Close Combat, Reach/Bulk pen & Move

[Ultraviolet]

I have some questions about Close Combat, about when to apply Reach/Bulk penalties, about moving out of CC, especially how things work with the timing of rounds and initiative sequences.

The backdrop for my questions arose from last night's Cliffhangers where the characters are caught in a small town full of zombies. The zombies are a form of Slow Zombies with only Move 1. They don't get a step for attack manoeuvres, so they spend one round moving into CC with a character and don't attack until the next.

But when do you get a penalty in CC for having a Reach 1+ weapon, or need to modify for Bulk for a firearm?

Zombie steps right up into your face but doesn't engage.
Character then simply steps back, out of CC, and attacks with his or her Reach 1 weapon or shoots a gun with no penalty.
I know I've gimped the zombies, in order for them to not be too dangerous, but what am I missing?
Also, even though this zombie did not attack when stepping into CC, if it had a Parry/Dodge+Retreat is likely to succeed and will also give space.

Should the backwards step in a step and attack not have been allowed, because in Tactical Combat moving back costs double? Or is this just for Move actions this counts?

Is this just wierd because of the round sequence of me-you-me-you? If you try to think "realistically" about it both actions happen at the same time: Zombie moves up to you, yoiu stepo back before it is in contact and whack it, but it continues its step and grapples. By this description you're never a full yard away from the zombie, and therefore a sabre should de at a disadvantage due to close quarters.
Also, memories of my old and minimal martial arts training tells me to step into a strike for more power - so stepping away while swinging a blade should yield a poor blow. But I don't want to bother enforcing striking with less ST for this.

Maybe I should define, than once a foe moves into CC, you are considered "Engaged in CC". So if part of your turn - srart or end - is in CC with a foe, you are considered Engaged and therefore suffer penalties for Reach for melee weapons or Bulk for guns?

[Aldric]

They can still move and attack, and capping their skill at 9 is not so bad if they're the kind of zombies I think...

Also... it's also possible the character won't be able to retreat because there is someone else behind him... A companion, an npc that needs to be protected, or another zombie

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Aldric

They can still move and attack, and capping their skill at 9 is not so bad if they're the kind of zombies I think...

Also... it's also possible the character won't be able to retreat because there is someone else behind him... A companion, an npc that needs to be protected, or another zombie

Yeah, I had thought about that, but initially dismissed the idea. I wanted the characters to have a first chance of dispatching the zombie before it attacked.

But adapting your idea in a limited fashion could be to have the zombie in the first round to only make the Move, and in subsequent round have it do Move and Attack, so it can close and grapple at the same time. Let's say the zombie "smells blood" once it's been close up to a target.

What annoys me is the repetetive nature of the tactics, and I did in the last session impose a lack of space eventually. Rooms have limited size, allies can get in the way, furniture blocks the way, more zombies etc.

But the problem also exists in non-zombie situations. Imagine a character with a machete engaged in CC by a martial artist making s step and attack. After the initial punch the machete wielding character steps back and swings at Reach 1. No penalties.

Or the gun-wielding charactrer who is charged by a sword-wielding enemy, that's reach 1 not even CC. After the initial sword-blow the gunman steps back and shoots withoiut penalty. Heck, he doesn't even need to step back since Reach 1 doesn't impose a Bulk penalty for a gun.

I'm just sort of annoyed at the ease with which you can disengage from Close Combat or even just melee. And the difficulty a Close-Combatant has in keeping the gap closed to deny the space a wielder of a larger weapon needs. Maybe I'm just seeing ghosts

[Black Leviathan]

Step isn't hindered by the normal rear-hex movement rules because training in a weapon's fighting style includes how to retreat while fighting. Characters can also move back a hex as part of an active defense. That mobility is important.

Your zombies should be doing Move and Attack to be able to get in and do something, or tackles/slams to try to bear your survivors down. It makes them a little more scarey up close but also could lead to that awesome survivor scrambling on the floor moment in a zombie show.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

The zombies are a form of Slow Zombies with only Move 1. They don't get a step for attack manoeuvres, so they spend one round moving into CC with a character and don't attack until the next.

