Facing and Passing

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I don't think this is Kamikaze Orc. I think the Orc recognizes going toe to toe with the Knight will end badly for him. If he and the Knight have the same movement speed' date=' what are the odds the PC Knight will let the Orc escape (and maybe bring back reinforcements and/or set an ambush) rather than chase it and kill it? If the Orc surrenders, what is the likely result? So the Orc concludes its best option is to threaten the Princess - even if that carries a risk if the Knight is actively defending.[/quote']

 

 

How does the orc know the knight has the same movement speed? Why would the orc think he'd be more likely to successfully get past the knight than he would to back up out of reach (combat move backwards) and then on his next phase, if the knight continues to guard the princes, turn and run?

 

 

I'd suggest the Orc should have similar knowledge of his own capabilities.

 

 

Sure. However, he doesn't necessarily know the knight's.

 

 

And I don't think most people know precisely how much ground they can cover in 2 seconds, or exactly how far they can reach or throw something. We're spoiled by the hexes we can count. That said, they can approximate fairly well, and more experience means better approximations.

 

 

Actually, by my own experiences with fencing, judo and kickboxing, I have a very good idea of how much distance I can cover and make a successful attack with either fist, foot, grab or foil. So did the other people I've competed against and various experts I've read on the subject. I may be wrong if the other guy is faster than I am but that's simulated by varying DCV levels and rolling the dice.

 

 

Do Knights know nothing about Orcs, and Orcs know nothing about Knights? Somewhere between reading each other's character sheets and complete mystery lies their actual and perceived knowledge.

 

 

The knight may know about orcs in general and vice verse. However, unless they've encountered each other before, they won't know each others' specific capabilities. They might be able to infer things about each other via observation of how they move, but that's what Analyze Combat Technique is for.

 

 

Absolutely - and I think if that option is presented, the orc who would otherwise make a desperation play for the Princess should run. Is that option available, or will the Knight chase him down (in the orc's mind, whoch is probably more relevant to his decision than any actual intent of the knight). What do knights normally do when confronted with Orcs?

 

 

Setting dependent. However, if the orc backs away and the knight continues to stick by the princess to protect her, it's a pretty good bet the orc will make a run for it. Or do you propose that the knight should get a free attack while the orc is backing away?

 

 

I don't believe anything in MPA allows the character to attack in HTH when a number of characters not all in HTH range attack him.

 

 

Again, how would you handle the very common genre trope of a single hero cutting down multiple charging foes as each comes into range other than as a held action into a Multi-Attack?

 

 

We also have to read the Guard an Area rules, which state:

 

 

If anyone moves into or through that area, the character may use his Held Action to attack that character, who only has ½ DCV against the attack. (Of course, making that attack uses up the character’s Held

Action, so someone else could then move through the guarded area without risk.)

 

 

It doesn't say "you could instead choose a multiple attack to attack each creature passing through the area in sequence". As such, I don't believe assuming a multiple attack is a viable option in this situation is automatic. It is an interpretation of the combination of a caution sign optional rule and a caution sign combat maneuver. I agree it's one viable interpretation. I do not agree it's the only one.

 

 

So long as you agree that it's a reasonable interpretation, it's no big deal. Some prior posts (I can't say for certain they were yours) seemed to imply that I was reading more into the rules than could possibly be there.

 

 

Sorry, I must have been unclear. I'm referring to the +1m provided by the Guard an Area choice itself. The Knight can guard a 2 meter area, when his reach would typically be 1 meter. That medium weapon adds another meter, so he can guard an area 3 meters in radius when he could normally only attack a target 2 meters away. It's the additional meter provided by Guard an Area that I interpret as a lunge to get to the extreme edge of the guarded area. It seems a bit over the top to suggest the Knight can attack targets 3 meters away in three different directions when he could normally only reach targets 2 meters away. If the Orcs are all within 2 meters, except one that's 3 meters away, I'd give that to the Knight and let him have one lunge.

 

 

A more restrictive interpretation of Guarding an Area than I would use but not unreasonable. Depending on genre, I might even agree with it. The more larger-than-life the heroes are supposed to be, the more lenient I tend to be with such rule ambiguities. So, in a high-fantasy Tolkien-esque game, I'd allow it. In a more grim and gritty Leiber-esque setting, I'd probably require a DEX roll as a "test of your reflexes". In a mud-and-pox George RR Martin-eque setting, I'd go by what you wrote above.

 

 

But many posters suggest common and dramatic sense oppose "the orc can walk by with no chance of failure as long as the Knight does not have an action available to stop him".

 

 

Hence this conversation. I disagree with that point of view, and I point out that disagreement as being the basis for my interpretation of the rules to show that my ideas do have a logical basis. Even if you don't agree with that basis, I feel it best to show that I'm not just coming up with ideas in a vacuum. If fundamental premises, such as how easy it is to recover from a committed attack and how difficult it is to move past someone after such, cannot be agreed upon, there is no way to reach a consensus on exactly what rules are or are not needed in the system.

 

 

Again, "slip past" implies "chance of failure" and "breeze past" implies "cannot fail". That's the perceptual; difference, IMO.

 

 

It is a matter of personal perception. I interpret "breeze past" as being closer to Non-Combat Movement than you apparently do and you seem interpret "slip past" as being more hesitant and 'clumsy' (for lack of a better term) than I do. Of course, my interpretation of your use of "breeze past" or "walk past" is somewhat compounded by your description of the orc giving the knight a kiss on the way. While I'd guess that you were exaggerating for effect, it does imply a very distinct difference in how we both envision two people fighting in general.

 

 

Why can't the orc take advantage of the knight's need to recover from the swing to make a counterattack with an enhanced likelihood of success? Nothing else in the rules imposes any disadvantage on a character whose attack has missed, other than the fact that he missed. As such, I don't see it reasonable to assert the knight is disadvantaged/off balance due to the missed attack.

 

 

I never said he was disadvantaged/off balance. The only disadvantage the knight suffers is that he is already committed to an action and the orc takes advantage of that as a reaction. People don't instantly recover from a committed attack (i.e. a non-feint). There is some lag, even without the added inertia of 3-4 pounds of steel at the limit of your reach. As to the orc's counter-attack, the knight actually does have a minor disadvantage in that the he cannot now abort to Dodge, Block or any other defensive action, nor can he shift Combat Skill Levels to be more defensive. That seems a reasonable enough indicator that the knight is at least mildly 'off-balance' after his attack.

 

 

This assumes that dodging the knight's attack while moving towards the knight was viable.

 

 

Actually, dodging diagonally forward is a very common tactic, especially when dealing with longer weapons as you're safer inside someone's reach than you are staying at his optimal range. In boxing, it's referred to as 'slipping' the punch.

