Attacking 'from behind'

[Guest Usagi]

Hey Gnome BODY, mind explaining all those downvotes?  I can't for the life of me figure out what I did to piss you off so much.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

3 hours ago, Usagi said:

Hey Gnome BODY, mind explaining all those downvotes?  I can't for the life of me figure out what I did to piss you off so much.

 

14 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

You shouldn't have to pay 10 real or 3 real and an HPA every turn to not be subject to inane rules abuse. 

 

[Guest Usagi]

15 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

You shouldn't have to pay 10 real or 3 real and an HPA every turn to not be subject to inane rules abuse. 

I don't follow you at all.  Are you accusing me of "inane rules abuse?"  For what, exactly?  Are you saying that the rules are wrong, and that characters shouldn't suffer any penalty ever for being surrounded by opponents?  I really don't get where you're coming from.

[Surrealone]

16 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

You shouldn't have to pay 10 real or 3 real and an HPA every turn to not be subject to inane rules abuse. 

You appear to have ignored something from my earlier post when rendering this response, so I'll remind you of it: having your characters or NPCs put their backs to walls or fight back-to-back costs zero real points.  (As a reminder, I explicitly posted, "...positioning oneself with one's back to an ally or a wall, judicious use of cover with maneuvers like Snapshot, and the like all prevent this."  Note that these are all things that can be done in the course of one's normal movement on the field of battle, too -- so there's no special expenditure of a HPA to do them.  Instead, one simply has to be thoughtful about the half-moves and/or full moves that one makes (relative to the battlefield environment, one's allies, and one's opponents.)

Put another way, you flat-out DO NOT have to pay ANY real points to avoid being subject to the aforementioned munchkinism.  But one can certainly pay real points if one doesn't want to bother using cover and/or the environment effectively.  (That is, after all, one of the benefits of point expenditures -- you buy the means to deal with issues you might not otherwise be able to deal with … as well as the means to be lazy about issues you might not otherwise be able to be lazy about.  Example: the Hulk's defenses are so high he can be lazy about multiple attackers, cover, rear attacs, etc.  Welcome to Hero System!)

[Tywyll]

On 11/15/2019 at 7:08 PM, cptpatriot said:

 

One more point, Sight and other Ranged senses only have 120 degrees of coverage if you are going strictly by the rules.

 

Which is weird considering 'facing' doesn't seem to be a thing in HERO?

[Tywyll]

15 hours ago, Surrealone said:

You appear to have ignored something from my earlier post when rendering this response, so I'll remind you of it: having your characters or NPCs put their backs to walls or fight back-to-back costs zero real points.  (As a reminder, I explicitly posted, "...positioning oneself with one's back to an ally or a wall, judicious use of cover with maneuvers like Snapshot, and the like all prevent this."  Note that these are all things that can be done in the course of one's normal movement on the field of battle, too -- so there's no special expenditure of a HPA to do them.  Instead, one simply has to be thoughtful about the half-moves and/or full moves that one makes (relative to the battlefield environment, one's allies, and one's opponents.)

Put another way, you flat-out DO NOT have to pay ANY real points to avoid being subject to the aforementioned munchkinism.  But one can certainly pay real points if one doesn't want to bother using cover and/or the environment effectively.  (That is, after all, one of the benefits of point expenditures -- you buy the means to deal with issues you might not otherwise be able to deal with … as well as the means to be lazy about issues you might not otherwise be able to be lazy about.  Example: the Hulk's defenses are so high he can be lazy about multiple attackers, cover, rear attacs, etc.  Welcome to Hero System!)

 

I think you are still missing the point though. People move in fights. They turn to face someone threatening them. They don't freeze after moving, allowing an attacker to run behind them and hit them.

 

Everything you've mentioned doesn't deal with the issue that characters can move behind each other on their phase to get a bonus in a way that is ridiculous and impossible in real life. Sure, put your back to a wall when facing multiple attackers., or rely on defensive maneuver. You shouldn't need either of those things when it is one on one, but currently you do, and that is insane. 

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

 

I think you are still missing the point though. People move in fights. They turn to face someone threatening them. They don't freeze after moving, allowing an attacker to run behind them and hit them.