I checked Z78 and can't see anything that would remove the Step from an Attack maneuver. I don't know that there is anything which can prevent that. Closest thing I can think of is giving the zombies the Decreased Time Rate disadvantage and following the suggestion of breaking the maneuver into components across 2 seconds. Is that what you're using?

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

when do you get a penalty in CC for having a Reach 1+ weapon, or need to modify for Bulk for a firearm?

When sharing the same hex with an enemy.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Zombie steps right up into your face but doesn't engage.
Character then simply steps back, out of CC, and attacks with his or her Reach 1 weapon or shoots a gun with no penalty.

This sounds correct, though if there's a wall behind you or an open elevator shaft, that could cause some problems.

I know personally if I'm not looking where I'm going (either backing up, or looking up) that if there's any chance of things on the ground I might trip over, I try not to lift my feet very high and sort of shuffle so that if there is something in the way, I won't stumble over it, and will either push it aside or simply stop moving.

That kind of movement is slower and more tiring (can't really take advantage of tendon bouncing) but is the only way I could see reducing the chance of tripping when moving away from a zombie.

Because of how the heel lifts, you can't really walk backwards normally doing this, you have to go into sort of a sideways stance and use the outer heel of your foot to sweep for potential debris. This might be one of the reasons the "combat stance" doesn't involve facing enemies head on?

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

I know I've gimped the zombies, in order for them to not be too dangerous, but what am I missing?
Also, even though this zombie did not attack when stepping into CC, if it had a Parry/Dodge+Retreat is likely to succeed and will also give space.

when you say "if it had" are you talking about the zombie retreating, or the zombie's target?

That creates space too, true. Which is why it's usually pretty easy to back away from zombies until the terrain stops you.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Should the backwards step in a step and attack not have been allowed, because in Tactical Combat moving back costs double? Or is this just for Move actions this counts?

A "step" doesn't distinguish between forward movement (1MP) and side/back movement (2MP) like non-step maneuvers (Move, Move and Attack, All-Out Attack, All-Out Defense (Determined Dodge) does.

Should it? Maybe, but that'd be a house rule :) If you wanted all maneuvers to use Movement Points, I'd just replace "Step" with 20% MP. If you did that, it would mean something with Move 1 would need 5 seconds to move a yard forward using Attack maneuvers, and would need to make a Move maneuver to move that 1 yard forward in merely 1 second.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Is this just wierd because of the round sequence of me-you-me-you? If you try to think "realistically" about it both actions happen at the same time: Zombie moves up to you, yoiu stepo back before it is in contact and whack it, but it continues its step and grapples.

There are some tricks a zombie can use to deal with narrowing the gap you might want to try:
1) all-out attack (long) gives +1 to reach, but the zombie is basically lunging into at least a crouch, and that requires putting a hand on the ground for support. I think if it managed to grapple you, I'd count that as the hand used for support though
2) a slam can be a "flying tackle" which gives +1 to reach
3) a committed attack can give an extra step in exchange for -2 to hit
4) if you have a 1-yard weapon, it occupies the hex ahead of you, so the zombie can target that from 1 yard further away than it can target you

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

By this description you're never a full yard away from the zombie, and therefore a sabre should de at a disadvantage due to close quarters.

Unfortunately for attackers, even if you step into close combat with an enemy first and then attack, it apparently doesn't count as being attacked in close combat because you're attacking AS you step and count as being 1 yard away, not CC.

I think for them to suffer the -4 to skill (-2 to parry) for using reach 1 weapons to parry against a zombie in close combat, it would only apply if the zombie's NEXT turn STARTS in close combat.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Also, memories of my old and minimal martial arts training tells me to step into a strike for more power - so stepping away while swinging a blade should yield a poor blow. But I don't want to bother enforcing striking with less ST for this.

