[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

CA (from a Wait) for the first two hexes of movement into his rear-left hex (alternatively, rear-right). Still need your own turn to get into CC from the rear arc.

Right yes (sorry I thought you'd said you would be grappling on the first turn with the wait triggered CA).

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, if a grappler needs to Shove People Around, surely the grappled needs it too?

Only shoving is about changing the facing of the other, not yourself.

Only shoving (or being shoved) people round is not the only way to change your facing. And it changing your facing we're interested in. we only referencing shoving because it only in that context that facing is referenced in CC.

Remember what were talking about here, on a second by second basis someone's going to interrupt move two hexes, with facing change, parry and slip then attack from behind, all while the target stands motionless in terms of facing (but still managing to attack).

TG has rules for changing relative facing, and for what starting relative facing is, but then TG also makes grappling a more gradual and gradiated process.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

As for just being in CC, it seems to care from what are the entry occurs.

But only in the context of what hexes you can leave it by, and weather or not you need an evade.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yes, he can, getting +1 with his Knife Parry.
As for stringing together - that's only fair, for our Wait allowed the opponent to also effectively string together two manoeuvres.

Oh the stringing together aspect is fine (as I said that wait makes wait-feint and attack so good, or even wait-set up, and attack). But how did the opponent get two consecutive manoeuvres?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Surely Feint doesn't take the penalty for the attack which it imitates? After all, it doesn't make a weapon Unready for weapons that do after an attack.
Even if you rule that it does, a Feint against 13 vs 12 seems better than nothing.

Feint just says roll melee skills (and MA refines that to roll highest melee skill to resist). Obviously most of the time its not going to matter because as you say the attack doesn't actually happen and there's no benefit to choosing any that's not your highest skill. My general argument would be if you pretending to do a thing how well you pretend to do it will depend on how well you can do it. Bit in a game balance POV I'd do it so you don't get double effect.

Take the kick vs. strike issue here. Strike is reach C, kick is reach 1. You can't feint with strike unless in CC. But you can feint with kick at reach 1.

So IMO you make you choice you can feint at CC with full karate skill, or you can feint at reach 1 with your karate(kick) skill. But you can't feint at reach 1 with you karate (strike) skill.

Interestingly this only really come up with unarmed skills, which tend to have a greater variety of techniques that allow you to play with stuff like reach and damage with corresponding balancing mods. I'd argue that you have to bring those mods with you when feinting as well as attacking. But I agree RAW is silent on it. It depends on how you read "compare melee skills". It's is how I initially read it and how I've always played it.

Think of it this way, you can increase the reach of a melee attack, with AoA(l), would you allow someone to declare A feint - AoA(l) and as the attack doesn't happen not take all the AoA penalties?

Not that AoA(l) and Kick tech are completely analogous of course!

Basically feinting at extra reach is very powerful because not only are you increasing situations were feint is useful, but you reducing the risk of giving up the attack as well.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Apparently it does (I missed that on first read), unless the enemy has Peripheral Vision. Though I wonder if a Side Kick technique is included in Back Kick; probably not.

It's a tough one, because realistic I see no difference between kicking, striking or elbowing to the back left, back centre of back right (outside of lead/trailing, dominant left/right limbs questions of course). Just as attacking to any of the front three hexes isn't any different.

However, Elbow and back kick or back strike already largely circumvent the wild attack penalties as it is.

(so I can wild strike with my sword at -5 with a max skill 9, or I can just do a back strike at -2 and accept -2 pen to defences, which I'm not going to be relying on anyway what with being attacked from behind.

So ehh, I'm not sure

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If Wait doesn't let one still act at one's next turn according to combat sequence, Wait becomes a very poor choice.

Oh I've no problem with wait allowing you to string two actions together, but I always try and refer back to what actually happening and asses it by that criteria, rather than abstract rules.

In theory you could do the following

Chap steps forward into the hex in front of you face to face you wait and feint with step, he then attacks you defend and side step, you then CA moving another hex and into CC.

You have been able to string two actions together and respond to him twice (wait and parry slip), allowing you to take 4 steps. While he has basically been an observer unable to act to avoid the chap who's just dashed to his rear and attacked him. What I find odd is that due to order of movement and attacking, the chap can attack no problem, he can even adjust his attack to the changing situation, but he remains standing fixed forward. What I might allow that free facing change to be allowable after the attack not just after the step. (abut that might less OTT position tactics harder)

It's not problem with wait, or problem with getting an extra step of defending, it when it's both together that gets a bit OTT. But even that's fine to an extent as everyone can do it. It when it get ended with grapple to the back and all that bonus I start getting a bit twitchy on it.