Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Play By Post

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-19-2019, 04:02 PM   #221
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Let's see, I wrote earlier for your July 3 action...
reduced the distances to the shoes from 10/8 to 8/6 for the consideration of NEXT turn's perceptions. It also increases the distance between us from 4 yards to 6 yards.
Prior to your July 15 move, I had moved 2 steps toward you on July 5 (green text post 207) bringing me within 4 yards of you and I guess 10 yards of the closest shoe.

Your July 15 move of 2 steps would've restored our previous 6 yard gap.

I'll continue as before, but due to Variant Move: Acceleration it costs me no AP to do it.

Furthermore: since I have moved 2 consecutive turns of Move maneuvers (at FULL move) forward, I am able to "Sprint" spending an additional +1 AP for an additional +1 yard (minimums yay) of movement, so my AP reduces from 11/12 to 10/12.

This reduces the distance between us from 6 to 3 and I am now 7 yards away from the shoe.

Note: on both July 3 and July 15 due to "Variant Move: Acceleration", you didn't have to burn the 1 AP to maintain your Move 2, since you had already moved 2 yards the previous turns. So you would have 8/10 AP not 6/10.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2019, 07:09 AM   #222
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Note: on both July 3 and July 15 due to "Variant Move: Acceleration", you didn't have to burn the 1 AP to maintain your Move 2, since you had already moved 2 yards the previous turns. So you would have 8/10 AP not 6/10.
Yeah, I just went back and calculated that. having two movement points left after turning around turned out to be awesome.

3 yards in a turn... I hate hex artifacts.

The article concerned said facing could be free or cost AP. I think we're using the "Costs AP" version?

Red continues 2 hexes to the first shoe, stops (1 AP), and turns around (1 AP)
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2019, 09:46 PM   #223
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

The rules say the first 60 degrees is free, each 60 degree beyond that is 1 AP, so a 180 degree turn in 1 second would normally cost 2 AP.

I forgot about that part. I can't remember if Cole wrote that in the "1 or 2" amended rules but I was basically thinking "x AP buys y MP" and just going by the Movement Point costs (1 per 60 degrees) of the turning and ignoring separate pricing for them.

That said... slowing down doesn't cost Movement Points, but does cost Action Points, so maybe my approach is flawed?

I guess in that case you are right to charge 2 AP for a deceleration + turn. Despite 180 degree turn using 3 MP, the "first 60 is free" type approach probably does make it an effective puchase of 2 MP for less than 50% so merely 1 AP for it.

The only time I can think to perhaps resort to using them is when using maneuvers that don't use Movement Points and use standard step maneuvers.

Of course... in my ideal world we always use MP and the 'step' maneuvers limit you to 40%.

Your moving 2 yards further toward it means it is a mere 2 yards beyond where you chose to stop. This also moves you from 3 to 5 yards away from me.

NOW you're down to 6 AP...

Maintaining my 3 yards/second "sprint" using another free move maneuver, I narrow the gap from 5 yards to 2 yards.

Your turn again!
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2019, 07:26 AM   #224
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

I thought we were using this article for move rules. It says:

Quote:
Facing changes can either be entirely free, or cost 1 AP for 2-3 facing changes in a move action, or 2 AP for 4+ changes within a move.
But I agree with the 6/10 AP.

Red takes the all out defense maneuver.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 01:54 PM   #225
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

You didn't mention stepping so I'll assume you're staying put to reserve your free step for your retreat.

I'm going to do a Move+Attack (1 AP reduces 10/12 to 9/12) getting up into your hex and non-telegraphic punch a random hit location of yours.

To avoid the -4 to hit, going to use the "Heroic Charge" extra effort (losing 2 more AP, 9/12 to 7/12) and due to the -1 DX from fatigue I think I'd be rolling against Boxing 13.

I rolled a 10, a successful hit.

per GULT rolled a 7, your right leg is targeted

do you defend?

Last edited by Plane; 08-01-2019 at 01:58 PM.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 11:07 AM   #226
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Red dodges, retreating, rolling a 6. No AP was lost, via the all out defense.

Red throws out a kick at Green's torso. Green lacks his retreat because of the move and attack, and he will either have to run past red (go ahead, show your back) or burn a lot of energy stopping.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 08:19 PM   #227
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

BTW: my turn didn't technically end when I attacked you, I had 1 movement point left (only 2 yards between us)... and since you retreated, I do not need to evade you to continue forward, so I ended my turn using my last movement point entering into close combat with you again.

