[MA] 'Tactical Counters' for other tactics/Manoeuvres/Techniques?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

I wonder what do you guys think about the mentioned lack of 4e rules concerning to guarding specific hit locations and the new "Focused Defense" rule presented in GURPS Martial Arts: Gladiators, p. 21:



It has three stances: Neutral, Deny Left, Deny Right. Do you see this rule as fulfilling your idea (see below) in some way? Do you see this rule-idea suited beyond of gladiatorial combat and applicable to any sort of melee fight? I'm interested in your toughts here.

That's not even near, but it's a start.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You should've posted that in the Tactical Counters thread for further discussion - I wonder how one should counter Teamwork.

Break the formation, either by flanking it and forcing the individual members to reposition or by knocking them back or down with high-momentum attacks.

Shield Rushes and Sweeps work well, so do running or Acrobatic Attacks that include a lot of movement to the rear of the Teamwork formation.

[Fwibos]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Break the formation, either by flanking it and forcing the individual members to reposition or by knocking them back or down with high-momentum attacks.

Shield Rushes and Sweeps work well, so do running or Acrobatic Attacks that include a lot of movement to the rear of the Teamwork formation.

Came her to say this. Back off, retreat, call in a buddy. Evaluate. AoA Grab and smash, Attack the limbs. Sweep.

If you can do enough damage to finish him, AOA Strong to a vulnerable spot.

Or use a gun. :D

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

I wonder what do you guys think about the mentioned lack of 4e rules concerning to guarding specific hit locations and the new "Focused Defense" rule presented in GURPS Martial Arts: Gladiators, p. 21:



It has three stances: Neutral, Deny Left, Deny Right. Do you see this rule as fulfilling your idea (see below) in some way? Do you see this rule-idea suited beyond of gladiatorial combat and applicable to any sort of melee fight? I'm interested in your toughts here.

The idea of presented and denied does not work in my opinion, but I like the idea of having one side defended and one side exposed (a plain +2/-2 defences).

Maybe also add Neutral, Guard High, Guard Low as well as Neutral, Guard Body (head, torso, vitals), Guard Limbs (and extremeties)?

[sclose1970]

Another possible solution, non-RAW of course, would be to introduce a new combat option that would allow a fighter to gain a defense bonus at the cost of reducing his chances to hit with an attack. While DA doesn't require any sort of penalty to a fighter's own ability to defend, I can't see how to balance a defensive bonus without some sort of penalty. Other than retreats, which aren't always a good choice as giving ground may not always be an option, and AOD, which removes any ability to respond. Defensive Attack gives a bonus to defend, but at the cost of damage. Maybe an option that trades a to-hit penalty for increased defense could be introduced.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sclose1970

Another possible solution, non-RAW of course, would be to introduce a new combat option that would allow a fighter to gain a defense bonus at the cost of reducing his chances to hit with an attack. While DA doesn't require any sort of penalty to a fighter's own ability to defend, I can't see how to balance a defensive bonus without some sort of penalty. Other than retreats, which aren't always a good choice as giving ground may not always be an option, and AOD, which removes any ability to respond. Defensive Attack gives a bonus to defend, but at the cost of damage. Maybe an option that trades a to-hit penalty for increased defense could be introduced.

I don't really see how inaccurately flailing with your weapon is supposed to improve your active defenses.

[sclose1970]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't really see how inaccurately flailing with your weapon is supposed to improve your active defenses.

I wasn't looking at it from that standpoint. It's more of a meta-game thinking mechanism really. If I have to come up with a realistic explanation however, the cause and effect are reversed in your assumption. It's not that your inaccuracy is causing your defenses to be better, it would be that your focus on defense is making you assume a stance or guard that makes your attacks more difficult to execute properly. In the example of a highly skilled fighter using it, it would essentially be giving up the opportunity to make deceptive attacks of your own, as you are already taking that penalty to aid your own defense.

Another possibility would be that instead of taking a penalty to your own attacks, you could trade a bonus to your own defense in return for giving your opponent a similar bonus, with the reasoning that with attacking from a tighter guard stance, you give your opponent more time to respond to your own attacks.

[vicky_molokh]

The Technique Design rules allow you to claim a bonus to one or several Active Defences on the turn you used a certain Technique.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't really see how inaccurately flailing with your weapon is supposed to improve your active defenses.

You're not inaccurately flailing about. You're just being more cautious, less inclined to take advantage of apparent opportunities that open your defenses, putting less force behind blows so you can you recover more easily, etc. If you can have "determination" in attack that trades some defense for attack, then it's not illogical for that to work the other way around. Just as DA gives you a sliding scale between "Attack" and "All-out Attack", a "Cautious" stance would give you a sliding scale between normal defenses (Attack) and All-out Defense.

[Ulzgoroth]

If you want a defensive grip that makes it harder to execute attacks, we've got a thing called Defensive Grip...

There's no way you can trade any possible penalty to your attack for more than +1 to active defenses, because giving up the attack entirely gives you +2. If you want to match that and attack too you're going to have to sacrifice something else, and it probably can't be small. An equivalent of Defensive Attack that takes a skill rather than damage penalty...well, I don't really buy the logic but it's easy enough to figure where it would be pegged.