Members | Sign In
All Forums > Rules and Mechanics
avatar

Revisiting Charging and Movement

posted Dec 27, 2012 12:06:37 by Chris
Not sure if this is the way to do it, but I've been ruling that an attack falls under the same AP as a charge or a move action.

So Move and Attack or Charge and Attack are all performed under 1 Action Point.

Yes, no? It seems to work great

Otherwise there seemed to be an issue where anyone who initiated an attack, was always 1 AP down due to the RAW.
"This is where we hold them! This is where we fight! This is where they die!"
page   1 2 3 4 5 next last
62 replies
avatar
DanTrue said Dec 27, 2012 15:16:05
Otherwise there seemed to be an issue where anyone who initiated an attack, was always 1 AP down due to the RAW.


No, as movement is obviously done while the opponent spends his AP. Else you would have people declaring a move and then instantly teleporting in front of their opponent.

So, A and B are fighting.

A moves to B (1 AP)
B prepares for A's arrival
* movement is now completed *
A attacks, B parries
B attacks, A parries

But, your houserule is useable. I just prefer RAW, as it gives the opponent a chance to spend an AP while his opponent moves the distance (to run away, brace for impact etc).

- Dan
avatar
Chris said Dec 27, 2012 15:27:14
So 'B' awaiting 'A's' arrival costs an AP?
"This is where we hold them! This is where we fight! This is where they die!"
avatar
DanTrue said Dec 27, 2012 15:42:06
So 'B' awaiting 'A's' arrival costs an AP?


Well, whatever he chooses to do while A is moving costs an AP.

You're 5 metres away from me and start to move towards me. If the timespan you spend on moving costs you an AP (i.e. roughly 1.5 seconds), then I have 1 AP's worth of time to do something before you hit me. Either I can stare blankly at you, I can throw a javelin at you, run away screaming or brace for impact. Whatever I choose to do, I do for those 1.5 seconds, and if you payed 1 AP for using 1.5 seconds of time, obviously I should pay the same.
If this was not the case, then you would start moving, time would stand still while you were moving and suddenly you would have appeared in front of me.

Try to reread the movement section, and perhaps read the appendix on using miniatures. If its mentioned that all movement is done at the same time, to avoid weird "teleportations" - you closing 8 metres without me having a chance to react for instance.

So, everyone spends an AP - then all movement is applied to the game world / hex grid / square map. Then the next turn begins.

- Dan
[Last edited Dec 27, 2012 15:44:07]
avatar
PatHenry said Dec 27, 2012 16:15:05
So 'B' awaiting 'A's' arrival costs an AP?


B's Turn comes 'round while A is closing, and therefore the opportunity B has to select a Proactive Action. B can choose to do any of the Proactive Actions that are allowable on B's Turn, including Ready Weapon, Brace, Change Distance (close, or withdraw) or stand around staring blankly (Dither). B can also choose to Delay, reserving his AP for an Interrupt later in the round.

I would recommend reading the sections om Delay and Interrupt closely and a couple of times. I did, and it was an eye opener.

As Dan notes, your house rule tends to foreclose on B's opportunity to choose from a range of readying strategies.
avatar
PatHenry said Dec 27, 2012 19:16:22
Following on, here’s a question I had about Delay/Interrupt:

A & B each have 2APs and ready weapons.
A has the initiative and spends his first turn (AP) closing on B
B spends his turn (AP) on Delay
A has closed and now intends to attack B
B chooses Interrupt and makes his attack before A
A must spend his AP parrying
All APs are spent and the Round ends

Even though A had the initiative and superior Strike Rank, he is Interrupted from making an attack in this Round. This is how I’ve read and applied the rule.

It probably doesn’t make a lot of difference in the combat as a whole, as successive rounds will tend to equalize this exchange. But, if I’m reading and applying the rule correctly, it is a little shocking that the person with the initiative and pace of combat could be preempted.
avatar
David Gran_Orco said Dec 27, 2012 23:50:28
Following on, here’s a question I had about Delay/Interrupt:

A & B each have 2APs and ready weapons.
A has the initiative and spends his first turn (AP) closing on B
B spends his turn (AP) on Delay
A has closed and now intends to attack B
B chooses Interrupt and makes his attack before A
A must spend his AP parrying
All APs are spent and the Round ends

Even though A had the initiative and superior Strike Rank, he is Interrupted from making an attack in this Round. This is how I’ve read and applied the rule.


