Proposal- simultaneous conditions

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
Hi folks, happy new year!

Here's a subject we'd like your input on: how should multiple conditions interact? Thoughts below please, many thanks for reading.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
For the most part they interact just fine, in that there's no overlap between, say, Concussion and Insanity.

In some cases there's a kind of self-interaction problem, though. Can a fighter become concussed/blind/broken twice? What happens?

I'd be inclined to have a blanket rule of 'unless otherwise noted, a fighter cannot become subjected to a condition he is already subjected to'. The 'unless' is important for things like Escher Chem Alchemy, which apply markers and thus count as conditions (pg 51 of the rules) but state that they stack.

I would say that the area that needs special consideration is the interaction between Broken, Insanity, and Blaze (plus any other 'Must' conditions I've forgotten).

The cleanest I can make it is if Insanity is resolved before activating, and to say that on a 1-2 a fighter loses their ready marker, runs for cover, and their activation ends (i.e add the clarification that their activation ends). This would mean:

When you become Broken (i.e. first gain the condition) you lose any Ready Marker and flee (pg 72) so if you are on fire or insane and then become Broken it's not relevant that turn; either
A) you've already activated, resolved Blaze or Insanity during activation, and are free to run,
or B) you've not activated yet and so lose your Ready marker which prevents you from triggering Blaze or Insanity's 'when activating' clauses.
Either way you would get a chance to rally.

If you are Broken and activating (i.e still Broken from a previous round, or activating without a Ready marker via a Tactic card or something) under the effects of Insanity you either roll 1-2 and leave the battlefield, 3-4 and your opponent resolves a Run for Cover action, or 5-6 and you resolve a Run for Cover action.

If you're Broken and activating under the effects of Blaze then Blaze takes priority; Broken limits your actions, but Blaze doesn't even let you take actions.

If you are suffering from Blaze and Insanity, you test Insanity first. On 1-2 your fighter becomes Broken, loses their Ready Marker, and flees. Their activation ends so Blaze is not resolved. On a 3-4 your opponent resolves Blaze, on a 5-6 you resolve Blaze, either way the activation ends. (I would assume on a 5-6 you could still make a Willpower check)

If you're suffering from all three, you test Insanity first. On 1-2 your fighter leaves the battlefield. On a 3-4 your opponent resolves Blaze, on a 5-6 you resolve Blaze, either way the activation ends.

Why I like this system is that it prevents your fighter from having to run twice in the same activation, and it only requires a tiny adjustment to the wording.

Tl;dr: When activating the priority should be Insanity>Blaze>Broken, with a slight change to the wording of the Insanity 1-2 result
 

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
This is an excellent piece @Jayward, thank you for the breakdown. An excellent few ideas there, I think you may have solved this with one comment!
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
Ideally the wording should be such that the order of operations is clear without having to give an example of every edge case.

For example, Insanity could read "immediately before a fighter activates [resolve]".
Blaze could say "when activated, [resolve]"
Broken could say "when activated, the fighter must take the following action [resolve], their turn ends".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks and Orngog

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
This was discussed earlier in the other thread.

Basically this was the conclusion the timing and priority of all of these need to be clarified.

In addition the previous chat discussed whether some statuses should mean others are jat ignored. For example if subject to the Blaze condition you ignore the effects of blind.

TL;DR

Yes these need some work
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
First off, I believe we should harmonized how conditions that prevent a fighter from acting normally work. Currently, it's all over the place and adds to the game complexity for very little gain. See for yourself:

ConditionMandatory behaviourCheck to get rid of the condition
BrokenUpon getting the condition
When activated
The fighter is forced to perform a Double action and cannot do anything else
End phase, all Broken fighters at once
AblazeWhen activated
Doesn't use action. It's unclear whether the fighter can still act normally afterwards if they get rid of the condition
When activated (part of the mandatory behaviour)
BlindThe fighter's next activation is skipped
Works with removing a Ready marker/not getting the next one
Automatic
InsaneWhen activated
The way it's handled varies depending on the roll
When activated (part of the mandatory behaviour)

I think all those conditions should work the same way: they should trigger only when the fighter activates, and should force them to perform an action (that can be Basic or Double depending on how much of the fighter's activation we want to waste). Part of that action should be the check to get rid of the condition.
This would affect Broken the most (no more Running for cover immediately upon becoming Broken, and no more Rally check in the End phase — each fighter would try to rally during their own activation)

And yes, we need to define priorities. Ablaze should take priority over Broken, Blind and Insane (Blind currently overrides it — and prevents the fighter from taking damage — which doesn't make sense) Blind should take priority over Broken and Insane (as it already does) and Insane already works fine with Broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
Forcing you to take a Double Action opens up the possibility of using a tactics card to shoot or charge or something whilst you're running around panicking or ablaze.

