As of late we've seen a lot of WB deaths of every high rankers more specifically 3 CL's including 2 GF's.

Its terrible to think that both Gaius and Asylum went before they were even able to establish a true indenity for themselves and their city.  Rickets the same thing, his reign as city head came much too soon.  Could we not give an additional opprotunity to survive the dreaded WB? 

If people can propose ideas/suggestions to this it would be awesome. 


Perhaps the return of the loss of 50 Bgs?  I mean those are extremely expensive to replace and would take over a month for most to replace especially at the rank as high as GF or even Don for that matter. 

Father Teq mentioned the loss of 50 kills instead of death which might be another alternative to dying.  Either way i think something needs to be done to combat the constant WBing dying that were seeing as of late.

Well you make some good points Mr. James but death is something that we face in the line of work we are in and its that risk you take everytime you pull the trigger. You know most of all that it happens before you have a chance to prove yourself.

Bodyguard's are a good choice because most bodyguards are purchased by somone elses money earned and not your own. Taking kill stats away is not really a good alternative because of the time that is put into them. It's not like your leader stacked you with kills when you where still a thug.

I consider wackback to be one of few things stopping people from being immortal. I would be very careful about changes in this area and think thoroughly about all pros and cons. So here are my thoughts for you to consider:

I understand that allowing for this ultimate wackback save would mean some people being able to train even better guns. This would be reserved only for those having enormous amounts of Bodyguards, though. So what would that mean for powerful people with 200+ BGs? Would it make them stronger, weaker or not matter at all?

Should it always be 50 BGs? If a person has 450 BGs, losing 50 doesn't hurt that much. They would still be Fuck-Me-Oh-So-Well Protected. For someone with 100 BGs this means being exposed to many guns out there. However, we could say the first guy paid much higher of an insurance cost and it's just how it should be.

If this is instead of death, the loss should be painful but proportional to what you would lose dying. Maybe the number of BGs killed should be dependant on the number of kills the person has or their age? Should a 20 days old hitter with 20 kills and 100 bodyguards lose half of his BGs? Isn't it the very situation in which the randomness of WB is the most irritating? If you die of wackback having 400 or 500 kills - that happens, you know what risk you were taking. It's all about maths. But for a fresh character, who just bought all those BGs, dying two weeks later, that sucks.

My biggest concern is if this change wouldn't make the most powerful people even more powerful while not affecting the small people at all. That is for you, dear mafiosi, to decide.

Giovanni you make a few good points, but 50 BGs is not an enormous amont, more often than not if a crew member has proven himself within a family, that member gets BG'd up with usually more than 50 Bgs.  I believe 200 Bgs is a pretty high number, and im not sure if any current member has close to that many, though im sure some might.  Going from 200 to 150 is the difference of defense of approximately 150 kills basically if not more.  If a person has 450 Bgs, i would like to meet that person and ask him how in his right mind he would be able to first off afford those BGs initially....on top of that the upkeep every 5 days would be about 30 million dollars...I assure you that number is grossly over exaggerated.  When you use an unrealistic number such as you have it seems only logical that 50 Bgs would be next to nothing to that person. When you use a more realistic number of say 125-150?  Which might be right around where most people range in BGS those 'IWP' 50 bgs is a huge hit....and not easily replaced, it might take a person months to replace them if they even have the ambition to do so. 

I dont think you can ever change the chance of WB, its going to inevitably happen, and only the gods can decide when that might happen, so in this case...50 BGs is 50 BGs whether your an earner or a GF.  As a lower ranker of 2 weeks you can easily get demoted and buy a few more, but as a Don or GF with likely a family, its impossible. 

Giovanni you suggest that this act would make the most powerful people more powerful? Lets not take the 50 BG penalty lightly, if i got hit with a 50 BG WB penality, i assure you it would prevent me from training my gun anymore(if my kills are at an reasonable amount)...On top of that i think the it would allow players to train a gun powerful enough gun to kill high ranking/long lasting people instead of giving them no chance and causing them to WB at 3-400 kills or even 500 where that amount isnt hardly enough to take out some of the top players.

Mrs-Doubtfire listens to the idea

Mr James bring across a good point to perhaps change this area of our world, as do the others.

Mrs-Doubtfire sighs..

However my dear, as we all know using our weapons comes with great risk. Every shot we take we do take the risk of a malfunction and every hitter knows that. Therefore I personally don't feel it should change because its a risk and it's a risk that many people are 'willing' to take.

Mrs-Doubtfire smile, turns around and pushes her glasses back up her nose. She then disapears into the distance

Isn't it still a risk even with alternative repercussions? Losing 50Bgs isn't exactly something to take lightly. There are also other measures that can be taken, it doesn't necessarily be 50 it could be a percentage such as 20percent.

Well the wack back protection that you are talking about only protects those members with bodygaurds and not the members that are not as fortunate. So saving the IWP powerfigures for example from a tragedy is more important than those with out them. Now what would happen if you did not have the bg count or percent to cover the wack back what would happen then?

Samson it would be simple...you would die.  The whole game is based off power and to achieve power you have to establish a reputation.  When you establish a good rep especially as a wacker youre CL will likely help you get BG'd up.  If you dont have BGs its not because 'nobody bought them for you' but instead its because you havent 'proven yourself'.  The majority of proven wackers that i know in any city, seems to be BG'd up or plans to be.

Yeah that's true you must be the best of the best but I guess when you have other perks involved you might not need the protection as I would. Then again your right you have to prove your self or your bloodline has been very trust worthy to gain the status that most have.

Yeah i guess you've helped me make my point.  By the looks of it since im an IWP RHm and youre an unprotected RHM yeah.  I think my argument definitely holds up.  So thank you for that champ.

Yeah I guess you did make your point, but at least you know what I'm talking about.

The way I understand how the wackback works:


100% voting score: 25% save
Limit of (1) bodyguard: Additional 50% save
Defensive answers that trigger another roll: 50%
Police wackback death bribe: 50%


Seriously? The cards are already vastly stacked in favor of you surviving a wackback. Apparently, it only becomes a concern when the largest accounts with the most noticeable losses fall to them.

Mrs-Doubtfire catches what Solastalgia said

That is a perfect point my dear. Mr James I understand there is still a risk even if losing your BG's was a risk. However as Solastalgia has said.. There are already plenty enough to save you, if all that fails when then my dear it's just one of those unlucky things. It's apart of the way we do our thing my dear and I still don't see any reason to add yet 'another' way to save us.

Mrs-Doubtfire smiles and takes a deep breath

When I was a child and even before that.. there wasn't this many chances of saving you back then and dying only occured very rarely, and yes you can say there is more to shoot now then there was back then. However the risk of shooting is that you can die. Our gods have graced us with the multiple chances of being saved and I personally feel that we have too many ways of being saved. Therefore I will stick by what I say and that is you bring across a good point however I don't feel it is needed.

Mrs-Doubtfire pushes her glasses up her nose

Luck Sir. Luck is a major part of our lives. The luckier you are with your gun the better your chances. The unlucky don't fare so well. Its the way our world spins.