How many Takers does a mob of casualties attack?

[Dr_NANO]

Under Casualties in combat on p. 297 it says that when a Mobs Shamble reaches 1, they attack the character they just reached.

What if there are more than one character?
Is one chosen at random?
Or can a mob attack all characters they reach?

Essentially, how many attacks does a mob have?

[LordSkys]

A mob itself has one attack; since the mob functions as a single entity in combat, and they all focus on one enemy. That being said, it can make sense if you house rule that mobs automatically peel if they are within one shamble of multiple Takers. That would still mean that each taker is only attacked once though

[Diskhotep]

I use a kind of floating grid system with tokens to track takers, mobs, and shambles, similar to the negotiation tracker. As mobs move inexorably closer and Takers move forward and back on the grid depending on their actions, eventually tokens will meet up (at which point melee begins in earnest). If multiple takers are at the same position when the mob arrives, I split the mob evenly between them and let the takers divide up any remaining casualties amongst themselves (assigned before rolls).

Mobs added to the scene later (due to Loud weapon use or something similar) focus entirely on the character who pulled them unless another taker uses their action to peel them or draw them away.

My personal rule is if a taker is attacked by a mob of three or less I assign the extra casualties as damage; four or more will cause knockback. This can change due to the circumstances of the attack, but it's helpful for me to have a basic rule of thumb going into a combat so I'm not being completely arbitrary.

[Khargan]

This is a rather.. Insidious rule, as it hides under the frenzy section, but it (sort of) answers the question: (page 298) "However, a comrade that comes to assist with a melee weapon exposes themself to the same frenzy, and mobs with more than one mass can easily split attacks". No further explanation is given, but presumably, for example, a Mass 8 mob can attack two takers in range, with +3 damage on each attack.

Under Casualties in combat on p. 297 it says that when a Mobs Shamble reaches 1, they attack the character they just reached.

The way the start of "Casualties in Combat" is phrased is very misleading, but actually, mobs will first attack the round after they reach shambles 1. See page 297, at the top: With shambles 3, a mob will attack at the end of third round. Round 1: Move to shambles 2. Round 2: Move to shambles 1. Round 3: Attack. The Example Casualty Encounter on page 300 also supports this.

I think it's unfortunate that the rulebook uses "just reached" on page 297, as it apparently doesn't refer to the same round the movement happened, but the round before. In some sense it's true the mob just reached shambles 1, but still, rather confusing choice of words.

[Diskhotep]

The way the start of "Casualties in Combat" is phrased is very misleading, but actually, mobs will first attack the round after they reach shambles 1. See page 297, at the top: With shambles 3, a mob will attack at the end of third round. Round 1: Move to shambles 2. Round 2: Move to shambles 1. Round 3: Attack. The Example Casualty Encounter on page 300 also supports this.

I think it's unfortunate that the rulebook uses "just reached" on page 297, as it apparently doesn't refer to the same round the movement happened, but the round before. In some sense it's true the mob just reached shambles 1, but still, rather confusing choice of words.

It can be a bit tricky for new players, especially ones who are more familiar with RPGs where moving isn't really considered to be an action, or is wrapped into the action economy in such a way that it doesn't quite seem like it is. As far as casualties go, I remind players that they get only one action each round, so if they moved this round they don't get to attack until next round.

[Dadalos]

As far as casualties go, I remind players that they get only one action each round, so if they moved this round they don't get to attack until next round.

This is super important (And something we admittedly missed in our first run through) otherwise you have the endless kite where in  C's become less of a threat then they are meant to be. the one sticking point is still adjudicating when there's no more room to run  .

[Dr_NANO]

I was sure I read that mobs could split their attacks somewhere! I think it was a bit weird that for example 10 casualties would absolutely maim/kill (+9 to damage) one Taker/round instead of attacking all avalaible meat.

However I do think you are mistaken about when Mobs attack. P. 297 specifies that if R3 is rolled, casualties will attack at the end of round 3 (if the Takers have not moved away or killed all casualties).

In the example on p 300 B7R2 is rolled and so Teapot gets to act two times before the casualty mob reaches him and bites him in the thigh. You might have misread, R2 is rolled, not R3.

[Khargan]

However I do think you are mistaken about when Mobs attack. P. 297 specifies that if R3 is rolled, casualties will attack at the end of round 3 (if the Takers have not moved away or killed all casualties).

See page 297, at the top: With shambles 3, a mob will attack at the end of third round. Round 1: Move to shambles 2. Round 2: Move to shambles 1. Round 3: Attack.

We both refer to the same explanation, and as such I am not entirely sure what you mean by me being mistaken about when mobs attack. My short added event tracker shows that the mob does not attack the same round it moves into shambles 1 range, which is contrary to the idea that they attack as soon as they reach shambles 1.

What I meant by "the example also supports this" was not that it is the same number of shambles (3 versus 2), but that it demonstrates that the mob doesn't attack immediately when entering range Shambles 1. The attack happens the following round. Take note of this sentence from the example, after the first round has concluded: "The next round starts with the mob down to 5 zombies, one turn away (5M/1S)". The mob reached shambles 1 at the end of round 1, but didn't attack. The attack will happen at the end of round 2.

[Dr_NANO]

If you read on from "The next round starts with the mob down to 5 zombies, one turn away (5M/1S)" it goes like this:
Teapot declares full offense and attacks but misses.
Kill hits with her attack, and sprays reducing the mob to B3/R1.
Teapot gets to attack with his twitch because of full offense at the end of the round but before casualties (as casualties are always after humans/Vectors), and kill two reducing the mob to B1/R1.
Then the mob  bites Teapot in the thigh.

So they act at the end of round 2.

[Khargan]

If you read on from "The next round starts with the mob down to 5 zombies, one turn away (5M/1S)" it goes like this:
Teapot declares full offense and attacks but misses.
Kill hits with her attack, and sprays reducing the mob to B3/R1.
Teapot gets to attack with his twitch because of full offense at the end of the round but before casualties (as casualties are always after humans/Vectors), and kill two reducing the mob to B1/R1.
Then the mob  bites Teapot in the thigh.

So they act at the end of round 2.

I am confused as to how this contradicts what I am saying. Are you still advocating that the mobs attack the same round they reach shambles 1? In the example the mob reaches shambles 1 at the end of round 1. They do not reach shambles 1 in round 2, that has already happened at the end of round 1.

[Dr_NANO]

I think we are on the same page about when the attack happens just not when Shambles goes down. I just let it follow the round number.

But it plays the same way.

[Khargan]

I see! Whether the shamble adjustment happens at the end of the round or at the start of the next round is indeed of little consequence as long as we agree on when the attack happens.