 

 

If the Orc was moving sideways and/or backwards to avoid being struck, he also needs to shift his momentum. Why is it so much easier for him to do so?

 

 

Because of where your center of gravity typically is when making an attack. Any committed attack will shift your center of gravity slightly off-balance in order to generate more power, making it take more time to recover. The more committed you are (especially if you over-commit), the longer it takes to recover. Moving without attacking, however, tends to keep your center of balance positioned more centrally. It's still possible to over-commit simply moving but it's less likely than when you're using your momentum to drive an attack through an actual target.

 

 

[snip of relplies to MarDoc's post]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

True ... up to a point. As noted' date=' if they are coming to him, he can whack them one after the other. Where they [b']start [/b]their move is irrelevant and they explicitly do not need to be in HTH range at the time he initiates the attack - only during that segment (if of course he has a knife to throw or can scavenge a weapon, they don't need to be in HTH range at all: the rules give an explicit example of "grab knife off one target, stab second target, throw it at 3rd target"). And of course the knight can move too - up to a full move - if he uses move through/by. All of this is covered explicitly in the rules and examples given.

 

Absolutely. In fact, a possible house rule fix would be allowing a Multiple Attack to spill over multiple segments. You can stop a Multiple Attack at any point in the sequence, without changing the CV penalty. If we allowed that Sir Knight can take a -6 to hit so he can attack the Orc now, attempt a Shove should the Orc try to move past him and attempt a Shove against anyone else moving across the field of combat between now and next ohase, the Knight would have some options. Add in an option to abort to a Shove to prevent someone getting past, and the Knight now has plenty of options. If that other combatant shows up next segment, the Knight could end his Multiple Attack and Abort to a new sequence.

 

Whether that's worth any added complexity depends on how you envision the "move around combatant" properly working to simulate reality as you interpret it, and how much complexity you are willing to add to in order to better match your vision of "realistic" (or "cinematic realism"). Some rules that probably enhance realism also detract from playability, so there's a tradeoff.

 

Absolutely! If the knight steps into the orc's path' date=' I would assume that he [b']would [/b]try to go round him, and that this lateral movement would continue. That is in fact, exactly what happens in real life - a circling movement around the defended area. And yes, there would be a Dex-off (I assumed that was obvious: my bad). Again, this is as it should be - I'm not interested in granting either orc or knight automatic success, when it comes to opposed actions. And yes, the orc might in fact "get ahead" of the knight if he's fast enough ... but then he has turned his back on a foe, which could have nasty consequences.

 

So it's not impossible for orc to bypass knight (in my opinion it shouldn't be). It's not even really hard - just very dangerous. This sounds like everything is working exactly as it should.

 

I think the first step is allowing that there are, in fact, opposed actions. Not "Knight attacked so Orc can now easily walk straight past him", not "Knight can automatically prevent Orc moving past him" and not "Knight aborts to get in Orc's way; Orc uses remaining half move to turn on a dime and circumvent Knight anyway". At present, I think the Orc has too assured an opportunity to walk past the Knight.

 

We allow that combatants move outside their phases to maintain DCV, alter facing, and numerous other reasons - allowing similar movement outside phase to impede someone trying to move past them seems consistent with this vision. Allowing an "attack of opportunity" that can be any attack action you want to take? While an option, I think it's overkill. But I also don't want the Knight to be required to purchase a Triggered attack to be able to impede someone walking straight past him in the heat of combat. I think he should be able to impede that progress.

 

What I was suggesting is that that one character cannot move through the space actually occupied by another character' date=' without either forcing him out of the way or somehow dodging over/past. So in other words, for orc to get to the princess, the orc has to go around the knight or knock him out of the way: he can't actually go through him. That might seem like it's patently obvious (it certainly does to me), but it is not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules. Hence the "house rule" tag. The bit about using acrobatics to bypass an obstacle is already in the rules, and has already been mentioned in the thread - I'm just assuming that "obstacles" includes people who don't want to let you pass.[/quote']

 

Here, I think the question becomes "zone of control". The Knight does not occupy a space 2 meters to a side. If we assume he's only taking up his portion of that area, the Orc can move past him on the other side. If we assume Knight moves around within that 2 meter space, then the Orc should have to somehow get past the Knight - he can't just pass through that space. But how big should that space be? How large an area do we assume a character is actively mobile within, even when not moving from Point A to Point B using movement? That's the bigger question.

 

By RAW, nothing technically stops Orc from moving right through Knight other that the universal "apply common and dramatic sense" proviso. So how big an area can Knight block? His shoulder width? His outstretched arm width? His combat reach? All seem reasonably supportable areas that Knight is able to impede movement through, whether or not he is using his action to do so.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

How does the orc know the knight has the same movement speed? Why would the orc think he'd be more likely to successfully get past the knight than he would to back up out of reach (combat move backwards) and then on his next phase' date=' if the knight continues to guard the princes, turn and run?[/quote']

 

To relative movement speeds, the Knight in our examples is heavier encumbered and a humanoid of similar size, so assumption of similar movement speeds seems reasonable. What would give the Orc reason to expect the Knight would be faster than he is? Assuming no campaign norm in that regard, of course.

 

As to which he believes is more likely to succeed, again campaign norms and situation. If the orc believes the knight will always press the attack (either because that's what humans normally do, because that's what orcs believe humans normally do or because that's what orcs do and he projects that behaviour on humans), the belief his best odds are to threaten the princess becomes pretty reasonable. If he believes humans are soft and will just let him run, he'd reasonably take that approach.

 

Actually' date=' by my own experiences with fencing, judo and kickboxing, I have a very good idea of how much distance I can cover and make a successful attack with either fist, foot, grab or foil. So did the other people I've competed against and various experts I've read on the subject. I may be wrong if the other guy is faster than I am but that's simulated by varying DCV levels and rolling the dice.[/quote']

 

I suspect that judgement is a lot easier when your "combats" take place in similar sized areas with similar setup than if the field of combat is a forest today, a courtyard last week and a ballroom tomorrow. That said, I'm speculating, not assessing from experience.

 

The knight may know about orcs in general and vice verse. However' date=' unless they've encountered each other before, they won't know each others' specific capabilities. They might be able to infer things about each other via observation of how they move, but that's what Analyze Combat Technique is for.[/quote']

 

They each have some idea of the other's capabilities (correct or mistaken) and must make their judgements on that. If Orcs and Knights routinely come into conflict, they probably have a better idea than if this is the first Orc to ever encounter the Knight's civilization, but that's not the norm in most games.

