Weight Advantage

TG9 rule, uses Change Posture at -4 to do.
Being on top means "full benefit" of being heavier and "no penalties" if lighter.
Being on bottom means "loses benefits" of weight differential and "still suffers penalties".
There is a less specified "middle" position where neither opponent has a WA. Due to the "still" above this implies both fighters suffer penalties AND bonuses as appropriate. They are like simultaneously atop each other and under each other, essentially.
WA may have been written when Cole conceptualized "heavier fighter" has the advantage.
Reading TG8 critically this is not the case: the advantage or disadvantage (bonus or penalty) does not have to do with relative weights alone, but rather how those weights compare to the lifting ST (and thus the Basic Lift derived from it) of the other grappler.
"Heavy" is a subjective description. GEM6 (GWM0) occurs with an opponent who is 6x your basic lift. The GEM determines "how heavy" a certain weight feels. 120lbs is GEM 6 to someone with BL20 (ST10) and 160lbs is GEM 5 to someone with BL 80 (ST20). Even though 160lbs is objectively "heavier" than 120lbs, 160lbs feels subjectively "lighter" to a ST20 person than 120lbs feels to a ST20 person (GEM 5 = GWM+1 v GEM 6 = GWM+0). Therefore if a ST20 person weighing 120lbs is grappling a ST10 person weighing 160lbs, the former is the "heavier" opponent and the latter is the "lighter" opponent, since what matters is not their absolute % weights in terms of mass on a planet, but how subjectively heavy they feel to that grappler, due to GWM (weight divided by Lifting ST-based BL) determining the bonuses or penalties applied via the GWM chart.
TG9's Mass-Based Moves mention that the GWM modifier applies to Break Free attempts. What this means is:
*characters suffer a penalty to break free against "heavy" (GEM>6) opponents they're "not on top" of (below or equal)
*characters enjoy a bonus to break free of "light" (GEM<6) opponents they're "not below" (atop or equal)
These modifiers only appear to apply to the DX-based "attack" roll but not the actual CP rolled by the attacker. They also do not appear to apply to the active defense roll that someone might use to oppose the Break Free attempt.
One reason for that is because it may not necessarily be easier to "parry" the squirming of a lighter opponent. Your ability to impede their motion may already represented by the CP you have established on them reducing their effective ST (they can't roll as high on their CP to reduce your grapple) as well as reducing their effective DX by the same % their ST was reduced (they can't roll as high to hit).
If that isn't felt to be enough, TG26's Muscling It allows a Brute Parry where it can be based on ST instead of DX. This is sort of like double-counting ST though, so it has fallen out of favor. Cole retroactively condemned his use of the Brute Parry.
Note: the ST/DX penalties of established CP mostly apply if using the grappled location itself to break free. For example: attacking with the left hand to break free of a grapple on that left hand. If using the right hand (not grappled) there would be no ST or DX penalties. This is why it is advantageous to grapple multiple locations, so non-grappled parts cannot aid grappled parts.
*This is also one of the major benefits of Pass Limb: once attaining maximum CP on a location, the limb(s) you are using to grapple it can be freed to attack and apply CP to other locations. This prevents the secondary location (ie left hand) from aiding the primary location (ie right hand).
**this is effectively a "consecutive pinning" approach. It wouldn't necessarily required COMPLETE pinning (ie reduce effective ST to 0) given that reduce ST to 1 or 2 is still pretty rough: this is 1d-6 thrust. It would require at least Committed Attack to get a +1 bonus to the CP rolled to have a (1 in 6) chance of removing CP from a grapple (merely 1). AOA: strong's +2 bonus has better odds (1 in 3) of subtracting CP.
A probably more balanced approached to CA/AOA is rather than adding a bonus (+1 or +1 per 2 die v +2 or +1 per die) to damage/CP rolls, instead they just consider striking ST or lifting ST to be 10% or 20% higher for that attack. This keeps things a bit less jumpy between those on the barrier of different dice amounts. It also better emulates the idea that those with ST reduced to 0 (in normal attack maneuver terms) could still break free by temporarily increasing their base ST, and thus "effective ST" by having a larger base to subtract CP penalties from.
Damage bonuses for high skill could also be approached in the same way. Higher Striking ST via skill really is the best approximation of what skill bonuses mean. That might not mean higher-speed punches (you would expect penalties to target the hand) or better-placed punches (that's what hit locations are for) but better-aligned punches, where a higher % of mass is applied at whatever the punch's speed is, due to skeletal rigidity and more of the "mass" being behind the punch.
HP as mass (behind a hit) however is also approached in using Slam-based damage for Move and Attack, so maybe Striking ST (and damage bonuses from high skill relative to DX) should only represent actual speed of hitting (whereas base DX is merely the accuracy)
Category:Advantages