Quote:
Originally Posted by Celti
It's funny you mention Tactical Shooting, because if you do want to call for a roll to determine whether they recognise an All-Out Attack when they see one, the rules for Situational Awareness (page 11 of that book) specifically call out using that section for, among other things, being “able to tell what maneuvers targets are taking”. It's a Per, Observation, or Per-based Tactics or Soldier roll, with assorted modifiers.
|
For melee combat, I would use a Per based roll of your own combat skill. For several reasons ...
- Every martial art teaches you to read your foe's body. So you don't have to know your opponent's skill to notice that he is dropping his guard, trying a telegraphic attack, and so on.
- Your ability to do it depends on your training. More you are skilled, more it is easy to do.
- Soldier or Tactics don't teach you to read your foe's body in close combat. Exactly as, Karate, Judo, Boxing (or any other melee combat skill) won't teach you to read what your foe is trying to do in a gunfight ...
And I fully do agree about the fact that making such rolls is adding something to the usual game, for harshly realistic games (I was speaking about a "very realistic manner" of playing). Exactly as using
Tactical Shooting is adding something more complex (but so interesting) to the basic rules.
Edit
Of course, not knowing that your foe is making an all-out attack unbalances the game a bit ... But just a bit. Even if B doesn't take advantage of the fact that A chose an all-out attack to also make an all-out attack, A is still defenseless! Which means that if B succeeds a normal attack, A won't be able to avoid it. It is already a huge drawback! Suppose that B just makes a Telegraphic Attack* and A will regret his choice.
_____
* Most beginners do telegraphic attacks rather than all-out ones. They don't necessarily drop their guard. But they prepare their punch or kick so much before attacking that it becomes very obvious.