 

Setting dependent. However' date=' if the orc backs away and the knight continues to stick by the princess to protect her, it's a pretty good bet the orc will make a run for it. Or do you propose that the knight should get a free attack while the orc is backing away?[/quote']

 

I'm not proposing anyone gets free attacks for anything. It's one possibility for the passthrough, but I'd be reluctant to make it automatic (any more than making slip by automatically succeed appeals). Maybe the knight should have some ability to press the attack as the orc backs up, but that's one more outside rule to better simulate simultaneous action rather than sequential resolution - it's probably a better simulation, but also adds complexity to the rules, so there's a playability sacrifice. If the orc thinks his odds are better by backing away, I'd expect he backs away.

 

It's setting dependent, as you say, and also situationally dependent (are we in the middle of a forest with orcish settlements around, or the center of a human city, for example). Again, however, the initial intent was to assess whether, where appropriate to setting and situation, the Orc chooses to walk past the Knight to target the princess, the mechanics of the rules produce an appropriate result. Obviously, you're OK with that result.

 

Again' date=' how would you handle the very common genre trope of a single hero cutting down multiple charging foes as each comes into range other than as a held action into a Multi-Attack?[/quote']

 

How do you handle that same genre trope if the foes charge in different segments? Even if I accept it for same segment charges, how many people can charge in a single second? RAW, there's nothing you can do. Reasonable rules modifier? Maybe multiple attacks should be capable of spreading over multiple segments. Maybe you should even be able to decide to make another attack in the sequence after the initial announcement. Perhaps that gets accomplished by changing the penalty to accumulate, rather than apply equally to all attacks (ie first attack, no penalty; second at -2 and so on). Maybe it gets accomplished by allowing an attack to be added at a penalty of, say, -3 or -4, instead of -2, or maybe it's -2 OCV and -1 DC for each attack added after the original sequence. Just like this discussion, it's a question of interpreting, adapting or modifying the existing rules to enable the specific genre trope to be reasonably achieved.

 

I see a lot of source material where one character is trying to reach an objective (the exit, the doomsday device, etc.) and the other is trying to prevent it. "You already attacked so you can't stop me or impede me in any way" isn't what I see in the source material, so the rules seem not to address that genre trope.

 

Hence this conversation. I disagree with that point of view' date=' and I point out that disagreement as being the basis for my interpretation of the rules to show that my ideas do have a logical basis. Even if you don't agree with that basis, I feel it best to show that I'm not just coming up with ideas in a vacuum. If fundamental premises, such as how easy it is to recover from a committed attack and how difficult it is to move past someone after such, cannot be agreed upon, there is no way to reach a consensus on exactly what rules are or are not needed in the system.[/quote']

 

Which, to me, is the reason for optional rules in the system.

 

It is a matter of personal perception. I interpret "breeze past" as being closer to Non-Combat Movement than you apparently do and you seem interpret "slip past" as being more hesitant and 'clumsy' (for lack of a better term) than I do. Of course, my interpretation of your use of "breeze past" or "walk past" is somewhat compounded by your description of the orc giving the knight a kiss on the way. While I'd guess that you were exaggerating for effect, it does imply a very distinct difference in how we both envision two people fighting in general.

 

I never said he was disadvantaged/off balance. The only disadvantage the knight suffers is that he is already committed to an action and the orc takes advantage of that as a reaction. People don't instantly recover from a committed attack (i.e. a non-feint). There is some lag, even without the added inertia of 3-4 pounds of steel at the limit of your reach. As to the orc's counter-attack, the knight actually does have a minor disadvantage in that the he cannot now abort to Dodge, Block or any other defensive action, nor can he shift Combat Skill Levels to be more defensive. That seems a reasonable enough indicator that the knight is at least mildly 'off-balance' after his attack.

 

I don't think it implies a difference in vision so much as how consistent the RAW are with that vision. The Orc is constantly moving and the Knight is constantly moving. So how does the Orc get to automatically slip by the Knight? The Orc just successfully AVOIDED that attack - why isn't he also off balance briefly? Maybe we need that opposed roll to see who recovers faster.

 

Just like the Knight, the Orc had to shift his position, move his won weapon and armor along with him, etc. If we want to interpret this "off balance from attack" issue, shouldn't the Knight in full plate need more time to recover than the orc in much lighter leathers? Shouldn't the Knight's run speed be penalized for hauling all that heavy armor? He does, of course, if we use the optional Encumbrance rule. Based on that, returning to our discussion above, the Orc may well be justified in assuming the Knight won't have as good a movement speed as he has, being weighted down with all that metal. Full coverage 9 Def armor weighs 56 kg by RAW, so a 15 STR Knight is at -2 M movement from that alone. An 18 STR knight with limited other gear, or a 20 STR knight, probably keeps his usual movement speed.

 

Because of where your center of gravity typically is when making an attack. Any committed attack will shift your center of gravity slightly off-balance in order to generate more power' date=' making it take more time to recover. The more committed you are (especially if you over-commit), the longer it takes to recover. Moving without attacking, however, tends to keep your center of balance positioned more centrally. It's still possible to over-commit simply moving but it's less likely than when you're using your momentum to drive an attack through an actual target.[/quote']

 

Off balance rules would certainly add to realism (maybe a discussion for another thread). But then, shouldn't an attack with bonus DC's, like a haymaker, and/or pushing, leave you even more off balance? That seems more like overcommitting to me.

 

Thanks, by the way, for a great discussion - I think it's opened up a lot of good areas, and certainly it's pushed my thinking in different directions, even if we don't agree on the nature or even existence of the problem itself. These discussions are what makes the Boards such a great place to visit!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Here's a thought: what is to stop the orc doing a multiple move by on both the Knight and Princess? That is a perfectly rules legal way of getting past the Knight, and not even having to give up attacking him?

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

To relative movement speeds' date=' the Knight in our examples is heavier encumbered and a humanoid of similar size, so assumption of similar movement speeds seems reasonable. What would give the Orc reason to expect the Knight would be faster than he is? Assuming no campaign norm in that regard, of course.[/quote']

 

 

The orc wouldn't know that the knight is faster. He would know that he's potentially leaving himself open to attack. He may also reasonably guess that the knight, due to the heavier armor, might be slower or tire more quickly if he tries to give chase. If we're using the Optional Encumbrance Table, he may even be right. If he rushes past, potentially leaving his back open if the knight is quick, consequences are that he might get stabbed in the back. If the knight isn't quick, he might make it to the princess and gain a major tactical advantage (high risk-high reward). If he backs off and the knight follows, he's no worse off than before. If the knight doesn't follow, he has the chance to run away. If the orc is interested in self-preservation, I'd expect him to try backing off as it's the lower-risk option.

 

 

As to which he believes is more likely to succeed, again campaign norms and situation. If the orc believes the knight will always press the attack (either because that's what humans normally do, because that's what orcs believe humans normally do or because that's what orcs do and he projects that behaviour on humans), the belief his best odds are to threaten the princess becomes pretty reasonable. If he believes humans are soft and will just let him run, he'd reasonably take that approach.