 

Everything you've mentioned doesn't deal with the issue that characters can move behind each other on their phase to get a bonus in a way that is ridiculous and impossible in real life. Sure, put your back to a wall when facing multiple attackers., or rely on defensive maneuver. You shouldn't need either of those things when it is one on one, but currently you do, and that is insane. 

I've not dealt with it because it's already handled by RAW.  Chistopher Taylor even cited it for you earlier in the thread.

 

Per 6e2 p26:

"changing facing while Running, Leaping, Swimming, Swinging, or Tunneling is a Zero Phase Action in most circumstances. That means a character can’t do it after performing a Full Phase Action, but the GM can rule otherwise based on the situation, the abilities involved, common and dramatic sense, and other relevant factors. Changing facing with Flight or Teleportation depends on Turn Modes and/or the the use of the Position Shift Adder."

 

Thus, Knife Fighter A half-moves (circling to rear/flank -- hoping to shank his/her opponent from rear/flank) and holds …. and then his/her opponent Knife Fighter B does the same (circling to shank his/her opponent from rear/flank) and holds. Since a Full Phase Action hasn't been used, Knife Fighter A should be able to turn to face Knife Fighter A as a Zero Phase Action unless the GM rules otherwise.  This assumes they're on the ground and not flying, of course, as Flight gets more complicated due to Turn Mode unless Position Shift is in play.

That's a key benefit of half-moving and then holding … it allows someone to react, attack, etc.

 

Now since you're using 5er, it doesn't have an equivalent statement/rule within it, as far as I know.  I suppose that's one of the drawbacks of using the older, less polished rule set.  Perhaps you should move to 6e?

[Chris Goodwin]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

Everything you've mentioned doesn't deal with the issue that characters can move behind each other on their phase to get a bonus in a way that is ridiculous and impossible in real life. Sure, put your back to a wall when facing multiple attackers., or rely on defensive maneuver. You shouldn't need either of those things when it is one on one, but currently you do, and that is insane. 

 

Except you don't currently need those things.  6e2 p. 50:

 

One of the most common ways for a character to be Surprised is to be attacked from behind. However, that’s not to say that all attacks from behind qualify for the Surprised bonus. As always, the GM should apply common sense and dramatic sense — remember, combat is a dynamic situation where the rules reflect many variables. For example, if an opponent a character doesn’t know about attacks him from behind, that usually means the character is Surprised (though not necessarily, as discussed above). But if the character knows about or can see an opponent, that opponent can’t get a Surprised bonus just by making a Half Move behind the character before attacking. The opponent might get the bonus if the character is distracted (for example, if he’s already fighting one foe who’s in front of him), but moving behind a character before attacking does not per se earn an attacker a Surprised bonus.

[Surrealone]

  

20 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

Except you don't currently need those things.  6e2 p. 50:

 

One of the most common ways for a character to be Surprised is to be attacked from behind. However, that’s not to say that all attacks from behind qualify for the Surprised bonus. As always, the GM should apply common sense and dramatic sense — remember, combat is a dynamic situation where the rules reflect many variables. For example, if an opponent a character doesn’t know about attacks him from behind, that usually means the character is Surprised (though not necessarily, as discussed above). But if the character knows about or can see an opponent, that opponent can’t get a Surprised bonus just by making a Half Move behind the character before attacking. The opponent might get the bonus if the character is distracted (for example, if he’s already fighting one foe who’s in front of him), but moving behind a character before attacking does not per se earn an attacker a Surprised bonus.

Context matters.  I point this out because Tywyll is apparently using 5th edition (per the initial post of this thread) … and your quoted text is 6e.  (5er may have an equivalent statement within it?  I don't know … I didn't look.)

Also, worth mentioning is your quoted text deals with "surprise", which is NOT the same as the "attacked from behind" DCV modifier.  i.e. Surprise and attacked from behind bonuses are distinct/separate per RAW.  To support this assertion I cite the fact that they appear distinctly/separately within the DCV MODIFIERS TABLE on p373 of 5er (aka FRED).  Thus, the above merely states that the Surprised bonus may not apply … while saying nothing about the 'attacked from behind' bonus not applying.   [I'm being this technical/literal because that appears to be the mindset of Tywyll and his gaming group, and I'm trying to think as they are when responding, since facing was apparently a big deal in their prior system.]