I think you have a valid point. The step+attack aren't treated discretely in terms of penalizing the target for close combat (you can't treat the attack as originating from where you stepped to until next turn) yet they do seem to be treated discretely in terms of forward/backward momentum.

You can even do a Wait > Stop Thrust (B366, B402 also mentions you can use it against Dropping foes) on a zombie moving 2 yards toward you to get +1 damage against them and THEN step backward, and there's no difference in damage compared to if you stepped forward.

If I could change it, I think in the "it's all one motion" spirit, it should be relative motion, so if they moved 2 yards to ward you and you moved 1 yard back, the gap's only narrowed enough to be 1 yard, not enough for a bonus. This would incentivize stepping forward to attack the zombie instead of stepping back.

On the other hand, if they only moved 1 toward you and you moved 1 towards them, the gap narrowed 2 yards and you should get the bonus.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Maybe I should define, than once a foe moves into CC, you are considered "Engaged in CC". So if part of your turn - srart or end - is in CC with a foe, you are considered Engaged and therefore suffer penalties for Reach for melee weapons or Bulk for guns?

I think even if your turn starts in CC, if you are able to step out of it, you don't suffer the penalties, even though the attacker has to start his turn in CC to penalize your defences. It's a kinda unfair double standard that favors defenders with long weapons.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Plane

I checked Z78 and can't see anything that would remove the Step from an Attack maneuver. I don't know that there is anything which can prevent that. Closest thing I can think of is giving the zombies the Decreased Time Rate disadvantage and following the suggestion of breaking the maneuver into components across 2 seconds. Is that what you're using?

I'm not using anything as formal as Decreased Tite Rate. I just designed some slow and incompetent zombies, and decided that they'd move up to the the character one round, but not attack until the next, to give them a chance to dispatch them.
I hadn't counted on the magnitude of annoyance it would give to have the characters constantly retreating.

Originally Posted by Plane

When sharing the same hex with an enemy.

My beef is that it's too easy to avoid, if it doesn't apply if either the start or end of the turn is not in CC.

Originally Posted by Plane

This sounds correct, though if there's a wall behind you or an open elevator shaft, that could cause some problems.

Yes, I'm going to have to apply more focus on terrain, obstacles, and on situational awareness as well.
When the player of Karl "Kodiak" the Bartender was GM some time back, he had a bunch of people jump us in a jungle in India, and he refused to draw a map. The point was that the fight was confusing, and the characters individually only knew what the GM told them, so we couldn't know who shot at which enemy and therefore couldn't micro-manage-optimize things. We had to prioritize, so either shoot at the enemy you know is there, or spend time looking for some other potential target.
I like that, and I dodn't draw a map of the hotel lobby, where zombies kept pouring through the broken windows in the front doors. Not knowing the obstacles means constantly moving back is risky!

Originally Posted by Plane

when you say "if it had" are you talking about the zombie retreating, or the zombie's target?

That was poorly worded, what I meant was:

Also, even though this zombie did not attack when stepping into CC, if it had [made an atack, the characarter's] Parry/Dodge+Retreat is likely to succeed and will also give space.

Originally Posted by Plane

A "step" doesn't distinguish between forward movement (1MP) and side/back movement (2MP) like non-step maneuvers (Move, Move and Attack, All-Out Attack, All-Out Defense (Determined Dodge) does.

Should it? Maybe, but that'd be a house rule :)

I think that's too much work to implement. If we were using hex combat maps and miniatures, maybe. But nah, not for the way we play. I'd rather use another solution

Originally Posted by Plane

There are some tricks a zombie can use to deal with narrowing the gap you might want to try:
1) all-out attack (long) gives +1 to reach, but the zombie is basically lunging into at least a crouch, and that requires putting a hand on the ground for support. I think if it managed to grapple you, I'd count that as the hand used for support though
2) a slam can be a "flying tackle" which gives +1 to reach
3) a committed attack can give an extra step in exchange for -2 to hit
4) if you have a 1-yard weapon, it occupies the hex ahead of you, so the zombie can target that from 1 yard further away than it can target you

1 and 3 seem like the best options to circumvent a character "cheating"
And actually 2, a slam could be entertaining as well, especially during a chase

Originally Posted by Plane

Unfortunately for attackers, even if you step into close combat with an enemy first and then attack, it apparently doesn't count as being attacked in close combat because you're attacking AS you step and count as being 1 yard away, not CC.