 

 

That's part of why he backs off with a 'combat withdrawal'. He can get a better idea of the knight's intent based on if the knight follows him or if the knight stays by the princess.

 

I suspect that judgement is a lot easier when your "combats" take place in similar sized areas with similar setup than if the field of combat is a forest today, a courtyard last week and a ballroom tomorrow. That said, I'm speculating, not assessing from experience.

 

 

Size of the area doesn't really impact reach. I'm not sure what you mean by "similar setup". However, different footing (loose gravel/dirt/sand, water, ice, clean floors, etc) will definitely affect that and to different degrees. The less sure your footing, the more it slows you down and increases the likelihood of slips and falls (critical failures if you use those in your game). So, you know in such situations that your reach will be less.

 

They each have some idea of the other's capabilities (correct or mistaken) and must make their judgements on that. If Orcs and Knights routinely come into conflict, they probably have a better idea than if this is the first Orc to ever encounter the Knight's civilization, but that's not the norm in most games.

 

 

Agreed on this point.

 

I'm not proposing anyone gets free attacks for anything. It's one possibility for the passthrough, but I'd be reluctant to make it automatic (any more than making slip by automatically succeed appeals).

 

 

Maybe the knight should have some ability to press the attack as the orc backs up, but that's one more outside rule to better simulate simultaneous action rather than sequential resolution - it's probably a better simulation, but also adds complexity to the rules, so there's a playability sacrifice. If the orc thinks his odds are better by backing away, I'd expect he backs away.

 

 

Well, you could adopt segment-by-segment movement (bleh). Also, I could have sword that I'd seen rules on 'sticking too' an opponent and thereby taking your move at the same time as them in order to model trying to keep someone in contact but I can't seem to find them at the moment. So, either they are in a different supplement or I'm thinking of an actual house rule we've occasionally used. Either way, it does complicate things and slows down play.

 

 

It's setting dependent, as you say, and also situationally dependent (are we in the middle of a forest with orcish settlements around, or the center of a human city, for example). Again, however, the initial intent was to assess whether, where appropriate to setting and situation, the Orc chooses to walk past the Knight to target the princess, the mechanics of the rules produce an appropriate result. Obviously, you're OK with that result.

 

 

Yep. Actually, MarkDoc is right in that we've gotten too bogged down in the specifics of the orc vs. knight example and are spending far too much time on motivation, setting assumptions, etc and so on. So, at this point, I don't intend to pursue this particular sub-topic any further as I don't think it's really proving productive to the original topic.

 

 

How do you handle that same genre trope if the foes charge in different segments?

 

 

I view that as a level of teamwork and coordination comparable to the tactic of tossing a grenade at a foe behind an obstacle so he's forced out into the open where your squad-mates can shoot him. Basically, one charges forward to get the defender's attention while the others hold back. Once the defender is occupied with the first attacker, then the others move past, making sure to stay out of easy reach (i.e. the defender's "hex").

 

 

Even if I accept it for same segment charges, how many people can charge in a single second?

 

 

Well, a more limiting factor is how many can fit in the space provided. Even in a wide open field only so many people can fit around the hero. If the corridor is only wide enough for 3 people abreast, then that gives you an idea of your limit. If the hero is lucky/good enough to drop all three, the ones following will have to deal with the possibility of tripping over their comrades corpses. If it's still in the same segment, then the hero gets to attack them as well.

 

 

RAW, there's nothing you can do. Reasonable rules modifier? Maybe multiple attacks should be capable of spreading over multiple segments. Maybe you should even be able to decide to make another attack in the sequence after the initial announcement. Perhaps that gets accomplished by changing the penalty to accumulate, rather than apply equally to all attacks (ie first attack, no penalty; second at -2 and so on). Maybe it gets accomplished by allowing an attack to be added at a penalty of, say, -3 or -4, instead of -2, or maybe it's -2 OCV and -1 DC for each attack added after the original sequence. Just like this discussion, it's a question of interpreting, adapting or modifying the existing rules to enable the specific genre trope to be reasonably achieved.

 

 

I can see arguments being made for such changes. I, personally, don't feel the need for them but I don't consider them unreasonable.

 

 

I see a lot of source material where one character is trying to reach an objective (the exit, the doomsday device, etc.) and the other is trying to prevent it. "You already attacked so you can't stop me or impede me in any way" isn't what I see in the source material, so the rules seem not to address that genre trope.

 

 

So, you never seen the defender make an attempt to hit or grab the attacker only to have the attacker duck past him to get to the objective? That's exactly the kind of situation I'm envisioning when I use the phrase "committed to the attack and failed".

 

 

I don't think it implies a difference in vision so much as how consistent the RAW are with that vision. The Orc is constantly moving and the Knight is constantly moving. So how does the Orc get to automatically slip by the Knight? The Orc just successfully AVOIDED that attack - why isn't he also off balance briefly? Maybe we need that opposed roll to see who recovers faster.

 

Just like the Knight, the Orc had to shift his position, move his won weapon and armor along with him, etc. If we want to interpret this "off balance from attack" issue, shouldn't the Knight in full plate need more time to recover than the orc in much lighter leathers? Shouldn't the Knight's run speed be penalized for hauling all that heavy armor? He does, of course, if we use the optional Encumbrance rule. Based on that, returning to our discussion above, the Orc may well be justified in assuming the Knight won't have as good a movement speed as he has, being weighted down with all that metal. Full coverage 9 Def armor weighs 56 kg by RAW, so a 15 STR Knight is at -2 M movement from that alone. An 18 STR knight with limited other gear, or a 20 STR knight, probably keeps his usual movement speed.

 

 

I already gave the reason for this due to the greater shift in center of balance when attacking as opposed to just moving. Perhaps I'm not being clear in what I mean by that. Here's an illustration to help:

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43242[/ATTACH]

 

 

Note the attacker on the left; see where his center of gravity is in relation to his feet? His balance is shifted further forward, even though he hasn't over-balanced himself. Meanwhile, the defender on the right is more centered. This difference in center of balance is why the attacker has a harder time shifting momentum and takes time to recover while the defender can counter-attack or disengage comparatively quickly. In fact, from the displayed position, the defender's response could very well be to continue his own momentum forward and run past the attacker on the outside (behind his back) and there's not really anything the attacker can do to stop him. I've actually experienced this myself in fencing when someone attempted a fleche (charge) in response to my own attack. The typical result is that they end up behind me. Sometimes having scored on me depending on their accuracy and how quickly I was able to get my own sword-arm back to parry.

