Altered time rate /Great Haste question.

[lachimba]

Players like to have their PC do this:

With great haste on

#1 All out attack
Then

#2 normal attack

Then defend normally.

That way they can maximise their attacks while still defending.


I had the enemy wait on their own turn.

Then after the PC stepped into range to attack on #1 the enemy attacked.

Because the PC's attack was an all out attack the PC had no defense.


A player has asked me to confirm here that this is correct.


I see no reason why it isnt. If GMs/PCs havent been wise to this then that's another topic.

[vicky_molokh]

Yes, both the AoA-then-AoD tactic and the Wait tactic are valid tactics when dealing with ATR.

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yes, both the AoA-then-AoD tactic and the Wait tactic are valid tactics when dealing with ATR.

What's the AoA-then-AoD tactic?

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by lachimba

What's the AoA-then-AoD tactic?

Make an All Out Attack, then use All Out Defense.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by lachimba

Players like to have their PC do this:

With great haste on

#1 All out attack
Then

#2 normal attack

Then defend normally.

That way they can maximise their attacks while still defending.


I had the enemy wait on their own turn.

Then after the PC stepped into range to attack on #1 the enemy attacked.

Because the PC's attack was an all out attack the PC had no defense.


A player has asked me to confirm here that this is correct.


I see no reason why it isnt. If GMs/PCs havent been wise to this then that's another topic.

It's correct...but of course the obvious answer is "Don't All Out Attack while your opponent is Waiting."

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It's correct...but of course the obvious answer is "Don't All Out Attack while your opponent is Waiting."

They got upset because they misinterpreted the rules.

Also i said that the opponent "stepped" and didn't say they waited. I could go either way on saying that you can see a "wait".

Probably better to say experienced fighters can see a "wait".

[Mr_Sandman]

There is a Kromm-quote somewhere on the forum (can't search too well now, I'm on my phone) that clarifies that all maneuvers except feint are obvious to anyone watching. That includes Wait. So you should announce Waits.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

There is a Kromm-quote somewhere on the forum (can't search too well now, I'm on my phone) that clarifies that all maneuvers except feint are obvious to anyone watching. That includes Wait. So you should announce Waits.

I go back and forth. If I'm running a nitty-gritty I'll withhold naming the maneuvers instead giving quick descriptions. I allow the Players to make Per based Tactics checks for situational awareness, allowing them more information (like exactly what maneuvers people are performing if they can see them).

But usually I run Action, and don't bother with all that.

[Leynok]

While there is nothing wrong with using ATR like that, strictly speaking All Out Attacks stop you from defending until your next turn while ATR gives you one more action within the same turn. So someone who made one All Out Attack would still be left defenseless until their next turn.

Of course every time that someone's had ATR in my group, while I do ensure that the GM knows this, they usually just rule that it gives you an extra turn right after your first anyway.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Leynok

While there is nothing wrong with using ATR like that, strictly speaking All Out Attacks stop you from defending until your next turn while ATR gives you one more action within the same turn.

Kromm has clarified that ATR does effectively give you two turns in a row, so the All-Out Attack followed by All-Out Defense (or any other maneuver that gives you a defense) actually is valid.