[MA] Arm Lock, Judo Throw, Throws From Locks and Combinations: how they interact

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Thats b/c there isnt one. I missed the line on MA p. 80.

I've always seen the 'next turn' wording as problematic. As evidenced by Fairbairn, there are real world styles teaching one to follow up a move within the same second. Sure, for some moves, it makes less sense, but for others, the reaction time of the foe is of no importance. When trying to apply an Arm Lock, the less he can react from the time you grasp him and until the time you have a secure lock, the better for you.

It doesn't make sense that preternaturally fast supers with Altered Time Rate or even just extremely skilled mortals are prevented from doing a grab and throw/lock/etc. in one turn instead of two. When a normal person is using Rapid Strike to do so, he is already at a -6 penalty. That is already enough to make an expert as bad at something as a diligent dabbler or beginner. There is no need for a flat-out denial of the attempt at all.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It doesn't make sense that preternaturally fast supers with Altered Time Rate or even just extremely skilled mortals are prevented from doing a grab and throw/lock/etc. in one turn instead of two. When a normal person is using Rapid Strike to do so, he is already at a -6 penalty. That is already enough to make an expert as bad at something as a diligent dabbler or beginner. There is no need for a flat-out denial of the attempt at all.

Agreed. Though what is worse for me is that its pretty easy to get several strikes in but no way to get a throw in the same turn?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Agreed. Though what is worse for me is that its pretty easy to get several strikes in but no way to get a throw in the same turn?

This should not bother you. It's just real. The strikes only involve your motion, not manipulating you AND your opponent into a properly leveraged position, generating the impetus and "pop" for the throw, then following up with the actual full-body acceleration.

What I'd suggest is what Sean and Peter, if I understand it correctly, actually did. Go watch martial arts fights and trainging videos with a stopwatch. It's going to be hard to tell when one person's turn starts and the other ends, but I bet you found what I did when I timed myself: Things really do take about a second to do, even for the masters.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

This should not bother you. It's just real. The strikes only involve your motion, not manipulating you AND your opponent into a properly leveraged position, generating the impetus and "pop" for the throw, then following up with the actual full-body acceleration.

What I'd suggest is what Sean and Peter, if I understand it correctly, actually did. Go watch martial arts fights and trainging videos with a stopwatch. It's going to be hard to tell when one person's turn starts and the other ends, but I bet you found what I did when I timed myself: Things really do take about a second to do, even for the masters.

Oh I agree its realistic. I do question some of the rapid strike combos as realistic too. 1 second is a really really short span of time.
My problem is the comparison and even more that no exception is made for ATR or other options. I can see a grapple and throw as requiring two maneuvers rather then just two attacks.
But to say that a speedster cant do this in one turn, even fighting another speedster bothers me.
Heck I would be ok with a Wuxia guy being able to do it too, though I would have less complaint if he was forbidden.
ATR though does not give you an extra turn just an extra maneuver.

I think I will just house rule it for myself and if I am ever in a Wuxia or Supers playtest (rather then a realistic combat one) I will push for that to be published.
I think the extra maneuver thing balances it out but what does anyone else say?

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

What I'd suggest is what Sean and Peter, if I understand it correctly, actually did.

I would guess this was actually an oversight, or even pre-4e language not getting fully updated (similar language existed in 3e). ATR, Extra Attack, and AoA (Double) should, realistically, allow a grapple followed by a Judo Throw in the same turn. (Reasonable offered rationalizations aside, of course.)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by MA65, Arm Or Wrist Lock

Rolls to inflict damage are completely passive and don’t
count as attacks. [ . . . ] If you decide to throw him using the lock, this does
count as an attack; see Throws from Locks (pp. 118-119).

This is an important (and puzzling, to me!) point. Since this does not depend on attacks, it has to be timed based on something, and turns will do just fine. No problem here. However,

Originally Posted by MA65

If he fails to break free on his next turn,
you may try Arm Lock on your next turn, just as if you had
parried his attack.

This causes problems, because a Parry does not necessarily happen on the different turn as the attack. An example would be a Wait (until my opponents attack fails thanks to my parry), then Arm Lock or Judo Throw.

Interestingly,

Originally Posted by MA67, Armed Grapple

If he fails to
defend, you’ve successfully grappled him with your weapon.
[ . . . ] On your turn, you can follow up with a
takedown, pin, choke, or Arm Lock (options depend on the
body part grappled).

Note that it says on your turn, not on your next turn. That has to mean that if you haven't given your turn to the next character by exhausting your allowance of attacks, it is still your turn.

Originally Posted by MA76, Leg Grapple

On your first turn following the parry, you may attempt
to capture your opponent’s leg if he’s within a yard.

