Turf count: effect of less than 1 Turf?

[SirWalterManny]

Hi all,

So, in a campaign if I have 1 Turf, and lose 1 turf (e.g. lose a ‘Sabotage’ game as the defender),

RAW, Turf has no minimum value (p18 Gang War 1), so can fall to zero... or in theory less than. (P26, Gang War 1) suggests a minimum Turf value of 1, but assuming this only applies during Apotheosis.

My questions:

1) Have I missed any clarification anywhere on minimum Turf value?
2) If not, do people play with a minimum value (and if so, of 1 or 0)?
3) If playing with a Turf value of less than 1, how do people have this effect the campaign?
- does you still allow champ/leader to take post-battle action to work their turf?
- does the end of cycle ‘collect income’ mean you get 0x10 credits (or even have to deduct credits if a negative value)?
- does this have any other impact?

Think we’re going to house rule, but interested to know how other people play this.

Cheers.

 

[SumpRat]

Work the Turf doesn’t actually require Turf to be used, so Turf going to 0 would just mean you don’t get the 10 each cycle.

Negative values are up to the arbitrator. In our campaign we decided minimum Turf of 1, but we’re looking at adding in a diorama competition, essentially making your Turf.

 

[SirWalterManny]

Work the Turf doesn’t actually require Turf to be used, so Turf going to 0 would just mean you don’t get the 10 each cycle.

Negative values are up to the arbitrator. In our campaign we decided minimum Turf of 1, but we’re looking at adding in a diorama competition, essentially making your Turf.

Cool, cheers. Like the idea of diorama competition linked to gang turf!

 

[Whiysper]

I forget where, but in GW3 there's some events that allow you to hit turf 0. We've been running min0, which just means no weekly credit bonus. Given that you need Turf10 to reliably out-do 3 champions 'working the turf' (insert dirty joke here), it seems sort of irrelevant to me anyway .

 

[SirWalterManny]

There are two of the example campaign types which cover either a turf size falling to zero, or gangs not having a turf size at all for the campaign: is this what you meant? Thanks if so - hadn’t thought about these.

But yes... it doesn’t seem to have a huge impact with regards RAW, its more a narrative thing of how does a gang operate and “work the turf” if they don’t have any turf, and how do scenarios where they might end up being the defender with a “home advantage” fit with that? Just interested in how people approach this, if at all.

 

[cronevald]

One simple approach I'd thought of was to say that mechanically a gang always claims one turf. If they lose turf mechanically nothing changes, but narratively they are forced to abandon their digs and find a new patch. It's partly inspired by the way outlander gangs in the original game could only claim one territory at at time and could be forced to move to a new one.

 

[Stoof]

I am almost certain it's been "officially" clarified (probably in the FB group) that the minimum turf value is 1. Even if your gang is evicted from their previous last turf, they go and find some hovel to operate out of which becomes their 1 turf.

You could easily operate it that it can drop to zero and you just don't get the credits of course. It can't go negative (what would that even represent? Your gangers building a city block for someone else?)

 

[SumpRat]

I am almost certain it's been "officially" clarified (probably in the FB group) that the minimum turf value is 1. Even if your gang is evicted from their previous last turf, they go and find some hovel to operate out of which becomes their 1 turf.

You could easily operate it that it can drop to zero and you just don't get the credits of course. It can't go negative (what would that even represent? Your gangers building a city block for someone else?)

Well there’s my next campaign idea

Gangs race to subjugate other gangs to work for them

End of the campaign each side fights the other!

 

[cronevald]

Quite likely where I got the idea, with my sneaky subconscious filing off the serial numbers and trying to claim it as my own.

 

[SirWalterManny]

Yep, like that. Makes sense narratively, and avoids some of the narrative issues of defending turf you don’t have. Cheers.

 

[SirWalterManny]

... and haven’t seen the “official’ clarification. Tried searching the FB group for “Turf” but didn’t spot anything, but may have missed. Hopefully might appear in the next FAQs update perhaps, but suppose at the minute its fine up to each campaign to decide what is in place.

 

[SumpRat]

... and haven’t seen the “official’ clarification. Tried searching the FB group for “Turf” but didn’t spot anything, but may have missed. Hopefully might appear in the next FAQs update perhaps, but suppose at the minute its fine up to each campaign to decide what is in place.

They have a habit of deleting posts every now and then.

 

[Stoof]

Yep. They delete things, and facebook itself just loves to not return all of the results of what you've very specifically searched for with precise and well considered keywords.

It's just another infuriating layer to the onion of irritation that is FAQ-by-Facebook.

 

[Ravenclaw]

Pretty sure officially 1 is the minimum

 

[Killer Shrike]

We play it as 0 Turf is the floor. The only impact is, you don't get the small drip of money from having Turf, and if another gang would gain a Turf by stealing your gang's Turf...there's no Turf to steal so they get nothing.

 

[Whiysper]

We play it as 0 Turf is the floor. The only impact is, you don't get the small drip of money from having Turf, and if another gang would gain a Turf by stealing your gang's Turf...there's no Turf to steal so they get nothing.

That's what we went with, not being able to find a reference to 'minimum 1' in turf anywhere, but finding a couple of places in GW3 where it said minimum 0. I need to dig out my books and find citations for that, though. Being AFB is a pain ;D.