Now, that said, GM common sense should always apply, which is what seems to be lacking in most of Tywyll's complaints about endless circling of opponents in munchkinized fashion to try to game a bonus. The problem is easy enough to put an end to without resorting to GM fiat, but it appears that a GM who has endless points to spend on baddies is concerned about 3pts on mooks … or doesn't want to engage in interesting gameplay by having characters fight back-to-back or from 'gunfighter' positions (i.e. with back to a wall).  So be it.  Some people would rather bitch than switch, I guess...

 

I still don't see merit to Tywyll's concerns about endless circling; I've only seen it happen a few times when munchkins were at play, and the GMs had the mooks learn the predictability of their opposition and then shut that crap down quickly. It made for good story!

[Tywyll]

You don't seem able to keep a consistant arguement going...

 

"GM common sense should always apply... The problem is easy enough to put an end to without resorting to GM fiat, "

 

Since there are no rules prohibiting endless circling for the attack from behind bonus, any GM ruling from 'common sense' would, in fact, be GM Fiat. So which should it be? Use their common sense and make a house rule like I and several other GMs did (as stated above) or allow munchkin silliness to happen that can't work in reality? By your own argument you can't have both.

 

Further, the fact you've seen it at all is poor design. The fact that it took 6 editions to comment on it shocks me, especially considering the minutiae in which so much else is covered in HERO. But I guess some people would rather defend bad design than acknowledge there is a flaw in a system they like. 

 

Also, your example of the rotation and half phase held actions doesn't work in the first round of combat with the faster opponent, nor does it work when the two fighers are sharing the same hex (at which point one of them steps out of the shared hex for the backstab).

 

I think the problem is that HERO tried to have it both ways, for rules for theatre of the mind and map based game play, without really shoring up both. So you end up with weird inconsistancies like the one we are talking about.  

[Tywyll]

56 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

 

Thus, Knife Fighter A half-moves (circling to rear/flank -- hoping to shank his/her opponent from rear/flank) and holds …. and then his/her opponent Knife Fighter B does the same (circling to shank his/her opponent from rear/flank) and holds. Since a Full Phase Action hasn't been used, Knife Fighter A should be able to turn to face Knife Fighter A as a Zero Phase Action unless the GM rules otherwise.  This assumes they're on the ground and not flying, of course, as Flight gets more complicated due to Turn Mode unless Position Shift is in play.

 

This example is completely wrong. Fighter A uses 3" of movement and now is completely behind his opponent, at which point he stabs the guy. He has zero reason to hold his action. B is frozen from his previous action last round. After he's stabbed in the back and survives, he then repeats the process on A who's facing is held by his attack, leaving his back exposed.

 

Tell me in what world is this gameplay desirable?  What genre of action or real life fighting encounter does it emulate? This is not what Defensive Maneuver was created for, I don't believe, it was created for fending off multiple attackers and surprise attacks. 

 

And none of this accounts for the various reasons one might want to block a target's movement, something done in real and cinematic life by the threat of attacking them if they try to run around you. As it is now, you can't protect an ally behind you, or block a villain from reaching the missile launch control button because they can just run around you (yes, I know you can block for someone else, but that's it). Just having a bad guy run past you without being able to slow them down is an issue. 

[Surrealone]

18 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

 

This example is completely wrong. Fighter A uses 3" of movement and now is completely behind his opponent, at which point he stabs the guy. He has zero reason to hold his action. B is frozen from his previous action last round. After he's stabbed in the back and survives, he then repeats the process on A who's facing is held by his attack, learing his back exposed.

 

Tell me in what world is this gameplay desirable?  What genre of action or real life fighting encounter does it emulate? This is not what Defensive Maneuver was created for, I don't believe, it was created for fending off multiple attackers and surprise attacks. 

Taking a Half Phase Action (be it moving or something else) and holding the remainder of one's action … until near the end of the Segment immediately prior to one's next Phase … is a common tactic in Hero System play.  This tactic is designed to allow maximum reaction without losing one's own action … and use of it is why Knife Fighter B would not be 'frozen' from his previous action.  (Also, this system uses Segments/Phases, not 'rounds'.)  Now, if Knife Fighter B was stupid enough to leave an opening by taking a Full Phase Action instead of using Half Phases, well, then s/he gets what s/he deserves.  That's actually spot-on for a knife fight, by the way, as each knife fighter tends to be circling looking for precisely that sort of opening.