Again, interestingly, the condition seems to be that it is (a) your turn and (b) you have just parried the opponent's kick.
Leg Grapple also has a passive effect that occurs on the next turn, and once again I see no problem with that.

Originally Posted by MA128

You
can’t make repeated attempts at a takedown, pin, or lock; try
to injure an opponent repeatedly through strangling or an
Arm Lock, Neck Snap, etc.; or take multiple shots at break-ing free. However, you can try the same move against different body parts or opponents, grapple and attempt an
instant follow-up, or – if making an attack that must follow
a parry, such as Arm Lock – insert attacks between the parry
and the follow-up. For instance, if you parried using Judo
and then made two attacks, you could feint and then use
Arm Lock.

Multiple attacks explicitly allows doing follow-ups after grappling attacks if you have Multiple Attacks for some reason (not limited to Combinations).
MA66 establishes that strangling is a grapple follow-up, which, again, according to B370, you 'may attempt the [following moves] on subsequent turns'.

All this taken together makes me conclude that the references to the following turn have a hidden '(unless you can perform multiple attacks for some reason)' attached, because there are rules explicitly allowing one to instantly perform the follow-ups, even though follow-ups are commonly said to only work on the next turn.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by kenclary

I would guess this was actually an oversight, or even pre-4e language not getting fully updated (similar language existed in 3e). ATR, Extra Attack, and AoA (Double) should, realistically, allow a grapple followed by a Judo Throw in the same turn. (Reasonable offered rationalizations aside, of course.)

You can, by an explicit RAW example and ruling, do Parry + Feint + Throw, just for comparison. Or even Parry + Punch + Punch + Feint + Throw if you have enough attacks (MA128, 'insert attacks between the parry and the follow-up').

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I've always seen the 'next turn' wording as problematic. As evidenced by Fairbairn, there are real world styles teaching one to follow up a move within the same second.

Except Sykes and Fairbairn later stopped teaching many of these moves, mostly likely because they were impractical.

And they taught "immediate" follow-up, sure, but it's a stretch to say they taught it "in the same second." Heck *I* am taught to move from grapple to lock to break/throw in a continuous flowing move, and I've been training very specific versions of this for near-on ten years, in Hwa Rang Do.

I was very sure that the "grapple, or parry, then lock, damage, and throw could be done in one move, in less than one second. So I timed myself, without a partner (which is faster than with one). The fastest I ever did any of these react, lock, break/throw combos was 1.1 seconds, typically more like 1.25 to 1.30. 1.4 wasn't unknown.

And that was just getting me into the position whre I'd finished the move; the invisible partner certainly didn't have time to land.

And this would be "Judo Art," which is with a willing partner, or at least one who's not going to try and shoot you, knife you, or kick you in a nads. These moves DO NOT WORK RELIABLY in hot combat against a trained and aware foe; they DEFINITELY DO work when you've got the other guy by surprise, or he effectively AoAs. Presumably that's why Sykes and Fairbairn stopped teaching them.

Sure, for some moves, it makes less sense, but for others, the reaction time of the foe is of no importance. When trying to apply an Arm Lock, the less he can react from the time you grasp him and until the time you have a secure lock, the better for you.

I've got no problem with lock and damage in one second; that was well within my timing frame. It's the THROW that's problematic, and here, Sean and Peter's writing (next turn only) is a better representation of reality without ATR than anything else.

It doesn't make sense that preternaturally fast supers with Altered Time Rate or even just extremely skilled mortals are prevented from doing a grab and throw/lock/etc. in one turn instead of two.

I can get behind this, especially since if you have ATR, you can often magically exceed the cyclic rate of firearms, etc.

When a normal person is using Rapid Strike to do so, he is already at a -6 penalty. That is already enough to make an expert as bad at something as a diligent dabbler or beginner. There is no need for a flat-out denial of the attempt at all.

It's not a bad house rule, of course. There's enough truth (more than enough) behind the "next turn for a throw" ruling that it's the right blanket case, even with Rapid Strike.

I was taught that the lock IS the damage; it's a matter of degree. So doing both a lock and applying damage in a Rapid Strike doesn't faze me.

And most of the "throw from lock" stuff is really throw+damage, and the foe elects Breakfall. I know about 200 various lock/throw combinations from my Hwa Rang Do training, though if I tried to take all of those combos and convert them into GURPS, it would likely "degenerate" into only a few styles of Combination, mostly Arm Lock+Damage or Leg Grapple+Takedown, if I had to guess. Some of them are straight up Judo Throw.

But by and large, my experience tells me that the "throws" are mostly Breakfall, since a REAL break would not throw the foe. There are a few exceptions where the break happens DURING a throw . . . but GURPS has a mechanic for that too, called "damaging Judo Throw."