus 13W, minus eight = +5W).
If we know the attackers rating as a four, what should they be individually? Well, the one has to basically win four contests, so it sounds like each should be at (plus W2, minus ten = +10W).
That's assuming the "One" concentrates equally on their opponents, and
is trying to gain advantage over all. Lets consider one-onto-two (so the
"one" has two "attack" rolls and two "defence rolls" to one each for
each of the Many). The "one" could rob Peter to pay Paul – anything
down to a "normal rating" attack/defence on one of the many, by ignoring
the other, but that has to be a recipe for being stabbed in the back. A
"one-for-one" shuffle of points, up to the original rating seems a not
unreasonable mechanism, with the "One" being able to skip their second
low chance attack if they so wish. This means a double mastery boost for
the "ignored" one of a pair, rather than the normal single mastery boost
– this should be punishment enough. This should be on the assumption
that the result of the, presumably frontal, attack has no effect on the
presumably rear attack.
A common AP pool for the "One" seems fair enough, a stunning victory over one of the many placing the One in an excellent position to continue, with the remaining Many stunned by the fall of their colleague, but likewise each of the many gaining by whittling away at the one.
Should each of the Many get the AP from their bonus of being of a Many? This feels wrong – perhaps divide the APs of the bonus of acting as a single force amongst the Many (i.e. Only 10 AP to each of a pair).
This is really a little too detailed for the rather free flowing Hero Wars rules, but if something is going horribly wrong in what the rules say and what feels right to happen, then pulling out the above rules might help.
-- Kevin Blackburn Kevin_at_...
Powered by hypermail