I've been studying the example at the bottom of page 70/top of page 71 in the rule book, which shows two shock troopers (which draw from a master component), which are each additionaly have Squadx3, the suggesting their are for members in each squad (one for the role, an additional one for each x).

Now each squad gets one die for its role, plus four more dice drawn from its master components for a total of five. Times two squads, that is ten dice. The group traits are then invoked to add six more dice, three from each. 16 total.

Now the interesting thing here is that you could also consider that each invidual shock trooper gets to draw dice from its master component, making the total 5 x 4 = 20 for each squad, 40 total.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the cost of buying Shock Trooper Squad plus Squad x 3 is identical to buying four separate Shock Troopers, which *would* each get to draw dice from the master component separately.

Now it could also be argued that the choice to have one squad with squadx3 was a deliberate choice to make them less effective that buying four Shock Troopers for the same price.

What is the current wisdom on the interaction between Group traits and Master Components?

Excellent question.

The "official" (as in not rule gimmicked) rule is that each component can only draw upon its traits once. A subcomponent is considered to have all of the traits of the master exactly as if they were their own (except for Importance purposes). Thus, since a group is technically a single component with a group trait, the group (as a single component) can only draw on the Traits once, not once for each member.

This is indeed for the primary purpose of the quick invention of and dealing with "mooks", so the lesser effectiveness is intentional.

Also it should be noted that there does not necessarily need to be a 1:1 relationship between actual numbers and the Group Trait. Unfortuneately both my examples using the Group Trait have a 1:1 relationship, but the actual rule on page 36 does indicate that this is not necessary. Groupx3 could represent a mob, while Groupx6 could represent an even bigger mob. Further Group x6 might not simply be twice as big as Group x3. It might be orders of magnitude larger, especially if individual "heros" are the opponents, there is a limit to how many members of a huge mob would actually be a threat at once.

The Slytheran Shock Troopers are actually very nasty Components with 9 combat related traits. I've found that the number of Traits assigned to Components varies wildly between groups and even between games. I've now played in games where major characters only have 2-3 Traits for the entire game. In such a game, the Slytheran Shock Troopers might only have a Role of "Shock Trooper" and little else, to keep the relative Traits at par.

One difference between having several individual Master Components and 1 big Group is how they are eliminated. In this case both 4 individual shock troopers and the 1 Group have an Importance of 4, meaning it takes 4 Coins to eliminate them.

In play however 1 Coin would kill 1 individual Shock Trooper causing a loss of his 10 dice. 1 Coin would only reduce the Group Trait by 1 for the Group causing a loss of only 1 Coin. In this example because there are so many traits being drawn from the Master Component at once the advantage (for maximum die pool) is still with the individual members method.

Further, if Bob had gone the individual route and tried for 40 dice, the most likely result would have been a Challenge forceing him to use the Group rules, as that would have been much cheaper for the target Players than trying to buy 40 dice to oppose him with.

Yeah, always challenge the creation of individuals from Master Components if they are not meant to have individual significance. Sure, if the player really intends to flesh out each of the four members of the squad, then, by all means, make each an individual. But if they are simply intended as a group threat, or to be treated as an organic entity, then just go with a group trait.

To reiterate, the line between using these rules should be drawn at a point where the intent is either to make an actual character, or to have the group act as an entity itself. Are you creating a character? Or are you creating an army? If the former, create an individual, if the latter, make a group. The key is that individuals are, well, individual enough that they might not all react to a situation the same way. Shock Trooper #3 if really an individual (first, he should have a name) might decide that he's had enough with the opressors and is going to throw in with the rebels. If he's been created to be a threat in this complication, then obviously he's not enough of an individual to be created separately.

Now, as to whether you believe the builder ("Oh, yeah, I'm going to describe each of these orcs in detail ; once they've all been killed in this Complication"), that's going to take judgement and use of the Challenge mechanic when neccessary.

This principle is neccessary and extrapolable. Do you create every organ of the character as separate entities? No? But they're all individual parts of his anatomy. I mean certainly you could enumerate the character's spleen as though it were equipment. But to what end? If you don't intend to use the spleen as an agent for change in the story in an individual sense, then it's just part of the charater. Hence you can give a character a Trait like Atomic Shotgun (thanks Sean!). You don't have to build the shotgun separately if it's organic to the character and how he solves problems, and isn't really intended to ever have a life of it's own. The One Ring, OTOH, definitely is it's own Component.