 

 

Off balance rules would certainly add to realism (maybe a discussion for another thread). But then, shouldn't an attack with bonus DC's, like a haymaker, and/or pushing, leave you even more off balance? That seems more like overcommitting to me.

 

 

Off-balancing is best handled through adoption of a Critical Miss rule in my opinion.

 

 

Thanks, by the way, for a great discussion - I think it's opened up a lot of good areas, and certainly it's pushed my thinking in different directions, even if we don't agree on the nature or even existence of the problem itself. These discussions are what makes the Boards such a great place to visit!

 

Likewise. I'm also very appreciative of everyone's general level of civility while disagreeing.

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Here's a thought: what is to stop the orc doing a multiple move by on both the Knight and Princess? That is a perfectly rules legal way of getting past the Knight' date=' and not even having to give up attacking him?[/quote']

 

If the knight has a Held Action, he gets to try a DEX roll-off to interrupt the orc with an attack (strike, push, trip, grab, whatever). If he succeeds and the resulting circumstance (Stunned, pushed back, fallen, held, etc) makes the orc's Move-By invalid, the orc is out of luck. If the interrupting attack fails do stop the orc, then the orc's attack carries on.

 

If the knight is Covering an Area, it's largely the same though I'm not clear on if the DEX roll-off is needed off the top of my head.

 

Otherwise, if the knight has a held action or hasn't acted this segment, he can abort to Block or Dodge. If the orc misses, it automatically misses the Princess. If the orc hits, he can then attempt his attack on the Princess.

 

The question for the orc is if the lowered OCV & DCV of the Move By is worth the chance to attack the princess.

 

If I were the knight, I'd probably go for the Block or Dodge as it feels like the highest percentage to me.

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Here's a thought: what is to stop the orc doing a multiple move by on both the Knight and Princess? That is a perfectly rules legal way of getting past the Knight' date=' and not even having to give up attacking him?[/quote']

 

Nothing - nor should there be, IMO. However, it's a difficult (and dangerous) approach, which is neatly reflected by the rules. If he misses any attack, that ends his attack sequence, he's taking penalties to hit and he's 1/2 DCV, so the most likely outcome is that he flails at the Knight, misses, and then ends his move at 1/2 DCV, which is means that on the Knight's next Phase (or before, if he is defending and has wisely held his action) the orc's head will be rolling on the floor.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

If the knight has a Held Action, he gets to try a DEX roll-off to interrupt the orc with an attack (strike, push, trip, grab, whatever). If he succeeds and the resulting circumstance (Stunned, pushed back, fallen, held, etc) makes the orc's Move-By invalid, the orc is out of luck. If the interrupting attack fails do stop the orc, then the orc's attack carries on.

 

If the knight is Covering an Area, it's largely the same though I'm not clear on if the DEX roll-off is needed off the top of my head.

 

Otherwise, if the knight has a held action or hasn't acted this segment, he can abort to Block or Dodge. If the orc misses, it automatically misses the Princess. If the orc hits, he can then attempt his attack on the Princess.

 

The question for the orc is if the lowered OCV & DCV of the Move By is worth the chance to attack the princess.

 

If I were the knight, I'd probably go for the Block or Dodge as it feels like the highest percentage to me.

 

It seems a tactically decent move as he gets to roll DEX against the Knight - and the chances are that there is at most a 2 point difference so he has a reasonable opportunity to get a hit on the Knight and get past him to the Princess.

 

It does seem odd that you can run past someone attacking without a DCV penalty, but you can not run past someone defending, or just trying to avoid being hit without that penalty. Similarly it seems odd that if you are covering an area and you can use multiple attack to try and stop more than one person running past then you may succeed if they all run at you at once (on the same segment) but you will not if they run at you one at a time (on consecutive segments). It also seems odd that if you do try and multiple move-by the Knight and PP, if the Knight dodges out of your way, you are likely to miss the attack, which would end your sequence of attacks.

 

If nothing else this discussion has made me think about tactics a bit more than I would have: had I been playing the Knight at the beginning of this discussion, I'd probably have just hacked at the orc. now I have no idea what I'd do...progress of sorts...

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I think the first step is allowing that there are, in fact, opposed actions. Not "Knight attacked so Orc can now easily walk straight past him", not "Knight can automatically prevent Orc moving past him" and not "Knight aborts to get in Orc's way; Orc uses remaining half move to turn on a dime and circumvent Knight anyway". At present, I think the Orc has too assured an opportunity to walk past the Knight.

 

We allow that combatants move outside their phases to maintain DCV, alter facing, and numerous other reasons - allowing similar movement outside phase to impede someone trying to move past them seems consistent with this vision. Allowing an "attack of opportunity" that can be any attack action you want to take? While an option, I think it's overkill. But I also don't want the Knight to be required to purchase a Triggered attack to be able to impede someone walking straight past him in the heat of combat. I think he should be able to impede that progress.

 

Part of the reason for our disagreement might be that we envisage (and play) combat quite differently. I don't see combat as people "clicking into place" on their action and then freezing there - in other words as a discrete series of "It's your DEX - act - now you are done". The rules, again caution against that approach. Combat and movement is supposed to be dynamic: it's only broken into segments to ease our dealing with it.

 

So to take the example given, the knight states "I delay my action: if anyone approaches the princess I try and block their way, or cut them down if they get past me". He holds. The Orc states "I'm going to try and get past him and cover the Princess." In this situation the knight doesn't have to take a single step and then freeze in place. Since he has stated that he wants to hold an attack in reserve, he has a half move to play with - and he can distribute that half move over his phase as he sees fit. If he moves to one side to block the orc, and the orc moves further to one side to avoid him, he can continue his blocking movement - just as the orc can continue his circling movement. It's not like either of them takes a single movement action and then "freezes".

 

Now I am decidedly uninterested in going to segment by segment movement. So what this means is that (as GM) I look at the movement available to the 2 characters and can see that if they have equivalent movement, the orc cannot get past the knight without either a) a moveby, which will trigger an attack from the knight, moving more than a half move, which means he cannot cover the princess, or c) moving through the knight's "hex" (which is going to require acrobatics or physically moving him).

 

I treat chases the same way. Do you really envisage one party racing ahead of the other and then freezing in place, while the pursuer suddenly zooms up to him? As GM, I simply look at speed and phases, and we assume that either the fleeing person escapes because he's faster, or the pursuing person is close enough to attack on his phase, because he's faster. I certainly don't assume some sort of weird elastic springing together and then apart again, as each person moves, nor do I assume that characters do all of their actions in a fraction of second and then freeze irrevocably in place until their next phase.