But, if I understand it, B wastes his delay action at the end of the cycle because A does not arrive until the start of next cycle, so B cannot interrupt -there is nothing to interrupt in this cycle-.
avatar
Afon y Bydysawd said Dec 28, 2012 23:51:05
I'd say it depends on how far out A is from B. If A is close enough, 1 AP should cover a "close in and attack".
avatar
DanTrue said Dec 29, 2012 10:51:24
of next cycle, so B cannot interrupt -there is nothing to interrupt in this cycle-.


The delay must be used before his next turn in the following cycle, according to p. 138. So this is not the case.

However, A has already declared his attack, costing an AP, so he cannot parry B's attack unless he has 3 AP. I would however allow a perception roll or a combat style roll, to allow A to determine that B is delaying. This can allow A to turn the tables and also delay instead of simply attacking - this would force B to act immediately or loose his AP as per p. 138). If he does not, A must act or loose his delayed AP. The result would be two opponents circling each other waiting for an opening - a common sight in fencing when no one has the upper hand.

And it also goes to show that 2 AP warriors should not rely on their quickness for defense (i.e. their ability to reactively parry), but rather on armour or passively blocking with a shield. If sufficiently armoured and/or having many locations passively blocked by a shield (or perhaps both, such as a roman legionary where his scutum covers the locations he is not armoured) A could ignore B's delaying action and simply attack. Hopefully B's attack bounces off and A can continue his attack on B... it can be dangerous to close with an enemy if not prepared or equipped for frontal assault (where historically many casualties were sustained).

- Dan
[Last edited Dec 29, 2012 10:53:25]
avatar
David Gran_Orco said Dec 29, 2012 12:37:13
However, A has already declared his attack, costing an AP, so he cannot parry B's attack unless he has 3 AP. I would however allow a perception roll or a combat style roll, to allow A to determine that B is delaying. This can allow A to turn the tables and also delay instead of simply attacking - this would force B to act immediately or loose his AP as per p. 138). If he does not, A must act or loose his delayed AP. The result would be two opponents circling each other waiting for an opening - a common sight in fencing when no one has the upper hand.

Too enough rolls that could slow down the game. I thought that A did not spend his AP until B finished his action.
avatar
PatHenry said Dec 29, 2012 15:45:26
Yes. My earlier example assumed the combatants were within their base movement and could move and strike each other within the same combat round. That’s how I’d rule it anyway—they need to be within their base movement for that round, or it starts to look and behave more like a Charge.

DanTrue, I agree with David Gran_Orc that your interpretation seems a _little_ harsh for my tastes. I would assume that if A was delayed by B, A would not lose his AP simply because of B’s preemptive declaration. I would just grant that A, in the fury of attacking, suddenly realizes he cannot immediately attack and must instead parry. Otherwise Delay becomes a much more powerful Action than it is (and it is).

I would agree that A, having been delayed by B, could choose to passively block B’s attack. But A, by not parrying, then risks B gaining a Special Effect in B’s attack.

I suppose A's best strategy here is to wait for the outcome of B's interrupting attack. If B misses, A may attack as planned.
#
[Last edited Dec 29, 2012 15:57:10]
avatar
DanTrue said Dec 29, 2012 16:38:48
Well, RAW it is stated that if the original declaration cannot be completed, the AP is lost. This seems to imply that the AP has already been spent. Not a hard ruling however. The other ruling could work if you prefer that, I don't see it ruining anything expect where is it okay to draw the line?

A: "I attack"
B: "I then use my delayed action to attack you"
A: "okay, then I don't do that, but parry instead".

okay, fint, but what about:

A: "I run through the castle gate, even though I can see B standing up there"
B: "I use my delayed action to jump down on him when he passes".
A: "Okay, then I don't do that but throw my javelin instead".

So, it becomes a much softer ruling. Simply saying that the AP is spent when declaration (and interrupt is used after declaration) makes it a lot easier to handle.

I would likely also rule that, as B is attacking while A is attacking, he cannot parry. I believe it is stated somewhere that when two opponents attack each other at the same initiative count, they cannot parry? But I can't fint it, and it may have been MRQII. This would seem to fit under this.