I'm trying to figure out how you got a base 16 for kicking from Brawling 16, which would only give you a base Kicking technique of 14... I guess I will call that a half-telegraphed attack (only +1 to defend, not +2) to understand how you got that number.

BTW have you come across the 'near miss' rules in Pyramid? I think in T-bone's Alternative GURPS contribution.

You've brought up a very interesting consideration here: what happens if someone doesn't have the energy to stop (or doesn't want to decelerate) but there is something in the way?

Normally a contest of Evasion assumes you're trying to run past someone...but what if you are not trying to? Should it act as some kind of obligatory Slam-attempt?

Another strange thing is...Move and Attack prevents the traditional retreat, I wonder perhaps because it assumes forward movement during a M+A (even though there is no such requirement) and Martial Arts contributes variant kinds like Slip and Sideslip...

Given there's no obligation to actually use all movement points (even though in this case I did) I wonder if someone does a Move and Attack but has unused movement points to pay for the movement needed in a certain direction, if perhaps they ought to be able to do so...

I seem to recall in one of the Alternative GURPS or a supplement for large creatures that there's an automatic slam that happens via movement, though I think it only happens via large creatures running at small ones, which doesn't apply here.

It seems like though, that if I don't want to decelerate, and I do not want to evade you, the option of running straight forward must exist, but I guess obligates the purchase of a Slam so that the outcome of your dodging that causes the "run 2 yards past" outcome of FREE uncontested evasion...

But what would happen if you had a shield to 'block' a slam, or if you 'parry' it? Would that be free deceleration? Or would it simply be forced deceleration and you forcing the FP cost? Or would we share the cost?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 10:37 AM   #228
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

I forgot to apply the -2 to kicking. My biggest take away from this whole exercise is that the kicking technique is awesome and if you're serious about unarmed combat in gurps you want it. My bad, and we can either do the funny half telegraphed thing or we can apply the -2.

I don't remember any "Near miss rules". Which pyramid?

I think if you are making a slam, the attack AP probably counts as your deceleration AP.

If you're neither decelerating, nor evading, nor slamming... that is weird. we could argue that you MUST choose one of them. We could also do some weird house rule thing were the defender chooses if the action is an evade or a slam. The trick there is does the defender have to spend AP to simply avoid the evade/slam? I suppose the defender could choose evade and not resist it for no AP. But if I block either the evade or the slam... yeah, that shouldn't be free for the defender, but it either cost the attacker AP or make him automatically fail... and if he fails does he have to stop and spend that AP anyways? DX check to avoid falling down?

As a partial application of the "MUST" option, it could require a will check to not spend AP to take some sort of action.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 11:49 AM   #229
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I forgot to apply the -2 to kicking. My biggest take away from this whole exercise is that the kicking technique is awesome and if you're serious about unarmed combat in gurps you want it. My bad, and we can either do the funny half telegraphed thing or we can apply the -2.
Leg kicks wouldn't be such a big deal if we could just use the focused defense rules to cover the legs :) Basically like a "pre-crouch" where you are always keeping your hands low, to minimize the response time to kicks. Even a boxer could do that to try and compensate for their inherent lack of familiarity. Of course, this would give you defense penalties to guard your upper body, so the brawler/karateka could then switch back to targetting the upper body with their kicks: at which point you'd probably try a "leg grab" since ignoring the -1 penalty to grapple a leg only happens when the upper body's targeted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I don't remember any "Near miss rules". Which pyramid?
Lessee, referred to as grazes here... "Ten Tweaks to Customize Combat" from 3/34 I think.

I think if you are making a slam, the attack AP probably counts as your deceleration AP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
If you're neither decelerating, nor evading, nor slamming... that is weird. we could argue that you MUST choose one of them.
Or just have a 'free slams' mechanic like giants get, but have actually "attack slams" be much more effective.

Slams are already inherently better than accidental collisions I think because they can gain a +2 damage from an All-Out Attack but that's not much help to non-attacking guys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
We could also do some weird house rule thing were the defender chooses if the action is an evade or a slam.
The difference is basically "I'm trying to move around you" vs "I'm trying to hit you" vs "I'm trying to walk into the hex beyond you and I don't care whether you move or not".

The latter seems to be what isn't covered, and that almost sounds like perhaps if you were targeting the hex itself (+4) with perhaps a random chance of hitting people in it (you don't care which part of the hex you step through) where people could easily move out of the way. You could probably telegraph it (you don't care if they dodge) but it would work better with more incremented rules of making it harder for low-ST guys to "parry" slams.

