Half run-around attack

[GWJ]

If I start my turn in front hex of my foe and I'll move to his back hex, there is run-around attack and he has defenses like for side attack.

And what if I start my turn ALREADY on one od his side hexes, and I'll make just a step to his back hex? No defenses or still run-around?

(Bonus question - what if I will for aby reason move from back hex to front hex? There may look silly, but one of my players was doing this once)

EDIT: I just realized I should title this thread "few questions about runaround attacks" :P Because I have two more situations:
1. What if "runarounded" character has No Peripheral Vision? No defenses at all, because he has no side hexes?
2a. What if runner is getting to side hex as result of side step (retreat option from martial arts) in foe's turn, and in HIS OWN turn he go one more step to foe's back hex?
2b. as above but runner is fast enough to have TWO-yard steps, thus if he is not on "central front" hex of his foe (eg. because he's foe is fighting with two persons), he in theory can move from front hex to back hex WITH DEFENSE, and then start his own turn from he's foe back hex. There is legal back attack, or also run-around?

[Anaraxes]

The logic of the runaround attack rule is simply that the target is not unaware of the attacker. The rule that you can't defend against an attack from directly behind you isn't based on geometry, but knowledge. You can't defend against an attack if you don't know it's coming -- a rule which is just as true of a sniper in line with your front center hex as one behind you.

The runaround rule also tries to incorporate the notion that activity in combat is not really structured into discrete turns where one combatant is frozen in place while the other dances around at will. We play it that way because we have to organize it somehow, as resolving everything at once in parallel is difficult and confusing. The defender is likely really turning to follow that attacker as he runs around, or at least turning his head, not just standing still and staring fixedly forward, oblivious to the guy right next to him exhibiting hostile intent.

The simple prohibition against defending against rear attacks is probably overly simple. A common forum recommendation is to treat a rear attacker the same as invisible attacker, so you might get a hearing check to know that he's there. Defense is still awkward because you can't see him.

The side and rear penalties to defense still apply, because those are a matter of geometry. It's hard to get that shield or sword up behind your head to the rear.

You could apply that same reasoning to your other cases. If you can't see someone to your side because you lack peripheral vision, you might still know they're there (because they just moved from your front, or because you can hear them, or because they attacked you last turn). It's still difficult to be sure of where they are and make a specific defense, just as it is with an invisible character.

The case of someone moving to the front doesn't seem problematic. The defense penalty doesn't come from their speed of motion, so a runaround to the front wouldn't give the defender a -2. If you want to narrate an effect that's a rapid shift to be tricky, I'd narrate it that way and use the Deceptive Attack mechanic, not try to model it as a "runaround in front".

[Kromm]

The Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game clarifies the intent of the original GURPS rule:

For an attack to count as coming from behind, the attacker must not only attack from behind the defender but also start there on the turn of the attack. Starting anywhere else and using sheer speed to maneuver behind someone and strike from the back means the victim is somewhat aware of the attack. Treat this as an attack from the side instead.

[GodBeastX]

There is a long thread on this topic. The idea is that the idea of running around someone is a side-effect of Turn-based combat. Nobody is supposedly standing still while someone runs around to their backside to stab their butt.

If you started a turn behind someone then they had a turn in which to react to that fact (Turning around, etc). If they didn't, only THEN can you truly be considered behind someone because they obviously didn't react the the guy behind them.

Although personally, I would consider anyone with tunnel vision from various effects as counting side-hexes as beginning in back hexes too. Sniper scopes, great helms, etc.

[GWJ]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game clarifies the intent of the original GURPS rule:

For an attack to count as coming from behind, the attacker must not only attack from behind the defender but also start there on the turn of the attack. Starting anywhere else and using sheer speed to maneuver behind someone and strike from the back means the victim is somewhat aware of the attack. Treat this as an attack from the side instead.

So "2b." in my question is correct, yeah? I mean dodge with retreat from side hex to back hex, to start my own turn in the back hex.

And what about foes with No Peripheral Vision (for example certain helmet)? There is no "side" in their case, just front or back

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by GWJ

And what about foes with No Peripheral Vision (for example certain helmet)? There is no "side" in their case, just front or back

...Why would you expect that to make any difference?

[GWJ]

Because of

Treat this as an attack from the side instead.

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by GWJ

So "2b." in my question is correct, yeah? I mean dodge with retreat from side hex to back hex, to start my own turn in the back hex.

And what about foes with No Peripheral Vision (for example certain helmet)? There is no "side" in their case, just front or back

The basic logic is still the same - the defender is in fact aware of the attack, so gets a lesser penalty for a run-around than if they were not.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by GWJ

And what about foes with No Peripheral Vision (for example certain helmet)? There is no "side" in their case, just front or back

In that case, an attack that started in their arc of vision would use the modifiers for side hexes (even though the foe has no side hexes), an attack that did not would be a back attack.

[GWJ]

Hmm it's make sense