Feints don't make sense to me...

[bocharuk]

The Feint rules have always bothered me to the point of totally trying to revamp the combat system with houserule after houserule.

It doesn't make sense to me that I could feint on my turn, be attacked and defend (or even be hit!) and then gain benefit from my feint on my next turn. the whole point of a feint is to fake out your opponent and then immediately zig when he zags.

The only time a feint seems plausible is if the 'feinter' is faster than his opponent, takes the 'wait' maneuver, feints after he is attacked and then attacks during his next turn. Oh, the feint and attack during an all-out-attack works well too, but that means sacrificing all defenses.

Am I thinking about this the wrong way. If so, can someone fill me in on how they perceive feints and the turn sequence?

Thanks.

[Jovus]

First, this should be read as an attempt as a plausible stab, not that I've 'figured it out.'

To be clear, turns in GURPS are not sequential. They overlap; this means, for example, that the proper one second measurement applies to the time between the start of one character's turn and the start of that same character's next turn, rather than the time it takes to go 'through the initiative order', to paraphrase from another game system.

This overlap also means that there's no waiting about in the combat round, unless your character takes the Wait maneuver. While, sitting at the table, it certainly feels like there are little concrete blocks of action-time - I feint, he attacks, I defend, I attack - the reality to the characters is much more fluid.

So, thinking about fencing (which will stand in here for all melee fighting, since it's the sort I have experiencing with), when you feint, you trick the enemy into thinking you're doing something you aren't. This can take basically two forms.

First, you pretend to attack, thus forcing your opponent to throw his guard where it is unnecessary, and then immediately switch to take advantage of the weakness this opens. (This seems possibly like a Deceptive Attack to me, as well, lowering your chance to hit but lowering his defense - changing attack angles and tactics so quickly is hard.)

Second, you pretend to do something clumsily or in some fashion that 'leaves you open'; often with the goal of goading him to attack where he oughtn't, and thus 'leave himself open'. Then you take advantage of the hole in his offenses.

Either one of these can be feints. Either one leaves room for your opponent to attack you before you can take advantage of it, though the second more clearly so. In the first case, the goal of making him defend where he oughtn't can be to put him in a bad position for response, thus making him open himself up if he attacks you (due to being off balance, on bad footing, whatever).

[Last Pawn]

Well, a feint can also be used to draw an opponent into a certain position which will allow you a better angle of attack. So on my turn I drop my shield enough to make it look like an opening, if my opponent falls for it (losing the quick contest) he makes his attack on his turn. However, because I have anticipated him making that attack I am not only read to defend, but to seize the opening in his defenses that his attack at that location provides. Thus, on my next turn, when I attack my opponent is at a disadvantage (determined by my margin of success).

[DouglasCole]

One way, but not the only way, to think of this is to look at it like this:

You use Feint on me. Perhaps you kick or punch at the right side of my head. You know that I'll have to block that blow, which you "allow" me to do (it's a Feint, not a strike).

Naturally, I block it. But you've now raised my guard, and exposed, purposefully, a target on yourself. What target that is it irrelevant: It magically becomes wherever I attack you next.

On my turn, I attack you. You still have to defend against it.

On YOUR turn, you gain the benefits of knowing more or less in advance how the sequance of your attack, my parry, my next attack, your parry, and then your next attack is going to go.

If you say "but it should be harder for them to attack me as well!" then Martial Arts has this option: Defensive Feints, p. 101.

If you think you should also get a bonus to Parry your foe's next attack, I don't think there's a rule for that, but I don't see why, if you declare and win a Feint, you can't assign your margin of victory as you like to:

* A bonus to Parry, Block, or Dodge an attack by your foe on his next turn. You can split this between multiple attacks on his next turn if you like.

* A penalty to his next attack, at -1 for him to hit for every 1 margin of victory you allocate

* A penalty to his ability to defend against YOUR next attack on his turn. This is the standard Feint rule.

So if you make your skill roll AND win your Contest by 5, you can say that you claim a +1 bonus against your foe's next attack against you, which is ALSO at -2. On YOUR following attack against him, you apply the remainder of your margin to his defenses: -2 to any active defenses that turn.

It's a bit more complicated, but perhaps will help your sense of disbelief.

[Lord Carnifex]

First of all, Feints in GURPS are more than just fake-out attacks. Feints in GURPS are pretty much anything that can be used to reduce the effect of a person's defenses (but also see Beats and Ruses).

So, while fake attacks can be Feints, so can other things:

Rhythm: Attack-parry-attack-parry-attack-attack-parry

Change-up: Jab-cross. Jab-Cross. Jab-Cross. Jab-Thai Kick. Or left-right. Left-right. Left-left-right.

Range: Slowly slide the lead foot forward while leaning back on the rear leg. Then shift weight to suddenly close range.

etc.

