“Runaround” Attack from side hex

[Dark Archon]

Suppose that enemy starts his move in side hex. He makes a move or step and strikes a character from behind. Does character get his active defense? The BS says "If the attacker starts in front and runs behind, outmaneuvering his victim through sheer speed, the victim does know he’s being attacked.", but is it talking about front hexes, or just front in general?

[Anaraxes]

In this case, "front" really means "not rear". Or more generally, the defender knows that you're there, knows where you're moving, and if the game weren't artificially structured into discrete turns where all but one character is frozen in place while another acts, would be able simultaneously to turn as you move to keep you from truly hitting him in the back. The rear attack loss of defense is meant to represent situations where the defender does not know the attack is coming, and cannot reach behind to defend himself (with normal human anatomy, that is), which means his attention and position have to be fixated on something to his front so that he can't turn in reaction to the runaround -- perhaps an even more threatening opponent.

To be really picky, as a houserule, you might require a character making such a defense against a runaround actually to make that turn of at least one hexside at the beginning on their next turn. Thus, the distraction of choosing to make their defense might interfere with their progress in the (old) forward direction.

[DouglasCole]

Short version: What Anaraxes said.

In my games, the general rule is that if you start your turn in a foe's back arc, he's boned. If you have to move there, it's -2.

I also toyed with a few other options the last time this came up.

[Dark Archon]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

means his attention and position have to be fixated on something to his front so that he can't turn in reaction to the runaround -- perhaps an even more threatening opponent.

That's exactly why I am asking about - because with this rule, I found out today that it is completely possible to keep all enemies "in view" and never receive any attack in the back, even if you are outnumbered 4-to-1.

[GodBeastX]

Originally Posted by Dark Archon

That's exactly why I am asking about - because with this rule, I found out today that it is completely possible to keep all enemies "in view" and never receive any attack in the back, even if you are outnumbered 4-to-1.

This isn't true.

This came up in a similar thread and here is a quote from Kromm.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=19

In other words. It is only a back attack if your turn comes up and you are behind the person, otherwise it is a Run around attack. It has to do with turn order versus everything happening in real time. If you run around someone to their back, they might be in the midst of turning with you so their back isn't exposed. If they don't, then you start your next turn able to attack it.

[Gnome]

Things can get nasty with Wait maneuvers. We've had this come up in game: Fighter B takes a Wait maneuver of some kind, Fighter A takes his turn and ends it with no one behind him. Fighter B's Wait maneuver is triggered before his turn comes up, and he ends his maneuver behind Fighter A, then promptly starts his turn in position to execute a back attack.
It's really more of an issue with Wait maneuvers than back attacks. I think the last time this came up the GM ruled it a runaround attack.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Things can get nasty with Wait maneuvers. We've had this come up in game: Fighter B takes a Wait maneuver of some kind, Fighter A takes his turn and ends it with no one behind him. Fighter B's Wait maneuver is triggered before his turn comes up, and he ends his maneuver behind Fighter A, then promptly starts his turn in position to execute a back attack.
It's really more of an issue with Wait maneuvers than back attacks. I think the last time this came up the GM ruled it a runaround attack.

Yikes. I read Douglas's thoughts on the matter, and the takeaway is "allow rotation in response to more things," but I'm not sure anything addresses that. Hard to say what to do about it, though.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by McAllister

Yikes. I read Douglas's thoughts on the matter, and the takeaway is "allow rotation in response to more things," but I'm not sure anything addresses that. Hard to say what to do about it, though.

My preferred solution (not that I have a solution) would also handle a whole bunch of issues with Waits. This topic surely deserves its own thread, but the fact that one combatant can take two actions before another combatant takes even one action leads to a host of problems. These are not theoretical problems, they are problems my group has repeatedly run into. The most obvious problem is that Wait is a way to batter down an enemies defenses by hitting him with twice your usual number of attacks in one turn.

[VariousRen]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Things can get nasty with Wait maneuvers. We've had this come up in game: Fighter B takes a Wait maneuver of some kind, Fighter A takes his turn and ends it with no one behind him. Fighter B's Wait maneuver is triggered before his turn comes up, and he ends his maneuver behind Fighter A, then promptly starts his turn in position to execute a back attack.
It's really more of an issue with Wait maneuvers than back attacks. I think the last time this came up the GM ruled it a runaround attack.

This is resolved by changing the definition of runaround attack a little. A runaround attack is any attack made against a target who saw the attacker during their last maneuver, but cannot see them now.

For your example of waits, the defender saw the attacker during his last maneuver (while he was waiting), so they get a runaround defense even though the attacker started their turn out of sight. There may be some edge cases with Reduced Time Rate, but it probably won't come up a lot.