So that's the very general rule. Something is only separate from other things to the extent that it is to have a separate effect on play. As long as it's organic to something else, it's just a Trait. Hence a member of a squad is just part of the Squadx3 Trait. And Ralph if he wants can create a Demonic Spleen Component that drives the character it inhabits with a mind of it's own. There is no "logical" point of division in terms of in-game relationship. Only the metagame needs of the players determines linkage.

Allowing players to create characters (or any other elements including equipement and lots of such stuff) that are never intended to make a substantive individual addition to the story is, to me, allowing them to litter the game. At the end you look back and see all this unresolved detritus that needent ever have been created a separate stuff in the first place. Keep your game tight. Can something be introduced as a Trait of something else? Then do it that way. Only if that does not make sense should you make that thing a Component.

This all said, there are Sim style stories that will demand more Components than others. As always the group judgement will decide what's appropriate.

I talked a bit about this same subject, actually in the last Uni game played online, and then again last night as we played. It's really got this all right in my head, and tonight I'm going to see just how creative I can get with master components.

Sorry to ramble but this has all just become very clear to me in the past few days.

Mike

Thanks for the clarification of intent guys. Based on what you said then, I wonder about another thing that has been happening with groups in our games. And that is, frequently, after a group of Thugsx3 is introduced, another player will "break off" one Thug and detail him/her as a leader or color character. To do this, we've just been demoting the x trait to Thugx2 and starting a new Thug card with no coins paid. Is this acceptable, or should a coin be paid for the act of separating a member of a group into its own component?

I just realized one other important difference between a Shock Troop Squad with Squad x 3 vs Trooper/Trooper/Trooper/Trooper. Once created, the Squad can be introduced or taken over for only one coin, where as multiple Troopers would be more expensive. Thus the TOC (Total Cost of Ownership) of a Squad is lower, which jives with its reduced effectiveness :)

Yeah, the lower cost/effectiveness is entirely intentional. How effective are a whole bay of stormtroopers in chasing down Han Solo? Not very. But one Greedo is worth a whole Complication all by himself.

The busting off thing should be OKed with a Gimmick, as it's non-standard. But sounds OK to me in general terms, and for smaller groups.

But like Ralph said, for a large group, one guy won't affect the level of the Trait. So, play it by ear as far as that goes. For really big groups, the individual should be paid for with an extra coin leaving the the original group effectively intact. An Endless Troopsx7 army of goblins shouldn't become Endless Troopsx6 just because one left.

This assumes that the Army was created from a Master Component in the first place. In which case you're just creating an instance of the Master Component and using the army for rationalization. If there is no Master Component, and you want to break off a member, then essentially you're declaring the army to be a Master Component. In which case you might want to pay to make it so.

Up to you, really; this is getting into some fine details. But it is good to have it delineated in your gimmick.

Mike

Mike's got everything pretty nailed down. I think his opening post above would make a great essay for the website (hint hint Mr. "Its really got this all right in my head) :-)

One thing I did want to mention about the breaking off aspect. I'd have no problem conceptually with breaking off a guy from a group like you've done...but I would be VERY careful about how that new Component inherits Traits.

For instance if you start with:

Thug
Posse O' Thugs x3
Brass Knuckles
Bad Attitude
Can take a beating

You've paid 7 Coins. If you break one of these thugs off by themselves for free, and allow them to automatically come with Brass Knuckles, Bad Attitude, and Can take a beating as Traits automatically, you've essentially picked up 3 Coins worth of dice for free. I would not allow this to happen without Challenge. I would say that the thug could be broken off but those 3 traits would have to be bought seperately. Alternatively, the above set of Traits could be set up as a Master Component and then the broken off thug COULD get those Traits "for free" but this would be as part of the standard Master and Sub rules which would leave him with an Importance of only 1 instead of 4.

And Mike is entirely correct when he points out that if Posse of Thugs x3 actually represents a couple of dozen goons in your game, that the broken off guy would not reduce it to x2, and should just be paid for normally with just description indicating that he was "one of the gang".

Valamir wrote: Mike's got everything pretty nailed down. I think his One thing I did want to mention about the breaking off aspect. I'd have no problem conceptually with breaking off a guy from a group like you've done...but I would be VERY careful about how that new Component inherits Traits.