 

Here, I think the question becomes "zone of control". The Knight does not occupy a space 2 meters to a side. If we assume he's only taking up his portion of that area, the Orc can move past him on the other side. If we assume Knight moves around within that 2 meter space, then the Orc should have to somehow get past the Knight - he can't just pass through that space. But how big should that space be? How large an area do we assume a character is actively mobile within, even when not moving from Point A to Point B using movement? That's the bigger question.

 

By RAW, nothing technically stops Orc from moving right through Knight other that the universal "apply common and dramatic sense" proviso. So how big an area can Knight block? His shoulder width? His outstretched arm width? His combat reach? All seem reasonably supportable areas that Knight is able to impede movement through, whether or not he is using his action to do so.

 

Not combat reach - a person with a spear can have a combat reach of 2 metres to either side, and he can't impede movement through that space except by stabbing, which is a simple attack. He can't "block" movement. In terms of physical space, a "hex" - a space 1M in radius around a human size target seems reasonable. Within that space, relatively minimal movement will allow the defender to impose a physical barrier to movement (be it shoulder, shield, torso, whatever). An attacker should be able to move through that space - they do so in real life, after all - but it becomes an opposed action at that point, whether it is strength, acrobatics or even a feint, that allows it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Markdoc

 

I am going to have to invite you to come to London and run a game for me and Sean sometime. It would be really interesting to see how we game round a table rather than talk about it round an internet forum!

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

OK, I am almost convinced that tactics and existing rules allow us to deal with the situation of Princess PITA, but I reserve my right to change my mind

 

I still think we need to look at a few points though:

 

1. The rules allow you to make a multiple move-by (if you succeed in the rolls) and move past a target if you attack them, but I do not think you can do the same thing with a block or dodge i.e. move ‘defensively’ past a target to get to another. I MIGHT allow the block as a GM because there is a chance to fail, but I am not sure if you technically CAN. This seems odd. Maybe you can block the knight then attack PP - I'll have to have another look at the multi-attack rules later.

 

2. The rules allow you to cover an area and you can (probably) justify a multiple attack whilst doing so, to allow you to deal with several people storming you at once, but if one comes at you then the rest delay to the following segment you are largely stymied. I would like to see the ability to cover an area extend over several segments, in the same way that a block allows you to keep blocking until you fail. It seems odd that you can deal with several people coming at you together, but not one at a time.

 

3. There is a bit of oddness in the fact that if you multiple move-by the Knight’s best bet is probably to dodge – making it likely you will miss and end your multiple attack. Is the first target ‘getting out of the way’ really likely to prevent you moving on to a second target? Perhaps a saving rule is needed that if you miss because of the dodge, it does not break your attack sequence?

 

4. Assume PP is out of the picture. Another issue is this: Knight fighting orc. A second orc appears and wants to flank. Unless the Knight has actions in hand, he can not stop the second orc from simply walking to the far side of him and flanking, passing right next to him. As someone already pointed out, combatants end to circle each other in reality, so it is probably not that easy to flank in reality – and not great for the game either as it is usually the heroes who are outnumbered. Even if the Knight is covering an area, he is unlikely to be able to stop the second orc flanking him, for the reasons given above (he has to be multiple attacking and that does not help if the second orc delays a phase).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Markdoc

 

I am going to have to invite you to come to London and run a game for me and Sean sometime. It would be really interesting to see how we game round a table rather than talk about it round an internet forum!

 

 

Doc

 

Seconded!

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

It does seem odd that you can run past someone attacking without a DCV penalty' date=' but you can not run past someone defending, or just trying to avoid being hit without that penalty. [/quote']

 

Well, other than the DCV penalty for the Move-By itself. However, by attacking the knight as he goes by he's doing 2 very important things. One, he's not ignoring the threat of the knight. Two, he's forcing the knight to not ignore his own defense. In other words, he's not allowing an uncontested attack against him like he would moving through a Covered area and ignoring the coverer.

 

Similarly it seems odd that if you are covering an area and you can use multiple attack to try and stop more than one person running past then you may succeed if they all run at you at once (on the same segment) but you will not if they run at you one at a time (on consecutive segments).

 

It's a little odd and a bit of an artifact of the system, but I think it's partly a balance issue. I don't know that allowing someone to spread multiple attacks over different segments would be unbalancing, but I think it's the kind of thing you'd have to be very careful introducing.

 

It also seems odd that if you do try and multiple move-by the Knight and PP, if the Knight dodges out of your way, you are likely to miss the attack, which would end your sequence of attacks.

 

It depends on how literally you interpret Block and Dodge. The way I interpret the 'system-speak' is:

 

Block - Defending yourself in such a way as to position yourself for a better counter-attack.

Dodge - Defending yourself without consideration for the counter-attack.

 

So, in the orc-knight-princess example, the Dodge could be viewed as the knight grabbing the Princesses arm as he attempts to pull her out of the way as he dodges. If the orc's quick enough, he might hit both. If he's a little slower, he'll hit the knight but not the princess who was pulled away by the knight. At his slowest, he won't hit either.

 

If nothing else this discussion has made me think about tactics a bit more than I would have: had I been playing the Knight at the beginning of this discussion, I'd probably have just hacked at the orc. now I have no idea what I'd do...progress of sorts...

 

Heh. We have the advantage of spreading this discussion out over several days and doing it all in writing. Given only a minute or two to respond in-game doesn't afford nearly the same opportunity to over-think tactics. The split-second timing of real life, of course, is even worse.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Well' date=' you could adopt segment-by-segment movement (bleh). Also, I could have sword that I'd seen rules on 'sticking too' an opponent and thereby taking your move at the same time as them in order to model trying to keep someone in contact but I can't seem to find them at the moment. So, either they are in a different supplement or I'm thinking of an actual house rule we've occasionally used. Either way, it does complicate things and slows down play.[/quote']

 

Segment by segment doesn't really solve the issue, though. Knight moves a meter left to block Orc, then Orc moves 2 meters right and moves on past Knight - it just breaks the issue into smaller bits. Not sure I've seen "moving with", though it sounds familiar. By the book, I think we're back to held actions.

 

So' date=' you never seen the defender make an attempt to hit or grab the attacker only to have the attacker duck past him to get to the objective? That's exactly the kind of situation I'm envisioning when I use the phrase "committed to the attack and failed".[/quote']

 

I've seen it. I have also seen the attacker hit the defender. The latter is not automatic - it requires a roll. Why should the former be automatic? That's really the crux of the issue.

 

Off-balancing is best handled through adoption of a Critical Miss rule in my opinion.

 

Then we are back to needing some rule for the orc to move past the knight in the absence of a critical miss, where the knight is not off balance. (nb: I agree with you that the detals of the example don't help, but the names are convenient tags once we assume Orc wants to move past Knight for whatever reason).

