11-15-2018, 09:27 AM | #1 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
I think/hope this is actually the intent of both original Advanced Melee and the new ITL, but this is my current wording/explanation of my house rules on the subject:
OPTIONS: -------------- Combat Options are determined by a figure's situation at the time they ACT (not "move" as ITL p.XX says). A figure MAY declare an option during the Movement phase, but it's only useful for options you want to be doing in case you receive no warning to respond (such as dodging in case you get shot at from behind) or to help others coordinate what they do with you (or influence foes), by seeing what you are doing. because: A figure who has not yet acted can take any action they haven't moved too far to do. The only other restriction is that the action make sense. A standing figure who has moved 1/2 their MA or less can Attack, Defend, Dodge or Drop, whether they are engaged or not. A figure who moved 1 hex or less can fire a ready missile weapon or cast a spell. Etc. Some actions can be done during movement or before a figure's adjDX, in reaction to other figure's actions: i.e. Defend, Dodge, Drop, and dropping held items. When a figure declares an action and target when their turn to act comes, they cannot change that action or target in response to other figures' responses to it. That is, if A shoots at B, B can Dodge, but then those actions happen - A can't then react to B dodging his attack by changing targets or switching to another Option. A figure who has said they will Dodge or Defend can change their option up until the point that they actually affect someone's attack on them - after that, they have used their action for the turn. |
11-15-2018, 10:32 AM | #3 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
I wouldn't mind combining Dodge & Defend (GURPS does, even with 1-second turns), but I disagree that either is locked in at the beginning of the turn, as noted above.
If you require Dodge/Defend to be locked in during the Movement Phase, then it's a positive invitation for your enemy to completely ignore you and kill your friends (or take other moves & actions based on knowing you can't do anything else) while you waste your turn. |
11-15-2018, 01:39 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
Good idea!
Quote:
|
|
11-15-2018, 01:48 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
Quote:
The gaming and "realism" logic of that is that otherwise the attacker can't know whether a target is dodging or not until he commits to attack him. If a bowman really doesn't want to shoot at a dodging figure, should he be forced to -- is that he couldn't tell they were dodging until after he shot at them? I won't go to the mat on that one, as the whole option selection is a game mechanic, and you can find "unrealistic" situations in any rules. I know some people have concerns this system leads to a never-ending he said/she said about actions. But it actually never does, it's all very orderly as the attacker has to make a choice. For example, "If I attack A, he will then be committed to dodging. I'll probably miss, but at least A won't be able to cast a spell this turn. If I attack B, I'll probably hit, but then A won't be dodging and so will be able to cast a spell." Anyway, it's worked for the groups I've played in! |
|
11-15-2018, 02:02 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
Quote:
A declares shot at B B declares Dodge B changes mind, declares shot at C C declares Dodge B declares shot at D D declines to Dodge B shoots at D Then do you let B and C, who didn't actually get shot at, revert to doing other things? If there are many targets for A to choose from, it seems like this process could start to feel like it should be delaying A's action to me, and take a while. I think requiring actions (not defenses) to be committed flows and feels better to me, but that's how we always did it, and how GURPS does it, so that may influence how much it feels right to me. |
|
11-15-2018, 02:57 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
I'm not sure I follow what's happening in your question, but I think it is, A has a bow and three potential targets, B, C, and D.
B and C say they'll dodge if shot at. D isn't going to dodge and A shoots him. B and C weren't shot at, and didn't have to dodge, and can now do other things. They weren't locked in until they were shot at. But if I understand the mechanics you're suggesting, B, C, and D can move and then each declare (pre-declare) they are dodging. That is, prior to taking any actions. Let's say A acts first decides to shoot at B. That attack is resolved and now C and D can do other things? They weren't locked in until they were shot at? Last edited by RobW; 11-15-2018 at 03:01 PM. |
11-15-2018, 11:53 PM | #8 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
That is the situation and the answer I was looking for. I think that answer is better than locking people, because it would mean one ranged attacker could make a bunch of foes waste their turn dodging without actually attacking them.
My suggestion I thought I described clearly in my original post, which is that no one needs to pre-declare any defense unless they want to be conspicuous about their intent, or they want to be dodging in case an attack comes that they can't see coming (like an attack from behind), and so logically wouldn't be able to react to by a change of options. That is, I think the attacker should have to pick a target and stick to it, and figures who haven't act can then choose to dodge or defend as appropriate, or not to. I think that way flows best and makes the most sense to me. If an attacker can "try out" attacking multiple people to find out who will dodge or defend, and then pick one, that seems gamey and clunky to me and like it takes gives the attacker more back-and-forth than they should be allowed, especially without delaying their attack by doing so. If someone really didn't want to shoot at anyone who started to dodge, I would allow them to say so: A: "I shoot at B unless he dodges." B: I'll dodge. But I would have the result of that be that A doesn't shoot, and B can do something else, but A's action gets delayed - I might give him another chance to do something when second shots are resolved, but not to sit there asking several people if they're going to dodge. A could try picking a target who has already moved over 1/2 MA or taken some action so they can't dodge, and/or delay their action until targets have committed to a non-dodge action. |
11-17-2018, 10:44 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
Quote:
I guess my uncertainty is how different these two methods are if in the defender-choice everyone pre-declares Dodging, just to be safe. In the A vs B,C,D example we've been discussing: With attacker-choice, A ends up shooting at D who doesn't dodge, and B and C do whatever they like after initially saying they would dodge. With defender-choice and all targets pre-declaring Dodge, A ends up shooting at B who does dodge, and then C and D do whatever they like after pre-declaring they would dodge. |
|
11-17-2018, 12:38 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Skarg's clarification house rule wording for Combat Options
Quote:
I.e. The usual way I would expect that to play out the way we play, is that if B and C would dodge but D has some reason not to dodge, and A would most like to shoot B, then A will probably either shoot at B and B will dodge, or A will perceive that B will dodge but that D has whatever reason not to dodge, and might choose to shoot at D if he thinks that's better. Last edited by Skarg; 11-17-2018 at 12:45 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|