Rapid Strike with different attack maneuvers? - Page 3

Ulzgoroth · 05-31-2019, 06:34 PM

Your insistence on believing that "one full yard apart" and "in adjoining hexes" are synonymous despite the text expressly presenting them as in opposition to each other is the problem here.

Plane · 05-31-2019, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Your insistence on believing that "one full yard apart" and "in adjoining hexes" are synonymous despite the text expressly presenting them as in opposition to each other is the problem here.

People in adjoining hexes are on average on full yard apart, since on average you're in the middle of your respective hex.

However they aren't ALWAYS AT LEAST that far apart, since it can be less if you're leaning in to each other.

Having 1 hex in between the two hexes you're occupying is I think more often than not described as being 2 hexes away from each other.

I mean really, aren't you more-adjacent to one another when you share 1 hex, rather than sharing 2 adjoining hexes?

If his enemies were one full yard apart, he could only attack each of them once

People in adjoining hexes ARE on average, on full yard apart, or maybe 0 yards or 2, depending on the whole "any place within the hex" flexibility.

So the explanation for the examples is I think referring to minimums, rather than averages/maximums and could be rephrased to fit the examples, or have the examples altered to fit the original phrasing.

If we contrast the phrasing to B376 for example:

if an attacker fired a pistol at you from only one yard away,
you could attempt to parry barehanded.

"One yard away" I think at best means in an adjoining hex (between 0 and 6 feet away, average 3), not "in a hex beyond an adjoining hex" (6 to 12 feet away) as we're concluding from the MA128 examples.

One might even interpret it as someone SHARING the same hex (punches being C-range weapons) where "one yard away" is the MAXIMUM you could be away from someone.

Although I could be wrong: the guy in B376 might well be SM+3 giving him +2 to reach and increasing the range of his punches from C to 2, allowing him to parry guns shooting at him within a 2 yard radius (or would that be a 1 yard radius, because we skip one?)

Regardless of that aspect of the conversation, the issue of 60 degree pivots being harder the further away your targets are (lose 1 attack if reach 2, 2 attacks if reach 3, 3 attacks if reach 4, etc) seems like a distinct problem.

Not to mention this idea that attacking intermediary hexes takes just as much time as bypassing them... I mean I'm all for giving a "trade an attack for a 60 degree weapon-facing-change" option, but this is basically making the weapon-pivot free as long as you attack, or only charging for a pivot if you don't attack.

Boge · 06-02-2019, 01:15 PM

I understood it as a hex between them. If a target is in a hex, they're in that hex. They're "occupying" that hex. You don't separate the parts of the hex and say he's in the left side of the hex. Each hex next to each other is 1 yard away, or 1 reach away, regardless of who is in the hex and where they're actually standing (it's not realistic and exact, but that's the game rulings). So a hex between two people would be the empty hex between them.

So if you look at the chart on B385, if someone was in the left front hex, and someone was in the center front hex, they'd be "adjacent", and you could attack them with multiple attacks like a Rapid Strike, or Dual Weapon Attack...two attacks, two adjacent targets. If they were occupying the left front and right front hex with the center front hex empty, you'd need three attacks to attack both targets, one for the left front hex, one for the center hex (even though there isn't anything there), and one for the right front hex.

Obviously, if they're occupying the same hex, they're adjacent.

A question that just popped into my mind...in the example, you get the picture I just explained above, both targets being on your front. But what if a target is in your Front Left hex and one in your Right Side hex? Do you do three attacks including the one from the hex you are in, going through you, or do you have to go around you "attacking" Front Left, Front Center, Front Right, and then Side Right (Wild Swing) in order to attack those two targets?

Could I attack the target on the Left Front hex, then step back or turn (with my Step) and attack the other target who would now be in the Right Front hex? Could I do that with a Rapid Strike, or would that have to be an All Out Attack Double or Extra Attack requirement?

Ulzgoroth · 06-02-2019, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plane

People in adjoining hexes are on average on full yard apart, since on average you're in the middle of your respective hex.

No, they are not. They are on average considerably less than a full yard apart, because people occupy space - they're not just points.

That said, I'm not arguing that the text's wording is particularly good. I am arguing that the text cannot reasonably be read the way you are reading it.

RyanW · 06-02-2019, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boge

I understood it as a hex between them.

That's my interpretation, as well. "Full yard apart" means there is an empty, three-foot wide gap between any position they could be assumed to occupy.

And when there are three examples, two of which are pretty explicitly based on interpretation A and one of which could be read as suggesting interpretation A or B, assuming that B is intended is... odd.

Plane · 06-02-2019, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

No, they are not. They are on average considerably less than a full yard apart, because people occupy space - they're not just points.

I should say "their centres of mass are on average 1 yard apart", you're right about thickness meaning that the nearest 2 of any given points wouldn't be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'm not arguing that the text's wording is particularly good. I am arguing that the text cannot reasonably be read the way you are reading it.

Which way?

