[MA] Retreat to Slip behind

[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'

[Kromm]

That's a runaround. It's purely an artifact of the turn system that the attacker (the person evading and striking from behind someone) reached his location as part of an active defense rather using the movement allowed by a maneuver selected an instant later. If the defender (the person struck from behind) ends up parrying at -2, that represents him engaging the attacker's fist/foot/weapon/drooling maw as the attacker tumbles over/under him . . . because in a discrete turn system, the attacker was prepping that attack even as he defended.

Now if the defender fails to turn to face his foe after being attacked, defending, and then getting his own maneuver with which to respond, then any attack on the attacker's next turn would not be a runaround but a true surprise from behind. In the space of one second (rather than some arbitrarily small tick between two different people taking their turns), the attacker could've gone anywhere or readied anything, and the defender can't seen him prepping his attack in a way that would allow a defense.

A good general guideline is that if A goes from where B can see him to where B cannot see him before B has a chance to select a new maneuver, then any attack from A is a runaround unless A covered the distance using teleportation or a similar effect. The most likely ways that could happen are:

1. On A's turn, A moves around behind B and then A attacks. (The "classic" runaround.)
2. On B's turn, A defends against B in such a way that he gets behind B, and then on A's turn, A attacks. (The situation at hand.)
3. On B's turn, B attacks A and screws up in such a way that he puts A behind him, and then on A's turn, A attacks. (The "missed slam" case.)

In all cases, the A ended up behind B before B had a full turn to respond, and the relative position really bookmarks movement in progress, not a starting situation. Turn systems are annoying this way.

[Captain Joy]

We're in a grey area here; I think it's possible there is no RAW answer.

Maybe rule that the person that got quasi-runaround attacked can use a Retreating Defense with the usual penalties against a runaround attack. But if, for whatever reason, they will not change facing as part of their defense, then they do not get a defense. How about that?

Seems kind of fair. The attacker had to use a Retreating Defense to get himself in his advantageous position. Requiring a Retreating Defense to counter it seems reasonable.

EDIT: I said this before a saw Kromm's post above this one. Since, IMO Kromm = RAW, I consider the RAW matter settled: this quasi-runaround attack is a Runaround attack for all intents and purposes.

[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.