I would agree that A, having been delayed by B, could choose to passively block B’s attack. But A, by not parrying, then risks B gaining a Special Effect in B’s attack.


Well, that is why you shouldn't perform an assault against a prepared enemy unless equally prepared to withstand his retribution. The idea seems to be passively blocking some locations - arms and legs if possible (needs torso or abdomen to connect) - and have head, torso and abdomen covered by armour. It also seems to be a very popular way of doing it in historical terms, and results in at least some Armour on any possible location.

I suppose A's best strategy here is to wait for the outcome of B's interrupting attack. If B misses, A may attack as planned.


If he has sufficient CA's then yes.

- Dan
avatar
Afon y Bydysawd said Dec 29, 2012 16:56:36
Too enough rolls that could slow down the game. I thought that A did not spend his AP until B finished his action.


Otherwise Delay becomes a much more powerful Action than it is (and it is).


I agree. It seems like losing initiative is advantageous. I'd rule it that you can only delay/interrupt on people who rolled lower on initiative, i.e. that delay is wiped at the end of the cycle. I think this makes sense:

A has higher init than B.
---
A: "Come on you bastard, come and get some!" (delay)

B: "Attaaaack!" (moves in to attack or charge)
A: "Take that!" (interrupts and attacks)
-or-
B: "Screw you pal, come here and say that!" (dithers)

New Cycle

---

A: "Attaaack!" (moves in to attack or charge)

B: "Crap!" (turns and flees)
-or-
B: "Meet you halfway!" (moves in to attack)
-or-
B: "Come and get it" (dithers and waits for A to arrive)

New Cycle

---
For the 2nd cycle, I'd say that weapon reach will determine how the clash of blades turns out. I.e. if I am charging with a spear and other guy has a dagger.
[Last edited Dec 29, 2012 17:00:13]
avatar
PatHenry said Dec 29, 2012 17:21:02
DanTrue:

okay, fint, but what about:

A: "I run through the castle gate, even though I can see B standing up there"
B: "I use my delayed action to jump down on him when he passes".
A: "Okay, then I don't do that but throw my javelin instead".


Love these puzzles, and the rules—tight and constructed as they are—invite them. I would say that instances that result in problems of causation should be disallowed; and might result in—yes, as you say the RAW indicates—a lost AP at the end of the round. In your example, I’d say A would be restricted to responding (or not) to B jumping down on him. B has, in effect, by delaying preempted and gained the upper hand.

And I can definitely see instances where two opponents Delay on one another to the forfeiture of the Round (Dither).

In my example, though, no causation issues follow from two opponents clashing in battle, one realizing suddenly that where he thought he could attack he must instead defend.
#
[Last edited Dec 29, 2012 17:31:57]
avatar
PatHenry said Dec 29, 2012 17:41:13
DanTrue:

I would likely also rule that, as B is attacking while A is attacking, he cannot parry. I believe it is stated somewhere that when two opponents attack each other at the same initiative count, they cannot parry? But I can't fint it, and it may have been MRQII. This would seem to fit under this.


Interesting. In my original example, B uses his Turn to Delay. He holds on to his AP chit. He can then Interrupt *at any time* as a Reactive Action, handing in his AP chit as he takes his Turn. He chooses to attack, preempting A’s attack and handing in his AP chit. But he still holds a second AP chit for that round when his Turn comes 'round (or for Reactive Action). So I’d say, yes, he can parry.

As I noted above, a lot of the seeming "unfairness" of this would wash out in subsequent rounds. A continues to hold the initiative in subsequent rounds unless the tactical situation changes.
#
[Last edited Dec 29, 2012 17:46:11]
avatar
DanTrue said Dec 29, 2012 18:14:59
Interesting. In my original example, B uses his Turn to Delay. He holds on to his AP chit. He can then Interrupt *at any time* as a Reactive Action, handing in his AP chit as he takes his Turn. He chooses to attack, preempting A’s attack and handing in his AP chit. But he still holds a second AP chit for that round when his Turn comes 'round (or for Reactive Action). So I’d say, yes, he can parry.


It might be you're right. I cannot find the part about attacks on the same initiative count - and since he interrupts A, his attack must be said to be on the same initiative count. But it might be MRQII talking, I'll see if I can find it.

- Dan
Login below to reply: