Some stuff that’s been nagging my hindbrain for weeks now:
1: I’ve been treating the one (or, optionally, two) conflict scenes per maneuver as a per-side asset that is separate from the 3x building rolls per maneuver per character. In other words, each character gets 3x building rolls sprinkled throughout the maneuver and the humans and Vaylen each get 1x (optionally 2x) conflict scenes at some point in the maneuver. Thus, the guy starting the conflict scene also gets 3x builders. I don’t think this is explicit in the book, but is this in fact correct?
2: This one’s sort of predicated on what the answer is to the first one: I try and start a conflict scene with someone but they use a builder roll to run away; I don’t elect to use a roll to chase them. Currently we have been ruling that if one side walks away from a conflict (either DoW or FF!), that conflict never happened and it’s not counted against the instigator. However, I see a problem with the economy: Nothing’s stopping me from starting another conflict! Eventually the runner-awayer will be out of Building rolls but I will still have my conflict. Yes, sapping the other side’s builders with attempted conflicts is dickish; just wanted to know what the intent of the rule was.
3: This one’s predicated on the answer to the second question. If you do in fact use up your conflict just by trying to start one, I don’t see the downside to always running away and recasting the conflict on your own terms. I’m assuming your conflict doesn’t get used up, but that brings me back to #2.
It hasn’t come up in our game, but the timing trick I used last maneuver in fact relied on an attempted conflict that sapped the target’s last defense option.
No. You get a Conflict scene OR a Builder. If you have 4 PCs, three of them get Builders and one gets a Conflict scene. And technically, if your side takes two Conflict scenes, two of the PCs get Builders and two get Conflict scenes.
2: This one’s sort of predicated on what the answer is to the first one: I try and start a conflict scene with someone but they use a builder roll to run away; I don’t elect to use a roll to chase them. Currently we have been ruling that if one side walks away from a conflict (either DoW or FF!), that conflict never happened and it’s not counted against the instigator. However, I see a problem with the economy: Nothing’s stopping me from starting another conflict! Eventually the runner-awayer will be out of Building rolls but I will still have my conflict. Yes, sapping the other side’s builders with attempted conflicts is dickish; just wanted to know what the intent of the rule was.
That’s by the book. It definitely does not eat up the instigator’s Conflict scene. Note that you cannot ever force a Duel of Wits. On the other hand, if someone wants to press a Firefight or similar, you can’t get away without some sort of roll unless the instigator allows it. It’s kosher for the instigator to chew up your Builder and then come for you, although generally I’d require a Builder from somone on the instigator’s side to overcome the defenses you created with your own Builder. Don’t forget Rule Zero. Don’t be a dick.
3: This one’s predicated on the answer to the second question. If you do in fact use up your conflict just by trying to start one, I don’t see the downside to always running away and recasting the conflict on your own terms. I’m assuming your conflict doesn’t get used up, but that brings me back to #2.
Not applicable.
Hm. Then how is it possible to a) set up an ambush or b) Circles up help at the beginning of a Firefight? To my eyes, both those things require rolls that aren’t, strictly speaking, part of the Firefight.
It seems like there’s maybe a window of opportunity for some kinds of rolls pre-Firefight (and possibly pre-DOW?). True?
So the bit on p. 348 – the big Circles Ob table – that gives you a +1Ob or +3Ob for Circling at the beginning of, or in the midst of, a Conflict is referring to characters other than the one initiating the conflict. Is that right?
Another implication: You can’t set up an ambush by yourself within the same Maneuver. This strikes me as odd.
So one character can set up an ICHASHITF with an ambush (is required to do it, actually or something similar), but not a firefight. That requires a team. Works for me. Firefights aren’t one-on-one deals.
-Chris
PS - I finally got a group together and am playing Omac on the 19th. Woot!
Yeah, I hear you. I think my definition of “ambush” is ambiguous w/r/t how it works, mechanically, in the game. Let me know if my thinking on this is accurate:
If I just want to outright kill someone, it’s an ICHASHITF roll. I may have to use Infiltration to get past my target’s defenses. Maybe, if my target’s player is feeling exceptionally generous, I might squeeze out a +1D bonus to the ICHASHITF for setting up the description of getting my ninja on (and/or treat the Infiltration roll as a linked test)…and that’s probably the mechanical extent of mano-a-mano ambushing. But since benighted notions such as “initiative” don’t exist in ICHASHITF, I only know if I got the drop on him after the dice resolve the fight. If I didn’t get hit, I got the drop.
I guess I’m forgetting that “ambush” has a specific mechanical meaning in the game, and it is only a means of generating a bit more dispo for myself in a Firefight!. But I don’t need dispo if my only intent is to grease someone. In the case of a single character initiating a FF! (say, to capture a target), it is mechanically impossible for that solitary operator to set up his own ambush.
Let’s say that it’s intentionally difficult. It gives you a reason to work together. But it is possible. Just set up your ambush in one maneuver and spring it in the next.
Or buy a free builder with an appropriate Instinct: Always set up an ambush when attacking a solitary target. Shoot, I think that’d work regardless of what flavor of attack you were initiating.
Relegating ambushing to Instinct status puts it in an interesting place in my head. It certainly implies this character is not one to make a rash decision. How interesting to make your professional methods reflect your personality.