 

Part of the reason for our disagreement might be that we envisage (and play) combat quite differently. I don't see combat as people "clicking into place" on their action and then freezing there - in other words as a discrete series of "It's your DEX - act - now you are done". The rules, again caution against that approach. Combat and movement is supposed to be dynamic: it's only broken into segments to ease our dealing with it.

 

So to take the example given, the knight states "I delay my action: if anyone approaches the princess I try and block their way, or cut them down if they get past me". He holds. The Orc states "I'm going to try and get past him and cover the Princess." In this situation the knight doesn't have to take a single step and then freeze in place. Since he has stated that he wants to hold an attack in reserve, he has a half move to play with - and he can distribute that half move over his phase as he sees fit. If he moves to one side to block the orc, and the orc moves further to one side to avoid him, he can continue his blocking movement - just as the orc can continue his circling movement. It's not like either of them takes a single movement action and then "freezes".

 

On the one hand, I like the approach, added complexity and all. OTOH, given the inability to use a half move to (say) run 4 meters, then leap one meter, then run one meter on the other side, I don't think your interpretation is "by the book" legal. Anyone have a cite, one way or the other? Similarly, any cite for "you can move through an opponent's space at all" or "you must make a roll to do so successfully"? I think these are all effectively house rules (albeit house rules backed by common and dramatic sense), as I don't think they are actual published rules.

 

Well' date=' other than the DCV penalty for the Move-By itself. However, by attacking the knight as he goes by he's doing 2 very important things. One, he's not ignoring the threat of the knight. Two, he's forcing the knight to not ignore his own defense. In other words, he's not allowing an uncontested attack against him like he would moving through a Covered area and ignoring the coverer.[/quote']

 

So why can the orc move past the knight without attacking, but without ignoring the threat of the knight either? What conceptually necessitates he attack in order to defend? Why can't he "feint" to cause the knight to perceive a need to defend himself, rather than actually attack?

[phoenix240]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Part of the reason for our disagreement might be that we envisage (and play) combat quite differently. I don't see combat as people "clicking into place" on their action and then freezing there - in other words as a discrete series of "It's your DEX - act - now you are done". The rules, again caution against that approach. Combat and movement is supposed to be dynamic: it's only broken into segments to ease our dealing with it.

 

So to take the example given, the knight states "I delay my action: if anyone approaches the princess I try and block their way, or cut them down if they get past me". He holds. The Orc states "I'm going to try and get past him and cover the Princess." In this situation the knight doesn't have to take a single step and then freeze in place. Since he has stated that he wants to hold an attack in reserve, he has a half move to play with - and he can distribute that half move over his phase as he sees fit. If he moves to one side to block the orc, and the orc moves further to one side to avoid him, he can continue his blocking movement - just as the orc can continue his circling movement. It's not like either of them takes a single movement action and then "freezes".

 

Now I am decidedly uninterested in going to segment by segment movement. So what this means is that (as GM) I look at the movement available to the 2 characters and can see that if they have equivalent movement, the orc cannot get past the knight without either a) a moveby, which will trigger an attack from the knight, moving more than a half move, which means he cannot cover the princess, or c) moving through the knight's "hex" (which is going to require acrobatics or physically moving him).

 

I treat chases the same way. Do you really envisage one party racing ahead of the other and then freezing in place, while the pursuer suddenly zooms up to him? As GM, I simply look at speed and phases, and we assume that either the fleeing person escapes because he's faster, or the pursuing person is close enough to attack on his phase, because he's faster. I certainly don't assume some sort of weird elastic springing together and then apart again, as each person moves, nor do I assume that characters do all of their actions in a fraction of second and then freeze irrevocably in place until their next phase.

 

We started calling that the Stop Motion effect. It's a difficult mental hurdle to get over. Honestly, most of us didn't even notice it until we started PBEMing and writing more descriptive accounts of our characters' actions.

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Markdoc

 

I am going to have to invite you to come to London and run a game for me and Sean sometime. It would be really interesting to see how we game round a table rather than talk about it round an internet forum!

 

 

Doc

 

Sounds like a good plan!

 

Had I but known ... I was in London last week - 4 days at a training class in Kensington (hard work, but interesting: we got to have Q&As with the CEO and several of the board. The Head of Research will certainly remember me, though I'm not sure if that's a net positive or not ), and then a long weekend with friends in Finchley (went to Whit's in Kensington and Petersham Nursery Cafe in .... well, Petersham: both can be recommended).

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Seconded!

 

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

On the one hand' date=' I like the approach, added complexity and all. OTOH, given the inability to use a half move to (say) run 4 meters, then leap one meter, then run one meter on the other side, I don't think your interpretation is "by the book" legal. Anyone have a cite, one way or the other? Similarly, any cite for "you can move through an opponent's space at all" or "you must make a roll to do so successfully"? I think these are all effectively house rules (albeit house rules backed by common and dramatic sense), as I don't think they are actual published rules.[/quote']

 

I do not think I have ever seen anything in the rules that prevents you from running, jumping and then running again - indeed, there's nothing stopping you from running, jumping and then teleporting (an action seen just recently in one of our games) - as long as you respect your movement restrictions. You can't run a full move, then jump, for example, but if you can run 6" and jump 2", then a 2" run, 1" jump, 1" run is quite legal (half move running, half move jumping). So the movement part is by the book legal (indeed, the rules explicitly warn against what phoenix240 nicely dubs the "stop motion effect", so my interpretation is very much by the book).

 

The bit about "you can't move through an opponent's space at all" or "you must make a roll to do so successfully" - you are right, these are house rules, and I noted that up front, when I first listed them. They are interpretations of existing rules (somebody else noted the comments in the rules on acrobatics about avoiding obstacles, for example) rather than new rules per se, but they are definitely not black and white.

 

As for complexity, I've never found that it adds very much (if any). Basically (the way it works, in real life) is the players say what they want to do, and I interpret it (being careful to feed them any obvious information). The old 4E rules actually included an example which shows exactly how I GM, when they showed how to break down actions. The example was Andarra jumping through a window and shooting a guard, which was interpreted as "Phase 1: draw gun (half move), jump (half move). Next Phase: move away from window into (Half move). Shoot (Half move)." So her "action" actually covers 2 of her phases.

 

I simply ask the players what they are doing, and they tell me - usually in plain words. That can be as simple as "Punch him inna face" (Strike maneuver: we only assume aiming for a hit location if it's explicitly stated) or as complex as "I walk down the passage stopping and checking - cautiously! - around each corner - and being ready to fire at any soldier I see" (quarter move, look around corner, quarter move and end with a held action for shooting). If there had been a guard down the first passage it would be: quarter move and shoot, end phase - the player has already specified what they are doing. Sometimes of course it's quarter move - and the player asks "what do I see?" and then decides how to react for the rest of their action (if for example, they see 12 soldiers, then suddenly shooting might not seem like a good idea).