I think for them to suffer the -4 to skill (-2 to parry) for using reach 1 weapons to parry against a zombie in close combat, it would only apply if the zombie's NEXT turn STARTS in close combat.

I think I might enforce CC penalties if at any point during a round you're in CC, unless the distance moved is 2+ yards.
My argument is that with actions in turns actually overlapping, stepping 1 yard back while attacking an enemy who is at the same time closing doesn't give you 1 yard separation.


Back in the old Cliffhangers campaign in 3rd ed we had some house rules to favour player characters using unarmed combat when facing enemies armed with melee weapons. Very often natives with spears, which could easily prode deadly when closing the gap, and that was not what we wanted in a pulp-action genre.
So we ruled than once you closed to CC, to punch the spear fighter, he could not just step back because the unarmed fighter was allowed to automatically follow up. It was actually his Step from Step and Attack, it was just slightly out of sequence.
This meant that the enemy had a maximum of 1 round to use reach advantage, and in practice no opportunity if the unarmed fighters had the drop, were quicker, or used terrain or something tactically to close the gap. Unless they had a Wait action. It worked quite well, and most of the characters preferred fists over guns.

[Maz]

I think you are comparing realism, cinematic realism and game elements in one, and trying to draw game mechanical conclusions from this.

I think it's better to stay in one of these. You have a mechanical problem "The PC's never suffer CC penalty". And then make a game mechanical solution to this. Mixing in "how it works in reality/in movies" will just confuse what you are actually trying to achieve and make people make arguments supported by realism that go against what you are actually trying to get.

So I am going to focus only on game mechanics.

Retreat/step/move: Yes this is a problem. And you can find many threads on here were people discuss this problem. My favorite solution is to count move "per 1 sec". In effect this means you only have 1 step for the entire 1 sec of combat. So if you step and attack, you do not have any more left for a retreat. This is to prevent people moving further by taking active defense than if they are not attacked.
It does become bothersome to keep track of when having multiple NPC though. But I assume your zombies aren't going to make retreating dodges, and so it's not a problem.

Reach/bulk penalty: You are right that effectively people are never going to suffer from CC penalties, unless they are forced into a corner (or grabbed). My solution to this is to give people bulk penalties for making active defenses. This encourage people to use pistols instead of rifles when in close encounters. (Note if you allow the Close Quarter Tactics technique it might ruin this rule, so you have to either make it less effective or say it doesn't work on active defense bulk-penalties but only on move and attack bulk penalties).


If you combine these, people are locked down a lot more. And have to either make actual Move and Attack to get some more freedom.



Alternative rule - threaten zones: This is a rule we used in a more fast-paced game, where people had both a move action and standard action each turn. And only works for games that do not use the strict tactical rules for facing and reach. Anyway, the rule is that once people get into melee they are locked in melee, suffering bulk penalties if armed with a ranged weapon. We didn't care about reach-penalties or advantages.
To break out of melee you had to make a move or move and attack.
If you got into melee with 2 enemies you would be 'flanked'; Suffer -2 to active defenses, can't retreat, and require an Evade-roll to get out (at -2 penalty).
If 3 or more got into melee with you, you would be surrounded; suffer -4 to active defenses and Evade-rolls would be at -4.
... we sometimes ignored the flanking rule if it didn't make sense, for instance, if defending a door, or standing shoulder to shoulder with an ally.

