Fourth Attacker on a Single Target

[Majestic]

So if three companions are attacking one regular-sized foe (the maximum number of opponents in close combat), can a fourth companion in rearward also attack that same target?

A quick scan through the rules tonight and I didn't see a clear answer, and I could see this going either way.

[Falenthal]

Without looking at the rules, I think that the limit is only for melee combat. Any number of heroes or foes can attack a single target with missiles.


Sorry to mix the post, but I have an additional question concerning engagements:

If we have four players and four orcs, the rules say that the heroes can select their engagements. If a hero goes to Rearward stance, and the other three goe into melee each on engaged with an orc, what do I have to do with the fourth orc? Do I, as LM, get to choose which hero to engage? Or do the players choose which one of them will be engaged with two orcs?

[zedturtle]

Since the number of enemies is equal to the number of heroes, the players get to choose. Somebody has to do it, though.

[Fridokind Wargaug]

I would rule it the following: If there are four orcs and four players and one of them goes in rearward, then I let the players decide who attacks whom. And the orcs that are "left" are free to my will So I'll just attack whomever I want with him.

[Otaku-sempai]

If three campanions were attacking a single target in melee and a fourth fired at the target with a missile, I might be tempted to rule that, on an Eye, the missile could strike one of the companions in the melee.

[Majestic]

If three campanions were attacking a single target in melee and a fourth fired at the target with a missile, I might be tempted to rule that, on an Eye, the missile could strike one of the companions in the melee.

I'd probably do the same thing, Otaku.

[Falenthal]

If three campanions were attacking a single target in melee and a fourth fired at the target with a missile, I might be tempted to rule that, on an Eye, the missile could strike one of the companions in the melee.

The rules say that the high TN for Missile attacks includes the fact that it's difficult to avoid hitting a friend who is engaged in melee.
But, otherwise, an Eye is an Eye, and that house-rule is not out of place.
Would it be used when the character fails AND rolls an Eye (normally triggers a Called Shot), or when it strikes but has rolled an Eye?
If the first option, would it also trigger a Called Shot?
If the second, isn't it mean to punish a character who has hit even with an Eye?

In fact, when a character in Rearward triggers a Called Shot by failing and rolling an Eye, who is the target of that Called Shot if no enemy is attacking him with missiles?

[Rich H]

If three campanions were attacking a single target in melee and a fourth fired at the target with a missile, I might be tempted to rule that, on an Eye, the missile could strike one of the companions in the melee.

I'd probably do the same thing, Otaku.

Although it seems logical I wouldn't apply such a ruling.

Consider: Eye results (on a miss) mean that the enemy attempts a Called Shot as their next attack. Also, a failed attack striking a comrade is really screwing the PCs over, they've missed the adversary but hurt a companion, and specifically a character (in melee) that may not have wanted his companion to attack (at range).

If you want to make ranged attacks, being made into a mass of individuals engaged in melee, harder then I'd rather apply the rules for Complications in combat and, depending on the number of individuals involved, go with moderately or severely hindered.

[Otaku-sempai]

Although it seems logical I wouldn't apply such a ruling.

Consider: Eye results (on a miss) mean that the enemy attempts a Called Shot as their next attack. Also, a failed attack striking a comrade is really screwing the PCs over, they've missed the adversary but hurt a companion, and specifically a character (in melee) that may not have wanted his companion to attack (at range).

If you want to make ranged attacks, being made into a mass of individuals engaged in melee, harder then I'd rather apply the rules for Complications in combat and, depending on the number of individuals involved, go with moderately or severely hindered.

Yeah, I can see that point of view. It depends on how hard you want to be on your players. If they are squawking for more realism then on their own heads be it.

[Rich H]

Yeah, I can see that point of view. It depends on how hard you want to be on your players. If they are squawking for more realism then on their own heads be it.

My solution makes things tougher ('more realistic') but front loads the penalty (ie, raising the TN to hit by 2 or 4), and to the active participant, rather than applying an additional effect based on an Eye result and to an 'innocent' party. Also, as Falenthal's post demonstrates, there are more questions to consider in how your ruling is applied when an Eye results in hitting a companion (only under certain circumstances, which companion would be hit, etc) as well as the opponent making a Called Shot in their next attack; two different applications of the same result, which, from a game design perspective, I'm not really keen on.