Does the Cutter special ability Leader apply both when you give orders to a gang with Command and when you lead a group action alongside a gang rolling the appropriate ability?
The description of how you use a cohort draws a distinction between Command and leading the group, which the text of Leader adheres to, but the explanation of the ability in the Cutter section of the book indicates it is effective with group actions, too.
My common sense reading is that it should work for Commanding and fighting alongside them, but perhaps this restriction in wording is intentional?
The texts in question:
The Cutter special ability Leader says:
“When you Command [emphasis in original] a cohort in combat, they continue to fight when they would otherwise break (they’re not taken out when they suffer level 3 harm). They gain +1 effect and 1 armor.”
Using a Cohort on page 97 says,
“Or, a PC can oversee the maneuver by leading a group action. If you direct the cohort with orders, roll Command. If you participate in the action alongside the cohort, roll the appropriate action.”
Against that we have the expanded description of Leader in the Cutter section:
“This ability makes your cohorts more effective in battle and also allows them to resist harm by using armor. When you lead your cohorts, they won’t stop fighting until they take fatal harm (level 4) or you order them to cease. What do you do to inspire such bravery in battle?
For details about cohorts, see page 96.”
I can’t speak for what the official intention of the ability as designed was, but I’d rule that it could be used while literally Command -ing, or while leading the group in the action. It’s a Cutter ability, and most Cutters are probably going to be the types to want to get involved in fights. Plus, I think it’d just feel a little lame to be forced to stay out of the action in order to benefit from an ability like that.
I tend to think if a more generous interpretation of an ability or rule isn’t obviously broken or unfair, you might as well let the player go with it and feel that much more badass for it.
I’m with Brock.
Brock McCord Yeah, my instinct too. I’m just wondering if there’s any reason to go the other way.
It is a strange distinction it seems to be making. It seems purposeful. I have no idea what the purpose is.
Ben Barnett I see what you mean, but as you say, I can’t see any clear purpose to making the distinction.
I think the intention is to improve your cohorts’ combat power. When you participate in a battle action alongside the cohort I think the GM should take into account this fact in order to establish position and effect.
Unless I am completely derping what’s going on here, doesn’t Leader simply make your cohorts more resilient (+1 armor) and more proficient (+1 effect) when you’re directly Commanding them? Put simply, it makes leading cohorts in a group action with Command more powerful. Or am I glazing over the problem?
Ben Barnett
“My common sense reading is that it should work for Commanding and fighting alongside them, but perhaps this restriction in wording is intentional?”
This also gets sticky when you are trying to define what “fighting alongside” actually means in the fiction. You might send in cohorts to brawl with melee weapons but have your PC sit back at a distance with pistols picking off distracted targets.
The distinction seems clear to me- it applies when you Command them.
Mark Cleveland Massengale The description in the Leader section uses the more general term that encompasses both Commanding and fighting alongside them.
Is there a reason to make the playbook most oriented towards getting in the thick of things stand back in the back and shout instructions instead of wading in, when the ability details indicate the broader meaning?
If the details didn’t use the more general wording, it’d be open and shut.
Omari Brooks That’s my wording, not Harper’s. He said “lead your cohorts,” which the section on cohorts makes clear means either using Command or participating in the action alongside them.
If you’re shooting from a distance while they’re in the scrap, you’re not Skirmishing. If you’re doing a different action, you’re not alongside them. That part seems clear to me.
Ben Barnett
If you lead a group action, with Command, you aren’t rolling an action rating at all you’re rolling Command plus the cohort/gang tier AND you aren’t required to participate at all.
pg. 134 “You can also lead your crew’s cohorts with a group action. Roll Command if you direct their efforts, or roll the appropriate action rating if you participate alongside them. The cohort rolls its quality level.”
So back to my example you lead a group action with Command for cohorts to melee and then take a separate action to pick off targets from a distance; it was never implied the shooting was lumped in with the Command roll to lead. A Skirmish roll is unnecessary.
I see what you see. But you may be reading too deeply into that one word to “see past the trees to the forest.”
The extended text can hardly avoid the general term “lead” given the name of ability is Leader. The fact it calls out a particular action in the ability should be clarification enough. But then there is all the rest:
* ability’s name itself
* the extended text (with the prompt about how they might “inspire such bravery”)
* the fact that teamwork rules call out leading with orders being Command vs leading while participating.
All this tells me the ability rewards those who lead cohorts with orders, which would not apply if the PC failed to roll Command.
PS: this isn’t preventing the fiction you think should happen. Nothing says you can’t then fight alongside them after the Command, but to get them their armor and drive to fight past level-3 harm, they will first need the Cutter’s orders.
Mark Cleveland Massengale
On reflection, I’m forced to agree.
You can Skirmish alongside them later, sure, but that will be an independent move of your own, in a different context.
The success of your Cohort in its action is determined by the roll of your Command dice and its own dice as determined by quality and Tier.
By the time you can wade into it after Commanding, the Cohort’s success or failure is already established – unless it involves multiple rolls somehow.
Most Special Abilities are contingent on a certain restriction to a given situation or action. This does read like it’s for the Cutter who is a commander, not just a bruiser. I think that’s what I’ll go with.
Ben Barnett +Mark Cleveland Massengale
I see the logic here and definitely think this is a fair reading, I’ll just bring up a small issue I could see with this, depending on the focus of the scene.
Having to Command the cohort, only to immediately join them in a Skirmish seems like it may be a level of minutiae that bogs the game down unnecessarily. If the Cutter is effectively leading from the front, intending to fight alongside them in whatever melee, and there are rules for leading a cohort in the action they’re performing, why not just use the one Skirmish roll?
Commanding the cohort and then Skirmishing personally implies to me that you’re making some distinction between the cohort’s fight and your own. Is there some distinguished commander on the enemy side that the Cutter intends to duel personally? Is the spotlight going to focus in on this one-on-one fight taking place amidst the bigger battle? Then this distinction makes sense.
If the Cutter is only trying to drive off an anonymous enemy force with his cohort, I still don’t see the harm in moving the action along with the one Skirmish roll to determine the outcome of the entire scene from a more bird’s eye view, unless there’s some value in directly incentivizing having a decent Command score alongside your good Skirmish score. You can still assume they have the same capacity for command as they would in the other situation, without drawing the scene out with extra rolls.
Brock McCord
“If the Cutter is effectively leading from the front, intending to fight alongside them in whatever melee, and there are rules for leading a cohort in the action they’re performing, why not just use the one Skirmish roll?”
Or the PC is using their minions in a setup action for +1 effect or improved position when they join the fray with Skirmish.
As per the example for set up on pg. 135 the cohorts could be softening the target up for finishing blows by the PC.
It could be as simple as the cohorts are preventing the target(s) from leaving, through melee combat, and then the PC catches up only to push through the circle of cohorts to finish the job themselves.
Can confirm solid combo (I saw a player use) is: teamwork Command (triggering Leader) + Survey (gather info + Bodyguard) as setup action, into follow-up teamwork Skirmish + fighting with armored/inspired cohorts.
I am actually kind of scared of when the crew realizes.. they could play around this and take Blood Brothers. For another +1d for their cohorts during teamwork actions; the PC and their cohorts will feel nigh-invincible.
Mark Cleveland Massengale As the player of a Cutter who went specifically for this kind of build for a group of Bravos; it went beautifully. My Tycherosi known as Smiles was a terror and a group of Thug/Skulks with Fearsome/Loyal were used like a sledgehammer covered in scalpels.