When simulating combat second-by-second (a la Segments/Phases) … rather than minute-by-minute (a la 'rounds') … you have to address movement/facing in more granular fashion than other minute-by-minute systems do.  HERO System does that fairly well, but it's by no means perfect.  The 'fix' to what you are describing is to have characters (i.e. not just vehicles) use segmented movement -- something I and another have actually toyed with.  It works well enough, but it's incredibly cumbersome in that it slows everything down (in combats that are already quite slow compared to other systems)  … because pretty much every character is moving every Segment in much of a given Turn.

As for consistency -- I've been quite consistent.  GM common sense should always apply -- and GM fiat is absolutely not required for it to do so, in this case.  As previously noted, there are ways to deal with what you're concerned with … that don't entail the use of GM fiat. You just keep waving those things away for some reason...

As far as higher speed characters having an edge over lower speed ones in terms of openings, you're absolutely correct: they do. That's part of the game design and why Speed is so expensive.  This is also why GMs are supposed to set campaign limits prior to character creation -- such that a high Speed character isn't also a high damage AND/OR high defense character.  i.e. A speedster relying on back attacks probably hits very reliably, but also hits like a proverbial 'girl' (no disrespect intended to female heroines) … if a GM has done his/her job setting campaign limits properly.  (Again, we're back to GM common sense...)

As far as hexes are concerned, that, too is addressed in 6e, as hexes are 1m, not 2m in 6e -- meaning characters are pretty much always in different hexes unless on top of/under one another, desolid, or some other similar scenario.

 

[Doc Democracy]

Gentlemen.  There is a LOT of downvoting going on in this thread, some of it probably provoked by earlier downvotes.  I cannot remember seeing so many especially not in one thread.

 

Obviously there are no forum rules about use of downvotes but they have mostly been used, in my experience to denote bad behaviour than disagreement.  I have not seen much intemperate language or behaviour so the downvoting, to me, seems OTT.

 

Could I ask you to go back and think again whether you do actually want to be downvoting posts rather than simply expressing disagreement.

 

Doc

[Chris Goodwin]

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

Context matters.  I point this out because Tywyll is apparently using 5th edition (per the initial post of this thread) … and your quoted text is 6e.  (5er may have an equivalent statement within it?  I don't know … I didn't look.)

Also, worth mentioning is your quoted text deals with "surprise", which is NOT the same as the "attacked from behind" DCV modifier.  i.e. Surprise and attacked from behind bonuses are distinct/separate per RAW.  To support this assertion I cite the fact that they appear distinctly/separately within the DCV MODIFIERS TABLE on p373 of 5er (aka FRED).  Thus, the above merely states that the Surprised bonus may not apply … while saying nothing about the 'attacked from behind' bonus not applying.   

 

I did check 5er, and 5er does state "Attacked from behind" and separates it into in and out of combat, (edit) and has a separate table entry for "Surprised", also separated into in and out of combat.  6e is as I indicated above.  (/edit)

 

In 5er, the penalties and effects of "attacked from behind, in combat" and "surprised, in combat" are identical to one another, as are "attacked from behind, out of combat" and "surprised, out of combat".  It looks to me that for 6th edition they were combined, and the bit above I quoted from 6e2 is the result. 

 

Having said that, the easiest way to stop the munchkin maneuver of moving behind your opponent in order to get the "attacked from behind" modifier, is common sense.  I'd recommend not allowing one combatant moving behind the other, in combat, to get the "from behind" bonus.  A third combatant, coming up from their 6 o'clock, might get that bonus.  

 

(When I did boffer fighting, many years ago -- and I know this is not real fighting -- we found that in a one on one combat, it was hard if not impossible for one combatant to get behind the other.  However, it was extremely easy for one of the combatants' teammates to come up behind their opponent unaware and tag them in the back, but it tended to have to be from directly behind, and you had to catch them completely unaware.  If the one you're coming up behind has any awareness at all that you're there (makes his PER Roll), he'll either move out from between the two, or parry the attacks that are coming from behind him.  I remember doing it and having had it done to me, both.  Like I said, for me this was play fighting; if anyone with real fighting experience has anything to say, listen to them over me.)  

 

Incidentally, I'm not a moderator, but I think the thread is starting to get a little edition-warry and a little personal.  I'd like to ask that people step back, take a few breaths, and chill.  (Crossposted with Doc Democracy above.)