 

How that plays out depends on the player's actions - if shooting on sight is prespecified, they have a "held action" - even while moving: they are ready to fire with a split-second's reaction: think of cop shows where the PCs are moving with gun held up and forward. That gives them a DEX-off if there's someone round the corner who also has a held action. But the payoff for that is that they have less flexibility. Anyone who has played a FPS like Counterstrike with friendly fire on, knows the bit where you are keyed up for an assault, and are ready to shoot: you see a movement, fire - and then think "S***! That was one of ours!" If they choose instead to half move and then ask "What do I see?" they gain maximum flexibility - at the cost of a fraction of a second's reaction time: they don't get a DEX-off if there is someone round the corner, with a held action waiting to shoot.

 

As Sean commented above - Tactics! The combat rules are just as flexible as the social rules: both are relatively simple, but are capable of being put together in ways of increasing subtlety. My preference for the players to say what they do rather than count it off according to rules mechanics is simply because the latter disadvantages players who are not up on the mechanics, and I think it gives more flavour, but either is OK.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Now, I've been around HERO for quite a bit and lose track of things. I remember being annoyed at an official ruling on movement that seemed against common sense to me.

 

The premise was if someone with 20m running and SPD 4 was chasing someone with 15m running and SPD 6 would they catch them? The initial set up was that quarry was 6" away and they started on phase 12.

 

On segment 12 both move, quarry is now just 1" ahead.

On segment 2 quarry moves and is 16" ahead

On segment 3 pursuer moves and catches quarry.

 

 

Now that was back when acceleration was instantaneous. Don't have books in front of me but has that changed? Looking at the speeds, the quarry is obviously faster - 90m per turn rather than 80m. It is an artefact of the system that allows the catch to be possible.

 

I am only asking as the discussion on fighting not being stop motion and not wanting to go to segment by segment movement seem relevant here. What is the current rule stance? Would the quarry lose the game of tag on segment 3 under current rules??

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Had I but known ... I was in London last week - 4 days at a training class in Kensington (hard work' date=' but interesting: we got to have Q&As with the CEO and several of the board. The Head of Research will certainly remember me, though I'm not sure if that's a net positive or not ), and then a long weekend with friends in Finchley (went to Whit's in Kensington and Petersham Nursery Cafe in .... well, Petersham: both can be recommended).[/quote']

 

Damn shame. Finchley is so close to where I live and Kensington so close to where I work!

 

If you are in London and the sun is shining you are always welcome for a beer on the Terrace...just let me know you are around. As to a game, slightly more notice might be needed but I'd be up for it any time you might have the opportunity.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I do not think I have ever seen anything in the rules that prevents you from running' date=' jumping and then running again - indeed, there's nothing stopping you from running, jumping and then teleporting (an action seen just recently in one of our games) - as long as you respect your movement restrictions. You can't run a full move, then jump, for example, but if you can run 6" and jump 2", then a 2" run, 1" jump, 1" run is quite legal (half move running, half move jumping). So the movement part is by the book legal (indeed, the rules explicitly warn [b']against [/b]what phoenix240 nicely dubs the "stop motion effect", so my interpretation is very much by the book)...............

cheers, Mark

 

I recall a discussion on this recently (well in the last year or so...) and I think that by RAW you can not mix movement modes within any given half phase, so you can not run, jump and then run, even if the total movement does not exceed any of the individual movement modes - personally I ignore that though

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Damn shame. Finchley is so close to where I live and Kensington so close to where I work!

 

If you are in London and the sun is shining you are always welcome for a beer on the Terrace...just let me know you are around. As to a game, slightly more notice might be needed but I'd be up for it any time you might have the opportunity.

 

 

Doc

 

Heh. I'll have to remember to take you up on that. The odds are pretty good that I'll be in and out of London a reasonable amount, since that's where corporate headquarters are.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I recall a discussion on this recently (well in the last year or so...) and I think that by RAW you can not mix movement modes within any given half phase' date=' so you can not run, jump and then run, even if the total movement does not exceed any of the individual movement modes - personally I ignore that though [/quote']

 

I'd certainly ignore it - but can anyone confirm such a ruling? I can't recall ever having seen it, and among all the GM's I've played with, I can't recall such a ruling being pointed out.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Now, I've been around HERO for quite a bit and lose track of things. I remember being annoyed at an official ruling on movement that seemed against common sense to me.

 

The premise was if someone with 20m running and SPD 4 was chasing someone with 15m running and SPD 6 would they catch them? The initial set up was that quarry was 6" away and they started on phase 12.

 

On segment 12 both move, quarry is now just 1" ahead.

On segment 2 quarry moves and is 16" ahead

On segment 3 pursuer moves and catches quarry.

 

 

Now that was back when acceleration was instantaneous. Don't have books in front of me but has that changed? Looking at the speeds, the quarry is obviously faster - 90m per turn rather than 80m. It is an artefact of the system that allows the catch to be possible.

 

I am only asking as the discussion on fighting not being stop motion and not wanting to go to segment by segment movement seem relevant here. What is the current rule stance? Would the quarry lose the game of tag on segment 3 under current rules??

 

Doc

 

This is one of those awkward artifacts of speed chart and movement, which can occur under certain settings.*

Acceleration is no longer instantaneous, but it wouldn't affect the outcome in this particular case, since both parties have plenty of time to get to full speed.

 

In such a case I'd allow the attack on segment 3: after all the attacker has paid for his running and should get the appropriate benefit. But unless there were other factors which could affect the outcome, I would not bother to run this in stop motion: I'd just note that the pursuer can put on a burst of speed that lets him get one attack (as a move through/by) before the quarry pulls away from him. In other words, quarry is a faster runner, but pursuer - in this instance - has an edge in reaction. It doesn't bother me too much because it is very context dependant, and context - even in the real world - affects outcomes.

 

Of course if quarry is smart, and just wants to get away, he'll switch to non-combat running in segment 2, and then he's away free. Pursuer can match his speed (briefly) by also going non-combat, but that ruins his chances of landing a hit.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*Note: it wouldn't happen in my game, but that's because I have abolished the speed chart, partly because of things like this. That however, is very definitely a house rule!

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I'd certainly ignore it - but can anyone confirm such a ruling? I can't recall ever having seen it, and among all the GM's I've played with, I can't recall such a ruling being pointed out.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I don't think it's been spelled out in the rules themselves, but I do recall a 5th edition Rules Question thread asking about mixing movement types (specificallly running and jumping) to which Steve Long replied that by the RAW you couldn't do that because you can only activate a 'power' at the beginning of each half-phase and you cannot have 2 movement powers active at the same time. However, individual GMs can certainly allow it if they want.