[MA] Retreat to Slip behind

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

A combatant with Basic Move 11, and thus a Step of 2, is attacked from an adjacent hex, and decides to use the retreat in his Active Defense to Slip toward them into their hex and Evades the Attacker ending his step in the hex behind him. (Maybe he uses Acrobatics and rolls between the legs, or flips over the opponent to add the benefits of an Acrobatic Dodge.)

If the Attacker has used his step prior to the attack, he cannot change facing to turn around, and the defender can use his step at the start of his turn to do an about-face and attack. Since the defender evaded during the attacker's turn, he is starting his turn in his opponent's back hex.

So this is a true attack from the behind originating in the Back hex and not considered a "Runaround", is that correct?

The way I run it, if you start your turn in the foe's back hex he can't defend. The only exception (for me) is a grapple, 'cause if someone's grabbing you from behind, it's obvious he's there.

[the_matrix_walker]

Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

The way I run it, if you start your turn in the foe's back hex he can't defend. The only exception (for me) is a grapple, 'cause if someone's grabbing you from behind, it's obvious he's there.

I'm just asking about the intended interpretation of the RAW...

If you're grappled from behind, they are in your hex and not your back hex... so unless there is a SM difference (or stretching, or Telekinesis..etc), you can't be grappled from your back hex... they're in your hex!

[jacobmuller]

I'd have to say no.
pg391 Runaround Attacks reads to me as
it's only a true attack from behind if the victim doesn't know you're there. It isn't about how long you've been there.

[starslayer]

I would say this still counts as a round about. There is basically no way the attacker does not know that the target is now being him and that an attack is likely.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by starslayer

I would say this still counts as a round about. There is basically no way the attacker does not know that the target is now being him and that an attack is likely.

I agree the same rationale regarding run around attacks seem to be relevant.

If someone vaulted over you etc, it's not exactly a mystery as to where they've ended up

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I agree the same rationale regarding run around attacks seem to be relevant.

If someone vaulted over you etc, it's not exactly mystery as to where they've ended up

Runarounds generally assume the attack is as you pass, which is why you can still block without flexibility... they would of course know you are there, but they don't know if you're going to just keep moving, attack the leg, stab for vitals or bop em on the head... I could see allowing a penalized dodge or something, but it's hard do justify a precision parry...

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

Runarounds generally assume the attack is as you pass, which is why you can still block without flexibility... they would of course know you are there, but they don't know if you're going to just keep moving, attack the leg, stab for vitals or bop em on the head... I could see allowing a penalized dodge or something, but it's hard do justify a precision parry...

I guess I look at this all being a part of ongoing movement (even if it's cut into second by second discrete chunks to resolve, for game play reasons)

If you vault over my head, or slide between my legs I'm not actually going to wait until you attack me before I start to improve my relative position.

I think there's also game balance aspect. The slip has been used to get a free 2 hex movement to disadvantage the target, and all this was leveraged off a defence so 'free' in terms fo using up your own actions.

The person you doing this to couldn't even employ 'wait' to stop you as it his attack that triggers it.

If nothing else having a 2 hex step is already a big advantage


Allowing no defence against this would seem to be over egging it somewhat (especially as you could potentially position yourself to be on the wrong side for parry anyway).

Ultimately for me:

"Against a true attack from
behind, no active defense is possible, because the victim did not know
the attack was coming."


Infers if you know the attack was coming it's not a 'no defence, attack from behind'

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

I'd have to say no.
pg391 Runaround Attacks reads to me as
it's only a true attack from behind if the victim doesn't know you're there. It isn't about how long you've been there.

Originally Posted by B391

Against a true attack from behind, no active defense is possible, because the victim did not know the attack was coming. If the attacker starts in front and runs behind, outmaneuvering his victim through sheer speed, the victim does know he’s being attacked. Treat it as a side attack: -2 to active defenses, unless the victim has compensating advantages.

My reading is that merely knowing there is a foe behind you is not the same as knowing you're being attacked that round. I.e. An attack as part of a runaround allows for an Active Defense because you see the initiation and at least part of the development of that specific Attack Maneuver. For an attack that starts out in your back hex, you do not get an Active Defense. (That's my interpretation anyway.)

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

My reading is that merely knowing there is a foe behind you is not the same as knowing you're being attacked that round. I.e. An attack as part of a runaround allows for an Active Defense because you see the initiation and at least part of the development of that specific Attack Maneuver. For an attack that starts out in your back hex, you do not get an Active Defense. (That's my interpretation anyway.)

I generally interpret runaround attack as anytime you (the defender) don't get an action between the move and the attack (and of course the run-around-er started not-behind-you). Because this prevents an exploit of the turn-based system.

So I'd call this Slip situation a runaround attack.

[jacobmuller]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

My reading is that merely knowing there is a foe behind you is not the same as knowing you're being attacked that round. I.e. An attack as part of a runaround allows for an Active Defense because you see the initiation and at least part of the development of that specific Attack Maneuver. For an attack that starts out in your back hex, you do not get an Active Defense. (That's my interpretation anyway.)

Quandary
I want to agree - if someone is behind you and you choose not to move such that they are no longer in your back hex, well, ouch.
If, however, you know someone is behind you, aren't you gonna assume they're gonna try... so you'd at least have Dodge, -2 Parry?
But I'm going with Runaround for a Slip - smack. Just unsure now what I'd do for Slip - target takes his turn - smack...