[Chris Goodwin]

And I'd just like to point out the following text from 5er p. 543 (also 6e2 p. 266), under "Eight Principles For Interpreting and Applying the HERO System Rules": 

 

Quote

8. Use your common sense: Above all else, when you interpret the HERO System rules, use your common sense. Nothing ruins a game faster than applying the rules “by the book” regardless of what common sense says. If your common sense tells you that a character can commit suicide by shooting himself in the head with a small pistol, then let him, even if the rules say he can’t possibly do enough damage that way to kill himself with a single shot.

 

You're allowed to use common sense, and it doesn't have to be GM fiat.  

[Chris Goodwin]

And, incidentally, in 4th edition the "attacked from behind" verbiage only appears under the Surprised combat modifier, as a comment rather than as a rule.  A brief survey of previous edition books shows that they all include modifiers for surprise, in and out of combat, but none at all for attacking from behind.  Danger International (3rd edition) and the BBB (4th edition) both have Defense Maneuver, with almost the same verbiage as in 5e and 6e.  It looks like 5th edition was the outlier in making attacking from behind a mechanical option.  (I don't have my 5th edition, non-revised, book in front of me to check; can anyone look there to see which it more closely tracks?)

 

[Duke Bushido]

On 11/15/2019 at 6:11 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I'd love to help you, Chris, but the down vote goofiness has only encouraged me to not come back as soon as this posts. 

 

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

In 5er, the penalties and effects of "attacked from behind, in combat" and "surprised, in combat" are identical to one another, as are "attacked from behind, out of combat" and "surprised, out of combat".  It looks to me that for 6th edition they were combined, and the bit above I quoted from 6e2 is the result. 

 

Having said that, the easiest way to stop the munchkin maneuver of moving behind your opponent in order to get the "attacked from behind" modifier, is common sense.  I'd recommend not allowing one combatant moving behind the other, in combat, to get the "from behind" bonus.  A third combatant, coming up from their 6 o'clock, might get that bonus.  

 

(When I did boffer fighting, many years ago -- and I know this is not real fighting -- we found that in a one on one combat, it was hard if not impossible for one combatant to get behind the other.  However, it was extremely easy for one of the combatants' teammates to come up behind their opponent unaware and tag them in the back, but it tended to have to be from directly behind, and you had to catch them completely unaware.  If the one you're coming up behind has any awareness at all that you're there (makes his PER Roll), he'll either move out from between the two, or parry the attacks that are coming from behind him.  I remember doing it and having had it done to me, both.  Like I said, for me this was play fighting; if anyone with real fighting experience has anything to say, listen to them over me.)  

 

Incidentally, I'm not a moderator, but I think the thread is starting to get a little edition-warry and a little personal.  I'd like to ask that people step back, take a few breaths, and chill.  (Crossposted with Doc Democracy above.)

I highly suspected you might counter with the argument that the penalties are the same … and almost pre-empted it.  But then I thought, 'No, surely people won't think the two should be treated as if they are the same in 5er just because their penalties are the same, as that just doesn't make sense when it comes to other penalties that are the same in 5er ... such as the -2 penalty for 'Fighting in a cluttered or cramped area' and the -2 penalty for 'Underwater'.  Surely no one will advocate that these latter two are the same in 5er just because their penalties are … and therefore, surely no one will do so with 'Attacked from behind' vs. 'Surprised' in 5er."

I guess I should have pre-empted?   That aside, I tend to agree that 5er is the outlier.  Yet one more reason to move to 6e, since it addresses issues like this … among others.

And yes, there's a lot of downvoting going on, here. I didn't start it, but I noted several someones were downvoting me any/every time I said something with which they disagreed, so I responded in kind.  I agree this is not normal, here, and I don't like it, either.  In fact, I don't remember EVER using the downvote option until today ... and I've been here a while. However, if that's how those people want things to be between us, I can give as good as I get … and have. If those people want to undo it, I'll retract mine, as well -- but as far as I'm concerned, the ones who started it … also need to initiate the retraction(s).

 

  

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

And I'd just like to point out the following text from 5er p. 543 (also 6e2 p. 266), under "Eight Principles For Interpreting and Applying the HERO System Rules": 

 

You're allowed to use common sense, and it doesn't have to be GM fiat.  

Spot-on!