If we move all checks to overcome the condition to the fighter's activation, how would each effect work?
If Broken still causes the immediate panic (which I like), that means a fighter will always lose at least 1-2 turns to the condition (and sprinting 2d6" each time to boot), rather than the current 0-1.
Maybe my experience with Escher is showing, but I think Broken is significant enough as-is, running 2d6 can put you a ways out of the fight as well, wasting more time as you come back in.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
@Thorgor Blaze is quite specific on whether they can activate afterwards; from HoB pg122:

When activated, a fighter subject to the Blaze condition suffers an immediate Strength 3, AP -1, Damage 1 hit and must act as follows, after which their activation will end;

(Emphasis mine) Seems pretty clear cut that you don't get to activate even if you put out the flames.

I'm not keen on bringing everything into line and assigning priorities, as I think the rules are pretty close to functional. The main interaction that needs to be eliminated for me is Insane 1-2 making you run, followed by Blaze immediately making you run.

Blind stopping you being hurt by fire is quirky, but it's not confusing in terms of application of the rules.

If you wanted to get around that you could change Blind so that it only has the No Attacks clause and expires at the end of the Blind fighter's next activation. By removing the interaction with the Ready Marker you prevent it interfering with the others. Also, it adds in an expiry condition which Blind technically doesn't have RAW.

@Kiro The Avenger makes an interesting point; because Blaze/Broken lacks a 'you can't make actions' clause you can technically use Overseer or something to act normally with a Blaze/Broken fighter. They don't actually 'activate' so they wouldn't trigger Blaze and Broken only says 'when activated' in my rulebook. That seem to be a significant one
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayTee

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
Forcing you to take a Double Action opens up the possibility of using a tactics card to shoot or charge or something whilst you're running around panicking or ablaze.

If we move all checks to overcome the condition to the fighter's activation, how would each effect work?
If Broken still causes the immediate panic (which I like), that means a fighter will always lose at least 1-2 turns to the condition (and sprinting 2d6" each time to boot), rather than the current 0-1.
Maybe my experience with Escher is showing, but I think Broken is significant enough as-is, running 2d6 can put you a ways out of the fight as well, wasting more time as you come back in.
I think @Thorgor is just pointing out that the action that broken forces you to take is a double action.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Forcing you to take a Double Action opens up the possibility of using a tactics card to shoot or charge or something whilst you're running around panicking or ablaze.
This is easily fixed by making the fighter unable to perform other actions as long as they are subject to the condition (like Broken currently does).

If we move all checks to overcome the condition to the fighter's activation, how would each effect work?
If Broken still causes the immediate panic (which I like), that means a fighter will always lose at least 1-2 turns to the condition (and sprinting 2d6" each time to boot), rather than the current 0-1.
We can do whatever we want... like have the Broken fighter make a Rally check first and Run for cover only if it's failed (otherwise being allowed to act as normal).

I dislike the current implementation because:
  • it works differently from other similar conditions (unwarranted complexity)
  • it affects the fighter differently depending on whether or not they have already activated this turn
  • it can cause the fighter to act more than once in a turn (either activate normally and then Run for cover, or Run for cover twice in a row) which to me means they are no longer in the same time-space continuum as other fighters and is very odd
Oh I hadn't noticed that change in HoB, another paywalled stealth-errata :rolleyes:
That was always the RAI, but the wording in the rulebook was very ambiguous.
Same here, I also missed this stealth-errata. Thanks for pointing it out @Jayward!

I'm not keen on bringing everything into line and assigning priorities, as I think the rules are pretty close to functional. The main interaction that needs to be eliminated for me is Insane 1-2 making you run, followed by Blaze immediately making you run.

