Committed Attack Abuse
 

By default, committed attacks allow two steps. This has lead to scenarios on our tabletop where a heavily encumbered or prone player effectively doubles their movement by "Committed Attacking the Air". This feels cheesy to me.

Arguments for:

• Its kind of like "all-out attack, double step" in that it penalizes your defences in return for mobility.
• By RAW, it is allowed as nothing disputes it. Steps are each 1/10 movement rounded up.

Arguments against:

• This feels like a rules exploit
• You shouldn't be able to be as mobile on the ground or in 400lbs of armour as when you're standing and making attacks wearing 10lbs of clothing.
• Hell, you're actually faster when committed attacking the air than taking a full movement action in both above scenarios

I'd love to hear other people's opinions on the matter.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Regardless of how many Steps you get - from Maneuvers, Extra Effort, or Chambara Movement - I don't think you should be able to move further than whatever your current Move is restricted to. Some campaigns may opt to ignore such a restriction - Chambara ones, for example - but in such a case you have ways of getting the extra movement without relying on the above Committed Attack exploit.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

I'd let 'em do it at a cost of 1 FP per maneuver.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Rule Zero. *shrug*

I wouldn't let people "attack the air" constantly, simply because with no targets you're not in combat time in the first place, and so the tactical map (and thus necessary hex-rounding errors), Maneuvers, and Steps are irrelevant.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Yes, you cannot Committed Attack when there is no one to attack (it cannot be used as a closing maneuver by a stupidly encumbered person). Of course, you could have their enemies shoot them when they try it, the -2 Defense would teach them the errors of their ways.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

I don't know if it is explicit anywhere, but logically you shouldn't be able to move more than your Move with Steps in one turn. Objects with No Legs (Sessile) don't get to walk when they are attacking things.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Yep I agree with the suggestion that you can't step in total more then your Move adjusted for encumbrance. MA coming out after Campaigns means you have to fit it into the encumbrance/move rules.

Another way to hit this tactic is using "Last gasp". Anyone who's encumbered themselves down to Mv1 and is taking committed attacks at 2AP (and another 1AP for the 2nd step option) just to move around the combat area, is going to have issues relatively quickly.


On top of that is a house rule on Last gasp I've used which is to penalise starting flurry AP by encumbrance level (but I give it back in other ways as well though).

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Rule Zero definitely applies here, but if it helps, please consider this a FAQ:

Committed Attack was never intended to act as a superior alternative to Move! As a general rule, no "Step and . . ." maneuver should ever provide movement greater than what you could accomplish via a Move maneuver.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

If they begin standing and end the turn prone I'd allow an extra hex or 2 {the length of their body} as a sort of lunge , but no acrobatic stand rinse and repeat shenanigans .
The attack would probably be at fighting prone penalties and a Last Gasp cost should apply .

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Ah, this reminds of computer games, and exploits. :D

For example, in old games such as Half-Life 1, movement forward and horizontal was added, but not normalized, meaning that you could move faster by running diagonally.

Some games, particularly those without "air drag" but with "ground drag", allowed faster jumping or "bunny hop" movement.

Carefully moving yourself around the hill to find just the right spot to jump over the "untraversable" terrain to get to a "forbidden" or "later" area of the map.

Sounds like your players want to play a video game in tabletop. Maybe you need to discuss that with them...

...Ask them how they feel about being blocked by invulnerable knee-high shrubbery. :D

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Player: I Committed Attack the air!
GM: No.

Seriously, though, I would treat such a declaration as a Do Nothing maneuver and move on. I have little patience for rules-lawyering nonsense.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

But if you do that without actually thinking about and addressing the issue (as with, for instance, PK's answer) you leave a situation where someone can move further if there's an enemy in reach than if there is not. Your players may not be getting away with brazenly widening the nonsensical rule case for easy exploitation, but it's still there.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Shutting down blatant abuse of the rules doesn't stop me from addressing the issue when there's an enemy in reach and it becomes a legitimate rules question.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

OK, make an attack roll. No you can't skip it, we need to determine if you critically failed. Don't forget the -10 for not being able to see the target.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

So the general consensus seems to be pretty much what I hoped/expected. It's a nonsensical rules exploit and should never provide more mobility than a move action. Thanks for the responses everyone, you guys are awesome.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

You seemed to be too focused on the enemy. But it's not the presence of the enemy that makes the person move faster. It's the partial sacrifice of defence that does it. Which you can do even when there's no enemy around. In fact situations can come up where you do a regular Attack only to find that before you can roll the dice, you either no longer can attack at all, or no longer have an attackable target.

People who normally move fast will go further than CA, and just pick a Move, which is broadly speaking just better than CA.

The issue was with the quantum rounding, and Reverend Pee Kitty addressed it in a way that solves it. (Also FYI this answer has been added to the uFAQ yesterday.)

Malicious genie interpretations of players' declarations of their PCs' actions run the risk of causing social tension in a party. Better just address the issue in a clean manner instead.

Re: Committed Attack Abuse
 

Damn, I wish this forum allowed me to give xp!