Seems like everytime we have a game session I have questions. In all honesty I find the Firefight one of the smoothest and cleanest sets of rules I’ve ever encountered in a game. They are very well done. Also, it’s 1:30 in the morning here, and I’m still buzzing about it. But for now, I’m just going to ask one question.
Am I right in thinking that there’s no value in advancing onto an objective?
That you merely need to advance from position to position to position on the map to gain each position’s disposition, and that can have, well no logic whatsoever? That it doesn’t matter if I go forward or backward, or closer or further away from the enemy, just as long as I’m occupying positions?
Granted, I haven’t gone back and reviewed the Firefight rules in depth after the fight, to see what we did right and what we did wrong.
You’re correct. You don’t need to Advance to the Objective. A few notes:
If a particular place is an Objective of the Firefight, DON’T make it a Position. (page 476, Positions versus Objectives)
You only gain a Position’s Disposition bonus for as long as you occupy that Position. The moment you leave that Position (scripting an Advance, Flank or Withdraw), you lose that Disposition bonus. (page 477, Occupying a Position)
Taking Positions in the Firefight is purely tactical. It’s about gaining a strong, defensible position with good lines of attack and a bit of cover.
Is it possible to make the “Win Conditions” different than just to reduce the Disposition of the Enemy? If the objective of a fire team is to take a building (which the enemy is guarding) is it required that we interpret the reduction of our enemy’s Disposition in terms of building access. So that, when their disposition is reduced to zero that the building is accessible.
I guess that for each conflict/firefight the meaning of the Disposition Values has to be revised. Sometimes reaching zero means they Flee, sometimes it means that you have “Broken Through,” it could also mean that you have gained the position/goal that they were defending. Is this right? I think it is a difficult thing to become accustomed to.
I would like to say that I like this limitation to Firefights. In BW the end of Fight! sessions seemed to be a bit softer. A person may “Fall to their knees and beg for mercy” but recover before the Fight! was completed. This Disposition Loss seems much more concrete (even if I am still fighting with the various ways it is expressed). And in a game like BE where there is a strict progression of events (Phases, I mean) it seems like it fits very well.
Won’t this result in things like units backing away from their objective just so they get the points of a choice position even if that position is behind them?
But taking a position is purely abstract, correct?
I had it in my mind as I read the rules that the map was this really important thing (I don’t absorb rules well from reading, so I might be forgetting a lot here). But in play, I found the map to be really superfluous. It’s main function was to show whether a position was in front of another one or not. But beyond that, we never referenced it for the fight.
The situation started with an argument that escalated (it never got to Duel of Wits, we couldn’t decide on stakes) between two commanders, each surrounded by a large contingent of their soldiers. It wasn’t laid out where one unit was advancing on another. In fact, my objective (his was to deny me the objective) was right next to where we started at, but the choice positions were further away from the objective. This resulted in him starting at a position at the opposite side of the map from the ships he was protecting.
The way I remember the rules last night, it didn’t matter where the units were (unless they were getting extra points for their position), as long as they were in contact with one another. Granted, we played the rules in the most mechanical way, with little roleplaying, as we were trying to figure out the rules. It seemed that last night, where everyone was at had less (almost no) impact than a traditional RPG, where things like lines of sight and close proximity are important.
I also have a question about cover. I marked positions with cover. But when Take Cover actions were made, the successes were added as an Obstacle bonus to any shot opportunities, even if the unit behind cover was in No Man’s Land. Does marking cover on the map mean anything?
Last question first: when you occupy a Position, you gain the cover benefits automatically. If you occupy a 1C Position, you have 1 point of cover. If you then successfully Take Cover, you may increase that cover to 2C.
If you use the Dig In option in No Man’s Land, then you gain a maximum of 1C in cover, period.
On to the rest:
Remember that we do not mark an Objective as a Position on the map. Yes, your Objective might be to take the Bridge of the spacestation in a Firefight. Even so, you can conceivably WIN the Firefight with a successful Withdraw maneuver. Imagine a tactical retreat which draws the enemy out into a bad position, from which you envelop them.
Everything in the Firefight is a step toward fulfilling your stated Objective. If my Objective is to capture the Bridge, the Firefight is all about the back and forth as I attempt to do just that. But the triumphant blasting open of the doors and storming the bridge cannot happen until my opponent’s Disposition reaches zero.
The most important feature of the map, aside from marking strategic points for you to hold (or for your enemy to hold) is Color. It’s about creating a shared imagined space inside which the group can create all its color and roleplaying.
The map and the mechanics are a wire frame. For it to really, truly kick you in the guts, the group needs to flesh that wire frame out with clay.
Remember, disposition is left abstract so you can fill in what it means according to your situation and imagination.