Perhaps the way to get past that is if someone does parry your slam (since dodging wouldn't stop you) perhaps a ST-base Feint (Beat) could be done so that your next attempt to shove past them is much more likely to succeed.

That'd take a series of 3 turns to do though... and -12 to do as a triple-hit rapid-strike technique. High ST low DX guys couldn't really manage it in a short time, unless you designed it as a technique where you buy off the penalties by taking ST/damage penalties, reflecting the stronger guy reducing his throwing around of his ST for heightened coordination in a short period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
The trick there is does the defender have to spend AP to simply avoid the evade/slam? I suppose the defender could choose evade and not resist it for no AP.
The choice of whether or not to attempt to evade someone is the stepper's. The occupant is who chooses whether to obstruct that step (get in the way) or move aside.

The weird thing about that, is you have people perfectly moving aside (if they don't desire to obstruct) of these utter giants.... people cooperating in perfect harmony, teammates never bumping into each other as they try to step past each other in combat to alternate hitting some enemy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
But if I block either the evade or the slam... yeah, that shouldn't be free for the defender, but it either cost the attacker AP or make him automatically fail... and if he fails does he have to stop and spend that AP anyways? DX check to avoid falling down?
DX checks to avoid falling I think happen if the target of a slam ends up doing more damage than the slammer?

The "you have momentum, spend AP to slow down" mechanic might be modifiable by sort of a "or have someone else spend AP to slow you down" in which case a block/parry's inherent cost (1AP) might involve that.

There should of course be some level of inherent slowdown due to friction (and inability to infinite-run) like 1y/s per second deceleration, causing someone to spend AP now and then to buy movement points to bump that speed back up to top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
As a partial application of the "MUST" option, it could require a will check to not spend AP to take some sort of action.
You mean like 'make a will check not to collide non-slammingly with the enemy' akin to 'make a will check not to spend AP to avoid a HT check from strangulation' ?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 09:24 AM   #230
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Leg kicks wouldn't be such a big deal if we could just use the focused defense rules to cover the legs :)
I actually was referring to the extra damage and reach. The weakness of boxers to leg attacks feels like it belongs in combat sport to me, not actual combat, and I'd be fine just getting rid of that rule: If you're a real unarmed fighter, you know how to protect your legs.


Quote:
Lessee, referred to as grazes here... "Ten Tweaks to Customize Combat" from 3/34 I think.
Ok, read it. 34 is a really important pyramid issue. I'm remembering a much more simplistic rule that really only works for guns: the pyramid version is better for everything but projectiles that do lots of damage (the version I remember just says "It did 1 damage").

Quote:
I think if you are making a slam, the attack AP probably counts as your deceleration AP.
I'd agree with that, I think. In some cases that will let you slow down using only 1 AP, but if they dodge you, you don't exactly stop moving, so you still have to spend AP to stop

Quote:
Slams are already inherently better than accidental collisions I think because they can gain a +2 damage from an All-Out Attack but that's not much help to non-attacking guys.
All out attack is really marginal though, and the benefit won't apply every time.

Quote:
The latter seems to be what isn't covered, and that almost sounds like perhaps if you were targeting the hex itself (+4) with perhaps a random chance of hitting people in it (you don't care which part of the hex you step through) where people could easily move out of the way. You could probably telegraph it (you don't care if they dodge) but it would work better with more incremented rules of making it harder for low-ST guys to "parry" slams.
Targeting the hex... thats still targeting though, and possibly deserving of AP. I suppose the effects of the "unaimed slam" need the following questions answered:
  • Are you as likely to hit the target if they don't move?
  • Does the target have an easier time moving out of the way?
  • Does the target expend energy to move into your way?
  • Should a penalty to winning the contest be given to the "slammer"?

There is always the rule that could can't parry more than your basic lift in ST of weapon weight... but I find that rule a bit weak, especially with natural weapons like slams (where you've got to beat their basic lift with your ST score). I've previously looked at constructing house rules where parrying people much stronger than yourself and with heavier weapons gives a penalty to parrying, but I've never really solidified it.

Quote:
The weird thing about that, is you have people perfectly moving aside (if they don't desire to obstruct) of these utter giants.... people cooperating in perfect harmony, teammates never bumping into each other as they try to step past each other in combat to alternate hitting some enemy...
Yeah, that's kind of a murphy rule.

Quote:
You mean like 'make a will check not to collide non-slammingly with the enemy' akin to 'make a will check not to spend AP to avoid a HT check from strangulation' ?
Yeah, pretty much. Good example.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.