 

[ScottishFox]

I've been watching UFC since 1993 and after watching thousands of matches the number of times someone got attacked from behind is incredibly small.

 

It's a jarring break from common and dramatic sense to allow 1v1 fights to turn into two fighters running behind each other for back stabs.  It just doesn't happen.  Even in the comics this usually can't be pulled off without teleportation, massive speed differences or advanced martial arts moves (dodge a heavy strike and step behind the opponent). 

 

As an example - in 5th edition D&D - you can't get sneak attack without an ally also engaged with the same target OR some scenario that grants advantage (invisible, hidden from the opponent, attacking a prone opponent, etc.).

 

Just allowing all combatants to constantly half-move around each other big bonuses on their chances to hit is going to skew players towards big defenses and minimal DCV since it is permanently halved with this approach.

[Chris Goodwin]

27 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

I highly suspected you might counter with the argument that the penalties are the same … and almost pre-empted it.  But then I thought, 'No, surely people won't think the two should be treated as if they are the same in 5er just because their penalties are the same, as that just doesn't make sense when it comes to other penalties that are the same in 5er ... such as the -2 penalty for 'Fighting in a cluttered or cramped area' and the -2 penalty for 'Underwater'.  Surely no one will advocate that these latter two are the same in 5er just because their penalties are … and therefore, surely no one will do so with 'Attacked from behind' vs. 'Surprised' in 5er."

I guess I should have pre-empted?   That aside, I tend to agree that 5er is the outlier.  Yet one more reason to move to 6e, since it addresses issues like this … among others.

 

I don't believe anyone should move from one edition to another over one rule.  I'd recommend using the particular rule from 6e. 

 

I'll admit that I think that a rule allowing one HTH combatant to make a half-move behind the other and get an "attack from behind" bonus is a stupid rule.  On the common sense theory, I'd advocate ignoring that rule.  If I were GMing 5th edition, I would ignore that rule.  I don't in the least think that just because you're using the very large black hardcover rulebook with the green and grey on it, you can't use a rule from 6th edition, or even common sense, and GMs ignore rules and change them in the face of common sense or any reason at all regardless of what edition, or even what game system, they're using.

[Tywyll]

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Gentlemen.  There is a LOT of downvoting going on in this thread, some of it probably provoked by earlier downvotes.  I cannot remember seeing so many especially not in one thread.

 

Obviously there are no forum rules about use of downvotes but they have mostly been used, in my experience to denote bad behaviour than disagreement.  I have not seen much intemperate language or behaviour so the downvoting, to me, seems OTT.

 

Could I ask you to go back and think again whether you do actually want to be downvoting posts rather than simply expressing disagreement.

 

Doc

 

Lots of snide, derogatory, and dismissive remarks being thrown around. Maybe you missed me and my group being snidely derided?

[Tywyll]

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Taking a Half Phase Action (be it moving or something else) and holding the remainder of one's action … until near the end of the Segment immediately prior to one's next Phase … is a common tactic in Hero System play.  This tactic is designed to allow maximum reaction without losing one's own action … and use of it is why Knife Fighter B would not be 'frozen' from his previous action.  (Also, this system uses Segments/Phases, not 'rounds'.)  Now, if Knife Fighter B was stupid enough to leave an opening by taking a Full Phase Action instead of using Half Phases, well, then s/he gets what s/he deserves.  That's actually spot-on for a knife fight, by the way, as each knife fighter tends to be circling looking for precisely that sort of opening.

 

You assume B has never acted, or A for that matter. The instant one of them acts, the twrling back stab fest begins. That's why your example falls apart. Once one of them acts, you know, attacks, they are then frozen and that is NOT how a real knife fight goes. The 'opening' a fighter is looking for is not one that allows them to get 180 degrees behind an opponent. 

 

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

When simulating combat second-by-second (a la Segments/Phases) rather than minute-by-minute (a la 'rounds') you have to address movement/facing in more granular fashion than minute-by-minute systems do.  HERO System does that fairly well, but it's by no means perfect.  The 'fix' to what you are describing is to have characters (i.e. just vehicles) use segmented movement -- something I and another have actually toyed with.  It works well enough, but it's incredibly cumbersome in that it slows everything down (in combats that are already quite slow compared to other systems) because pretty much every character is moving every Segment in much of a given Turn.

 

I never suggested such a fix nor would I want it. 