And, as Thor said, objectives are special positions that can ONLY be taken by reducing the enemy disposition.
And if you don’t want units advancing rearward to get cover and position on the enemy (high ground? enfilade?), then don’t put positions rear of the objective.
My understanding is that cover was a bonus to the Postion Value. So that a Position Value of 1 may have a bonus of cover 3 whihc you do not need to use a “Take Cover” action to maintain.
A Position can have up to two values. The first one is marked in ‘P.’ You can have a 1P Position or a 5P Position, etc. The number indicates both the Obstacle to Advancing to that Position, and the amount that gets added to your side’s Disposition for occupying that Position. If you have a Disposition of 8 and you occupy a 3P Position, your Disposition goes up to 11 as long as you stay in that Position.
A Position can also grant Cover, marked in ‘C’, as noted on page 476 Mark Cover. Using the Dig In option as a result of a successful Take Cover allows you to increase that rating by 1. Cover increases the Obstacle to shot opportunities against you.
OK. We screwed those rules up. Big time. Not a big surprise actually. It seems we have to screw some rules up as we try a bit of them for the first time in this game.
Basically, use roleplaying to smooth over what appears, at first, to make little sense. OK, I’m down with that. We did little roleplaying last night for this situation, as we were trying to get the rules down, so it made sense that some of it seemed nonsensical. I’m sure if we had attempted to flesh them out, so to speak, would could have arrived at some interesting reasons.
I really appreciate your guy’s answers, but I have one more question (oh no!). It’s about no name soldiers.
Both units had about 30 soldiers on the battle space (I ruled about a platoon level – an infantry platoon has about 30 guys, correct?). First off, their stats: I ruled everyone had exponent 4, Mortal Wound 11 (9+2 pts Armor). That’s just a GM call right? There’s no rules that sets the competency of no name soldiers, correct?
And second, am I right to say that for a commander to get a shot opportunity, every one of his soldiers gets to shoot first? And the corrollary of that, every one of those soldiers have to be killed before the commander is injured or killed?
Steve, you should number your questions. It’ll be easier to get to them.
The Anvil Lord trait sets the competency of your soldiers. Otherwise, it’s the GM’s call.
In order for a commander to get a shot, every one under his command has to fire first. That can be every member of his squad or each division on the front line, depending on the nature of the situation.
And no, not everyone of those soldiers need be killed before the commander goes down. The target of Direct Fire may choose who is hit. A craven commander may send his soldiers to die before him, but a brave commander will stand on the line with the rest of his men.
And I’m using “soldiers” loosely as “members of his unit.” That could be individuals, squads or whatever.
In the case of 30 soldiers, I’d have broken them down into 5 squads – five possible shot opportunities, five possible targets – just to keep it easy. And I would have used the Soldiers Under My Command rules on 506-507.
Check out page 626, One-Off NPCs. Also, check out the Anvil Lord trait on page 249 and the Hammer Lord trait on page 261. Those should answer the first question, but let me know if they don’t.
Secondly, you are correct. Each of those soldiers must get a shot opportunity first, and shots cannot take out the commander until they are gone. There is, however, one exception: Close Combat. Commanders are quite vulnerable to Close Combat, like everyone else.
OK. Except I think between you and Thor you’ve answered my questions. I remember in the future though.
The Anvil Lord trait sets the competency of your soldiers. Otherwise, it’s the GM’s call.
Interesting, neither commander had the Anvil Lord trait.
And no, not everyone of those soldiers need be killed before the commander goes down. The target of Direct Fire may choose who is hit. A craven commander may send his soldiers to die before him, but a brave commander will stand on the line with the rest of his men.
I’m taking that this can result in a conflict later, with the commander and his men? The mind percolates.
And I’m using “soldiers” loosely as “members of his unit.” That could be individuals, squads or whatever.
In the case of 30 soldiers, I’d have broken them down into 5 squads – five possible shot opportunities, five possible targets – just to keep it easy. And I would have used the Soldiers Under My Command rules on 506-507.
-Luke
Awe, that’s make it sound much more managable. I remember that for the future also. Like I said, you both have been really helpful. I’ll go back and re-read Firefight and the relevant sections, which should make more sense now that I’ve actually done it once. Thanks a lot, guys.
The best way to think of the map is as the agreed place for the fight for the purposes of narration. During this phase you are setting down what’s important and what’s not and agreeing to the space for the fight. This aids the narration of the actions considerably. It isn’t designed to be a tactical map.
Disposition is the same. It is the agreed end point of the fight as set down in the objective. It isn’t any form of hit points but a tool to aid the narration and form agreement as to when the battle ends.
As such, both the map and disposition are the agreed wireframes on which the players hang the narration.