Addition to flanking: After some time we also introduced a "focused defense" rule where you could state you could ignore all but one of your opponents. This way you didn't suffer any defense penalties against that one enemy, but then you had no defense against the others! This was especially useful for the tanks who had enough DR to simply ignore smaller minions but would go up against the 'big bad'. (And at the same time opened up for the small minions to ave a slight chance of actually hurting the tank by making telegraphic targeted attacks against chinks in armour)

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

I'm not using anything as formal as Decreased Tite Rate. I just designed some slow and incompetent zombies, and decided that they'd move up to the the character one round, but not attack until the next, to give them a chance to dispatch them.

Still interesting to look at ways to formalize it. I thought perhaps use "Takes Extra Time" (P146) but that would still let you go Ready+Step then Attack+Step, I think...

Maybe for "Modifying ST-Based Damage" the way to do it would be "Switchable +10% + Temporary Disadvantage: Sessile -50%" indicating that a zombie needs to temporarily switch on his ability to attack (using a ready maneuver) during which he loses the ability to move. Then to move again, he needs to switch off the ability. This would result in:

*currently eating a corpse, so Sessile, cannot take a step*
*sees other prey nearby, takes a Ready maneuver switching off his ST-Based damage (chewing stops) and uses the Ready's free step to move towards opponent (ie "Ready and Step")
*his next maneuver is a ready too, but this time he does the step portion before readying to turn on his ability ("Step and Ready")
*now he can make an attack, but a step cannot be a portion of that attack since he is temporarily suffering the Sessile disadvantage. At best he might try for something like a AOA(Long) or a "Flying Tackle" to get +1 to reach.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

I hadn't counted on the magnitude of annoyance it would give to have the characters constantly retreating.

Backstepping would be less frustrating if there was more chance of bad footing getting in the way.

Especially if it was something like a hex full of your allies or enemies directly behind you, to retreat into that hex with your back to them and not bump into anyone...

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

My beef is that it's too easy to avoid, if it doesn't apply if either the start or end of the turn is not in CC.

Some kind of Rules Exemption perk, or just ignore that for everyone?

I realize why they do it: to prevent close-combat guys from rushing and crowding people super-easily since you can't transition a Wait into anything with more than a step (well, maybe Committed Attack, but that loses a retreat!)

Half-waits (don't wait to attack, but do wait to step) would deal with the problem without favoring defenders as much: just trigger a withheld step not to go unless someone steps into CC with you.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

1 and 3 seem like the best options to circumvent a character "cheating"

I dunno, Committed Attack giving 2 yards / second to a Move 1 creature is probably cheating :)

If zombies start doing this, players can start doing it too to maintain the distance, so you'll encounter the same barrier. Only differences is that everyone's getting -2 to attack and -2 to defend.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

I think I might enforce CC penalties if at any point during a round you're in CC, unless the distance moved is 2+ yards.
My argument is that with actions in turns actually overlapping, stepping 1 yard back while attacking an enemy who is at the same time closing doesn't give you 1 yard separation.

A lot of it depends on relative speed though. Someone with Move 5 using a Move maneuver probably takes about as much time to cross 5 yards as a guy with Move 1 using a Move maneuver does to move 1.

Rather than measuring it in yards, it should probably be measured in "step" distance, since that increases proportionate to greater moves, and also happens to be (except for Wait > All-Out Attack) the only distance you can move after a Wait, since it can't transition to Move / Move and Attack / All-Out Defense.

Originally Posted by Maz

Retreat/step/move: Yes this is a problem. And you can find many threads on here were people discuss this problem.

My favorite solution is to count move "per 1 sec".

In effect this means you only have 1 step for the entire 1 sec of combat.

So if you step and attack, you do not have any more left for a retreat.

This is to prevent people moving further by taking active defense than if they are not attacked.

Your house rule sounds like a ♥more♥brutal♥ version of the 3e compendium 2 pg 68 Retreating Clarified : Retreat and Movement.

Instead of borrowing a step from your next turn, you have to save/wait your step from the current one, which makes more sense, and discourages advancing instead of the whole step/retreat back and forth you usually see.

The solution to advance while retaining the ability to retreat would then become using All-Out Defense (Determined Dodge) because then you could use some MP to go forward while retaining enough to use on a retreat.