How easy is it to tell combat maneuvers apart?

[Michael Thayne]

Obviously, some combat maneuvers will look very different from each other: running (Move) looks very different than taking your one-yard step while doing something else, attacking is obvious, etc. But other things might not be obvious, in ways that are very tactically significant: did your foe take an All-Out Defense or an Evaluate? (In the former case, you might be more hesitant to attack.) Was that a regular Attack or an All-Out Attack? (Extremely important for deciding whether to retaliate with a Telegraphic Attack.) But I can't find a clear ruling on this either way, with the exception of Feints (which are not supposed to be obvious according to Martial Arts). Is there an official ruling for how this works for other maneuvers anywhere?

[Celjabba]

I don't think there is a published ruling, but Kromm did say a couple of time that :

Originally Posted by http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=1329621&postcount=13

In general, combat maneuvers – being the sorts of quick expedients that fit into one-second combat turns – are obvious.
Evaluate means you're staring down your subject like a hungry wolf, daring him to make the first move as you observe his stance and guard. It isn't subtle; it isn't meant to be subtle.

[Anaraxes]

Roguebfl reposted another couple of Kromm quotes from other threads here.

The condensed version: "The only maneuver that shouldn't be obvious is Feint. Everything else is meant to be stated openly."

[Michael Thayne]

Thanks guys, my Google fu was failing me on this one.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Thanks guys, my Google fu was failing me on this one.

For a grittier campaign I once required a Quick Contest of Body Language (complimented* by Tactics or combat skill) vs Acting (complimented by Feint) to determine what each enemy was doing...

It wasn't a good result. It tended to bog down combat with rolls. If I did it again I'd probably use Douglas Cole's Passive 14 rules to do away with the rolls, give a bonus for Evaluate/Aim and Concentration maneuvers and just announce what it looks like each enemy is doing.

[Donny Brook]

While I understand what the rule is, I am not sold on it's verisimilitude.

As the OP notes, in some cases it will be clear. E.G. an experienced fighter will be able to see that an All-Out Attack has left the attacker vulnerable.

But how different does a person look as between e.g. All-out Defense and Wait until/unless they are attacked?

[Kax]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

While I understand what the rule is, I am not sold on it's verisimilitude.

As the OP notes, in some cases it will be clear. E.G. an experienced fighter will be able to see that an All-Out Attack has left the attacker vulnerable.

But how different does a person look as between e.g. All-out Defense and Wait until/unless they are attacked?

Different moves and different stances have difference reasons, and you really can't be in once stance and look like you're in another. Body posture and limb and weapon locations have reasons to be where they are, and having them not in those locations makes you unready to do what's required.

Your example of All-Out Defense vs Wait is easy; Wait isn't defensive, it's a combat-ready posture that's ready for an opening. Very easy to tell the difference.

Note that primary manoeuvres are obvious to anyone with any skill, but secondary ones aren't. For example, you can't tell that someone is going to Riposte until it happens, but the primary Parry is obvious the moment the movement starts and the Riposte is obvious as soon as it starts.

Also, Deceptive Attack is similar to Feint in the the point of it is you can't tell what it's doing until afterwards so you can't tell by looking at it.

[Plane]

If using the custom rule where characters need a combat skill at DX to be able to do certain maneuvers, it might be okay to also require that to recognize them. I'm not sure I could tell a Defensive Attack apart from a normal Attack, especially since people can opt to make normal attacks at lower ST too.

[Anthony]

An interesting feature of some game system I remember (possibly mechwarrior) was that you declared actions from worst initiative to best, then resolved them from best to worst, so people with high initiative were able to react to what lower initiative was doing but not vice versa.

[Plane]

That sounds sort of like taking Wait maneuvers.