 

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

 

As for consistency -- I've been quite consistent.  GM common sense should always apply -- and GM fiat is absolutely not required for it to do so, in this case.  As previously noted, there are ways to deal with what you're concerned with that don't entail the use of GM fiat. You just keep waving those things away for some reason...

 

Because if you are making a call based on feelings or common sense or personal taste, going outside RAW,  that is you are exercising GM fiat. All Houserules are GM fiat.  

 

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

As far as higher speed characters having an edge over lower speed ones in terms of openings, you're absolutely correct: they do. That's part of the game design and why Speed is so expensive.  This is also why GMs are supposed to set campaign limits prior to character creation -- such that a high Speed character isn't also a high damage AND/OR high defense character.  A speedster relying on back attacks probably hits very reliably, but also hits like a proverbial 'girl' (no disrespect intended to female heroines) if a GM has done his/her job setting campaign limits properly.  Again, we're back to GM common sense...)

 

Wow...sexism too. That's great.

 

Your high speed fighter has then just left themselves open to being stabbed in the back. 

 

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

 

As far as hexes are concerned, that, addressed in 6e, as hexes are 1m, not 2m in 6e -- meaning characters are pretty much always in different hexes unless on top of/under one another or some other similar scenario.

 

 

It does not address being able to move around an armed opponent with impunity. 

[Tywyll]

  

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

Having said that, the easiest way to stop the munchkin maneuver of moving behind your opponent in order to get the "attacked from behind" modifier, is common sense.  I'd recommend not allowing one combatant moving behind the other, in combat, to get the "from behind" bonus.  A third combatant, coming up from their 6 o'clock, might get that bonus.  

 

I'm not so sure how that is any easier than simply invoking a 'threatened hex' rule or allowing an Abort to attack against someone blithly ignoring somone. Those are rules that have teeth (and can be seasoned to taste in regards to Move Through and Move By) rather than simply the GM asking the player to be reasonable. There will always be a situation where it's justifiable to ignore common sense because 'this time there are reasons!'.

 

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

(When I , many years ago -- and I know this is not real fighting -- we found that in a one on one combat, it was hard if not impossible for one combatant to get behind the other.  However, it was extremely easy for one of the combatants' teammates to come up behind their opponent unaware and tag them in the back, but it tended to have to be from directly behind, and you had to catch them completely unaware.  If the one you're coming up behind has any awareness at all that you're there (makes his PER Roll), he'll either move out from between the two, or parry the attacks that are coming from behind him.  I remember doing it and having had it done to me, both.  Like I said, for me this was play fighting; if anyone with real fighting experience has anything to say, listen to them over me.)  

 

My experience in both boffer and martial arts is exactly that. It's impossible to get around an opponent one on one, unless they slip or trip or something. Only when facing multiple opponents is that a possibility. 

 

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Incidentally, I'm not a moderator, but I think the thread is starting to get a little edition- and a little personal.  I'd like to ask that people step back, take a few breaths, and chill.  Doc Democracy above.)

 

Yeah, I agree. 

[Tywyll]

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

And I'd just like to point out the following text from 5er p. 543 (also 6e2 p. 266), under "Eight Principles For Interpreting and Applying the HERO System Rules": 

 

 

You're allowed to use common sense, and it doesn't have to be GM fiat.  

 

fiat

/ˈfiːat,ˈfʌɪat/

noun

 

1. a formal authorization or proposition; a decree

    

   Whether its based on 'common sense', feelings, or the phase of the moon, any such ruling is a GM's fiat.

[Tywyll]

2 hours ago, Surrealone said:

And yes, there's a lot of downvoting going on, here. I didn't start it, but I noted several someones were downvoting me any/every time I said something with which they disagreed, so I responded in kind.  I agree this is not normal, here, and I don't like it, either.  In fact, I don't remember EVER using the downvote option until today ...and I've been here a while. However, if that's how those people want things to be between us, I can give as good as I get … and have. If those people want to undo it, I'll retract mine, as well -- but as far as I'm concerned, the ones who started it … also need to initiate the retraction(s).

 

 

 

No, I downvoted your rude and insulting posts. You then just went and downvoted everywhere I disagreed with you, because unlike you, I've not made snide remarks or personal insinuations. So, it's hardly tit-for-tat. You got downvoted for making rude remarks. But hey, you believe what you want to believe and just do you.