Blind stopping you being hurt by fire is quirky, but it's not confusing in terms of application of the rules.
Sure, it's (more or less) functional and only slightly non-sensical... but do you believe it's superior to what I proposed?
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
Becoming Broken means you lose your ready marker, so you'll only ever panic once.
Taking the rally test at the start of your activation is a good idea though. That also means if a fighter becomes broken near the end of the round, you have a chance to move friends in for some encouragement.
I think Blaze should work the same way for the same reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Becoming Broken means you lose your ready marker, so you'll only ever panic once.
Ah, right. But it makes the penalty even more harsh than I thought for fighters who have not yet activated this turn, as they are guaranteed to lose their next activation while fighters who have already activated have a chance to activate normally.
Also, I wonder (RAW) how many Running for cover actions an Insane fighter who becomes Broken on a 1-2 is supposed to make (they have to make 1 immediately for becoming Broken, but do they have to make another 1 for being activated while Broken?)

I agree that checks where you can get help from nearby friendly fighters should at the very least happen before the compulsory move, so that the player can actually do something about it.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
Ah, right. But it makes the penalty even more harsh than I thought for fighters who have not yet activated this turn, as they are guaranteed to lose their next activation while fighters who have already activated have a chance to activate normally.
Is that not any different to getting Seriously Injured or killed though? Both effectively make you lose an activation if you haven't taken it yet. It's just the nature of the game.

Also, I wonder (RAW) how many Running for cover actions an Insane fighter who becomes Broken on a 1-2 is supposed to make (they have to make 1 immediately for becoming Broken, but do they have to make another 1 for being activated while Broken?)
I believe that Insanity, like Blaze, doesn't allow you your normal activation unless it specifically says so. Plus, doesn't Insanity say you just flee the table if you're already Broken? Which would make it a moot point.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Is that not any different to getting Seriously Injured or killed though? Both effectively make you lose an activation if you haven't taken it yet. It's just the nature of the game.
Getting killed make you lose all your remaining activations so it's a bit of a special case. But I would also like to move recovering from Serious Injury to the fighter's activation for consistency, yes.
Alternatively, we could move recovering from all conditions to the End Phase, but I wouldn't like that (and 'recovering' from being Pinned will still happen during the activation).

I believe that Insanity, like Blaze, doesn't allow you your normal activation unless it specifically says so. Plus, doesn't Insanity say you just flee the table if you're already Broken? Which would make it a moot point.
My question is for the scenario where the fighter is Insane but not Broken at the start of their activation. They roll a 1-2 and become Broken (meaning they immediately have to make a Running for cover action). What happens then? Do their activation immediately end or do they have to make a second Running for cover action due to being activated while Broken?
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
My question is for the scenario where the fighter is Insane but not Broken at the start of their activation. They roll a 1-2 and become Broken (meaning they immediately have to make a Running for cover action). What happens then? Do their activation immediately end or do they have to make a second Running for cover action due to being activated while Broken?
I think their activation immediately ends.
Firstly, and most importantly, becoming Broken means you lose your ready marker and ends your activation.
Secondly, Insanity only means taking an action on a 1-2 and 5-6, when either you or your opponent controls the fighter. I think the absence of being allowed to activate here is conspicuous.

I quite like the idea of recovering the Seriously Injured during your activation. It adds more consistency and gives you more to consider about when you activate them. Should you activate them early to delay activations (like normal) but risk them getting shot again, or leave them down and harder to injure again until later in the round (a new consideration).
To test the recovery before or after the activation though? IMO after would be better, but before would be more consistent with how I think Blaze and Broken should work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
Sure, it's (more or less) functional and only slightly non-sensical... but do you believe it's superior to what I proposed?

In the context, yes, I do believe it's superior.

If we were creating something from scratch then I would be 100% behind your suggestion, but we're not doing that. To my mind, this exercise is about streamlining and improving the consistency of an existing ruleset. Even within that we are only in the pre-alpha stage.

I'm of the opinion that the first stages should be about making as few changes as possible, and where possible aiming for clarifications and small rewordings rather than larger reworkings.

So in that context I think that adding maybe 10 words to the rules for clarification is better than a significant rework of conditions and morale tests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayTee

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
We'll have to agree to disagree then.
If we are not out to make a better ruleset and rework the rules when we stumble upon something that badly design, then I'd rather not bother. If we limit ourselves to fixing the most egregious errors, we'll be left with a game that is still confusing, inelegant and needlessly complicated both to learn and to play.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
This was something that came up a lot in the suggestion phase too; the debate over how much to change. No need to re-hash it all here, so yes, agree to disagree.