Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nytmare" data-source="post: 6099333" data-attributes="member: 55178">It's a combination of both.&nbsp; When dealing with &quot;adventuring party sized&quot;&nbsp; fights, to fight from the rear, you need to have at least two people in&nbsp; melee, and you can't be fighting against more than double your numbers..&nbsp; I don't think that's being generous, I think that both sides constantly&nbsp; maneuvering for the best position is how every fight outside of the 18th&nbsp; century is fought.&nbsp; Also it's two up front, X back behind.&nbsp;&nbsp; Beyond&nbsp; that, there's nothing saying that the terrain can't work for or against a&nbsp; group.&nbsp; I don't think that sneaking through the woods to get an attack&nbsp; against a bunch of archers, or boxing them into a cul de sac is against&nbsp; the rules, but they should be the exceptions to and not the rules&nbsp; themselves.In your example of a five on three fight, those five guys would pound on&nbsp; one of the two &quot;up front&quot; guys and then the next round the archer would&nbsp; either have to retreat or draw a sword.&nbsp; If nothing else, it takes a rounds worth of running and fighting to catch up to the guys.&nbsp; Even n a crazy scenario where&nbsp; you've got two guys up front and twenty guys behind them fighting with&nbsp; range, it's still going to take a round's worth of fighting (and&nbsp; decimating one or both of the guys up front) before they can close&nbsp; with/flank/make the archers retreat.&nbsp;&nbsp; I honestly think a tweak like that would be adding way more complexity&nbsp; than &quot;4 x 2 = 8&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; These were meant to be an abstraction that mimicked&nbsp; how fights took place in a book, not a translation of a tactical&nbsp; miniatures game with no map.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nytmare, post: 6099333, member: 55178"] It's a combination of both. When dealing with "adventuring party sized" fights, to fight from the rear, you need to have at least two people in melee, [B]and[/B] you can't be fighting against more than double your numbers.. I don't think that's being generous, I think that both sides constantly maneuvering for the best position is how every fight outside of the 18th century is fought. Also it's [B]two[/B] up front, X back behind. Beyond that, there's nothing saying that the terrain can't work for or against a group. I don't think that sneaking through the woods to get an attack against a bunch of archers, or boxing them into a cul de sac is against the rules, but they should be the exceptions to and not the rules themselves. In your example of a five on three fight, those five guys would pound on one of the two "up front" guys and then the next round the archer would either have to retreat or draw a sword. If nothing else, it takes a rounds worth of running and fighting to catch up to the guys. Even n a crazy scenario where you've got two guys up front and twenty guys behind them fighting with range, it's still going to take a round's worth of fighting (and decimating one or both of the guys up front) before they can close with/flank/make the archers retreat. I honestly think a tweak like that would be adding way more complexity than "4 x 2 = 8" These were meant to be an abstraction that mimicked how fights took place in a book, not a translation of a tactical miniatures game with no map. [/QUOTE]

Verification