The second thing is that GURPS has to map the timing of combat onto a player-turn structure, and some things don't fight without a certain amount of easing. For example, RW combat frequently isn't as simple as I attack, you parry, you attack, I parry. Many attacks set up other maneuvers that in turn can be interrupted. So, for example, I may launch a right-hand cross that flows into a Grapple aimed at the neck. But between my punch Attack and my Grapple attack, you can launch an attack (say a jab). All of the attacks are more or less s heaped up on each other, but GURPS translates it into discrete player turns.

Feints happen similarily. So I may thrust with a rapier in a way intended to bring yours out of line. You move your blade to set up the Parry, but I haven't followed through on my thrust. You thrust with your blade without quite bringing it back into your original en garde position. I dodge your thrust, and then take advantage of you being out of line to Attack while your blade is off-line (which makes it hard to defend). All of these manuevers can look almost simultaneous, but GURPS breaks it down into I Feint, you Attack, I Attack with the advantage of my Feint.

[triple ninja'd!]

[gilbertocarlos]

You could see that way:
You attack - Opponent defend.
Opponent attack - You defend.
You use your turn to analyze the enemy position to see if you can feint him. You roll your skill(to see a gap in opponent defenses), and he rolls as well(to see if he let a gap in his defenses) - You win by 3.
Opponent attack again - You defend, and feint.
You attack him in a defense gap, he have -3 to defend.

[bocharuk]

Originally Posted by Jovus

To be clear, turns in GURPS are not sequential. They overlap; this means, for example, that the proper one second measurement applies to the time between the start of one character's turn and the start of that same character's next turn, rather than the time it takes to go 'through the initiative order', to paraphrase from another game system.

This overlap also means that there's no waiting about in the combat round, unless your character takes the Wait maneuver. While, sitting at the table, it certainly feels like there are little concrete blocks of action-time - I feint, he attacks, I defend, I attack - the reality to the characters is much more fluid.

So, thinking about fencing (which will stand in here for all melee fighting, since it's the sort I have experiencing with), when you feint, you trick the enemy into thinking you're doing something you aren't. This can take basically two forms.

This brings me to another question then. If combat is fluid to the characters and there's no waiting as you say, then what about penalties to defense for subsequent attacks? Ex: the -4 per parry after the first with the same weapon. Wouldn't all attacks after the first round be subsequent ones?

Having my defenses 'refreshed' at the start of my turn indicates there are concrete blocks of action time and that there is some sort of break 'between rounds' or at least 'between turns'.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by bocharuk

This brings me to another question then. If combat is fluid to the characters and there's no waiting as you say, then what about penalties to defense for subsequent attacks? Ex: the -4 per parry after the first with the same weapon. Wouldn't all attacks after the first round be subsequent ones?

Having my defenses 'refreshed' at the start of my turn indicates there are concrete blocks of action time and that there is some sort of break 'between rounds' or at least 'between turns'.

The situation with Feints is that Basic Set offers resolving Feints immediately as a matter of simplicity. Martial Arts offers a more accurate, but somewhat counterintuitive method:
A declares Feint, and writes down/memorizes all appropriate modifiers.
B does whatever B does.
A declares an Attack, and immediately before the attack resolves the Feint against B. The Feint's effect is applied to this attack.

Notice that it is not clearly defined how long setting up the feint took - it could be a fraction of a second, it could be the whole time period from the Feint being declared to the resolution of the following Attack.

While GURPS combat is not as abstract as WoD or D&D, it does have some leeway for interpreting the events.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The situation with Feints is that Basic Set offers resolving Feints immediately as a matter of simplicity. Martial Arts offers a more accurate, but somewhat counterintuitive method:
A declares Feint, and writes down/memorizes all appropriate modifiers.
B does whatever B does.
A declares an Attack, and immediately before the attack resolves the Feint against B. The Feint's effect is applied to this attack.

Wasn't that as a method of preventing the subject of the feint from metagaming rather than as a 'fix' for perceived timeflow issues?

[Idiosyncratic]

As a note, I know absolutely nothing about fighting in general, but here's the way I see it:

When you attack, you don't leave yourself open. If you did, you would be making an All-Out Attack. Rather, you defend yourself wherever doing so would make sense, while also trying to hit the opponent.

Hence, when A attacks B, and B manages to defend, B's next attack will, then, include her defending roughly that very area, as that, given the difficulty of completely changing the way you're striking in a second, is where the next hit is also likely to fall.

Now, if A was, in fact, feinting, he will not have committed as much to his attack, so to speak, and effortlessly targets a completely different place. B, then, attempts to defend against this - her guard is not static, after all - but being, as it is, unexpected and out of the way, she'll be a wee bit slow in getting there, giving her a penalty to her defense.

This also fits well with the concept of deceptive attacks. Here, the strike also falls in an unexpected area, but because A had not been planning ahead, it's far harder for him to strike in one such way, giving him a penalty to his attack.