I've seen this noted several times as a save-ass measure when tactically outnumbered or overwhelmed. Can people provide some specific examples of how these would work in play? I don't remember much from the corebook, which I don't have handy at the moment. I seem to recall a table of terrain modifiers, but "rolls" sounds like something you actually roll dice for, which is confusing me. Help?

The basic terrain roll deals with fighting on difficult terrain.

You have to take a number of dice from your pool (representing decreased effectiveness due to footing) and roll against a TN determined by the type of terrain. You choose how many dice you want to use (how careful you want to be) and failure indicates something nasty.

You can then use the Terrain Roll for a variety of "special effects" which are not explicitly outlined in the rules.

Such as "How do I maneuver around this tree so that only one of these two enemies can attack me and the other one gets blocked."

Answer...call it a terrain roll, set a difficulty and the player chooses how many dice he wants to spend to try and pull it off.

Stephen,

The deal is that certain terrain requires you to make a terrain roll. The type of terrain sets the difficulty. You take dice from your combat pool and roll - if you get a success, you're fine, but if not, the remainder of your combat pool is halved.

There's a great rule that allows you to use terrain to keep multiple opponents away. If attacked by two or more opponents, you can make a terrain roll to put something between you and all of them but one, evening out the odds.

These rules made one of my favorite fights in my Riddle of Steel game - a fight at night in the rain on board two flotsam rafts in the middle of the ocean - dead easy to run as a GM, but totally fun, as characters kept failing terrain rolls. One NPC critically failed his and went tumbling into the ocean.

BTW, the terrain roll for the multiple opponents doesn't require Ralph's tree (not that he meant that, but some might interperet it that way). Instead, if we have A and B attacking Z, then Z maneuvers such that B is between him and A, thus leaving only B able to attack Z. This can be done in the open, apparently, a fact verified by the ARMA guys.

It's intuitive that it would work to me, it just sounds very difficult. Certainly it has to be easier when in cramped quarters for the attackers...

Also, I've thought that it also has to be easier against uncoordinated foes. That is, if the multiple attackers are communicating well, and take their time approaching well, it should be very difficult for the defender to maneuver out of it (though more easy for him to evade). If players wanted to use this sort of thing, I'd probably allow a tactics roll to create a penalty for the defender. All attackers would roll, and the penalty would be based on the worst roll.

I can think of other cases where teamwork rolls would pay off.

Mike

multiple attackers have to coordinate well in a melee, its a dangerous situation for them and more difficult then one on one fighting since you have to worry about hitting your buddy and moving in conjunction with him etc.
An analogy from my fathers coaching expirements illustrates this. During a corner kick situation my father called back all of his players at once but one and only that one went in to recieve the kick and head it into the goal, because of the difficulty of 10 men covering one the single player was able to score. They werent able to match up as fluidly as they could have on a one on one scale basically.

In ARMA practice I find it much more difficult to maneuver to keep up with the single opponent when I am with a group than to maneuver as that single opponent against that group.

I would agree A, but I'm not seeing what that pertains to. Is this a justification for allowing such rolls? Or would you advocate making these sorts of Terrain rolls easier for the single defender?

Mike

The only issue with terrain rolls (for me) is whether to allow them to NPC's as well, and how they may be countered.

If two players are attacking a single NPC, should he be allowed to make a terrain roll to only fight one of them this round? I say "yes" but you should hear the players complain when it happens! :-)

What about anti-terrain rolls? If a player can make a terrain roll to maneuver so that only one of the three NPC's facing him is actually involved this round, shouldn't the other NPC's be allowed to make terrain rolls of their own to counter this? I tend to lean towards "yes" but the problem is that it usually results in the lone fighter dying, since the multiple opponents can afford to spend more dice on a terrain roll than him since they have more "pooled" (if you get my meaning). Players hate this idea until it's three of them fighting a single, powerful NPC...

I know this has been discussed before, but not to my satisfaction.

Any thoughts?

Brian.

I think the countering terrain rolls idea is most accurate. But I'd also then agree with Ashren that the multiple team should get a penalty. Which is what would make the maneuver worthwhile.

Mike

I guess my precog was left on again, my post was primarily discussing the issue brought up in following posts..... anyways the point is that you can move around the multiple opponents to face one easier than they can counter maneuver. Its a bitch to coordinate basically. Thus my preference for the terrain roll being either unopposed or opposed at much higher cost needing successes from ALL the multiple opponents. If one fails then the whole dang coordinated attack is FUBARed. Does that clarify? I will try to leave the precog off in the future.

Perhaps then you'd throw in Mike's Tactic roll? All characters within the group who succeed can attempt to counter-maneuver.

thats a great Idea, and if someone wants to lead he can use his leadership skill to provide bonus dice for successes to his buddies roles. And would battle be more appropriate in a mass melee? This line of thought has potential.....

How long do most of you allow the terrain roll to "last"? Does a single terrain roll against two opponents mean that I never have to worry about them ganging up on me again? Do I need to roll each round to keep one of them "terrain blocked"?

Every round, I say.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Every round, I say.

Of course, play your cards right, and there might be no need for continuing beyond the first round. For instance, break the leader's collarbone in the first strike, and his lackeys may have less desire to come to grips with you, and a good reason (taking leader to the chirurgeon) not to.

Brian Leybourne wrote: The only issue with terrain rolls (for me) is whether to allow them to NPC's as well, and how they may be countered.

If two players are attacking a single NPC, should he be allowed to make a terrain roll to only fight one of them this round? I say "yes" but you should hear the players complain when it happens! :-)

What about anti-terrain rolls? If a player can make a terrain roll to maneuver so that only one of the three NPC's facing him is actually involved this round, shouldn't the other NPC's be allowed to make terrain rolls of their own to counter this? I tend to lean towards "yes" but the problem is that it usually results in the lone fighter dying, since the multiple opponents can afford to spend more dice on a terrain roll than him since they have more "pooled" (if you get my meaning). Players hate this idea until it's three of them fighting a single, powerful NPC...

I know this has been discussed before, but not to my satisfaction.

Any thoughts?

Brian.