I'm just thinking "one full yard" is more like "at least one full yard" which being 2 hexes apart (one empty unoccupied one between you) guarantees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boge

if you look at the chart on B385, if someone was in the left front hex, and someone was in the center front hex, they'd be "adjacent",
..
Obviously, if they're occupying the same hex, they're adjacent.

Occupying the same hex seems 'more adjacent' than your hexes being adjacent to one another. The hexes are touching but their occupants might not be!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boge

A question that just popped into my mind...in the example, you get the picture I just explained above, both targets being on your front. But what if a target is in your Front Left hex and one in your Right Side hex? Do you do three attacks including the one from the hex you are in, going through you, or do you have to go around you "attacking" Front Left, Front Center, Front Right, and then Side Right (Wild Swing) in order to attack those two targets?

Could I attack the target on the Left Front hex, then step back or turn (with my Step) and attack the other target who would now be in the Right Front hex? Could I do that with a Rapid Strike, or would that have to be an All Out Attack Double or Extra Attack requirement?

Mixing in steps doesn't seem like it avoids paying the attacks penalty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanW

That's my interpretation, as well. "Full yard apart" means there is an empty, three-foot wide gap between any position they could be assumed to occupy.

And when there are three examples, two of which are pretty explicitly based on interpretation A and one of which could be read as suggesting interpretation A or B, assuming that B is intended is... odd.

I think A is clearly the intention, B is merely the RAW.

"Full yard" is basically "always at least a yard" which is actually distance between the hexes you occupy plus one to account for two adjacent hexes not having a guarantee of space between their occupants at all since both bodies might lean against the hedge.

Even though you could also have, with two people occupying a hex and pressing their palms against opposite sides (Mime power) make those hands be 1 yard apart.

Ulzgoroth · 06-02-2019, 10:31 PM

If what you're trying to do is only to say that you think the RAW fails to say what it means (something I do myself at times) it's probably best to expressly communicate that, because otherwise people are likely to try to help you understand the rules.

I think it's clear that the RAW does not say, as we're calling it, B. Because parts of it expressly contradict that reading. You can read it as also contradicting A, perhaps...

Plane · 06-03-2019, 01:27 AM

Nothing in the MA127 ruling itself contradicts B, what contradicts it is the parenthesis in Example 1 (MA128) since it defines the expression "adjacent" to include those in adjoining hexes.

"full yard he skips between" just seems like it would make more sense as "empty yard he skips past".

The "Skipping the one in the middle would be like fighting two people a yard apart" messes with my mental preconception of what hexes represent, because when I picture 2 goons in adjoining hexes, I picture them being a yard apart.

As you pointed out though that's not true (even if their midlines are exactly that distance apart, they have thickness to lessen that gap to 2 or even 1 feet) which is why I think originally punches were reach 1 in 3e despite arms tending to be less than 36 inches long. Some UFC fighters have 72 inch reaches index-to-index but that's including the width of shoulders.

So "two people a yard apart" as expressed in Example 2, actually means people TWO yards apart, because we measure the tactical distances (for movement, weapon reach) between people by their averaged/central locations in the middle of those hexes, not their outer extremities.

Yet for casual conversation we should acknowledge the dangling-out-side-midline reduces all functional distance assumptions by 1 yard.

when I reread PK's explanatiotion of tactical hexes I think it helps me grasp this better. Except the difference being unlike radius (measured from center) distance between people is being measured from their outer extremities, so do the reverse and bump it up instead of one (reach 1 becomes reach 2 instead of reach C like with Area Effect)

Boge · 06-03-2019, 02:04 PM

1 yard means 1 hex in Gurps terminology.

Plane · 06-03-2019, 03:50 PM

The midpoints of hexes are a yard apart (GURPS hexes have an Apothem of 18 inches) but since even a "perfectly centered in the middle of my hex" (which is not a guarantee) target has thickness.

This is the 100% valid observation Ulzgoroth made which I totally overlooked.

For example: a 1-dimensional point in space with no thickness would be exactly 18 inches away from the midpoints of the 6 edges of a hex, and something like 20.7846 inches away from the vertexes (this also happens to be the rough length of the sides)

If that 1-dimensional point in space was instead a circle with a radius of 2 inches (a 4 inch diameter circle) then you'd be looking at between 16 inches (edge midpoints) and 18.7846 inches (vertices) between the perimeter of that circle and the perimeter of the hex the circle is within.

If you have a pair of these 2-inch radius circles occupying the exact centers of adjacent (edge-sharing) hexes, the distances between the perimeters of those circles would merely be 32 inches, and not the required 36 inches you would need to have a 1 yard gap between the ENTIRE circles, rather than just the circles' midpoints.

Going front to back, I think humans have to be at least 4 inches thick, so I think that's why "full yard" requires "there's an unoccupied hex between the hexes you two occupy" rather than "your hexes are adjacent", since it's the only guarantee due to people being thicc and also the wobbling off-centre that happens (Schroedinger's Target)

05-31-2019, 06:34 PM	#21
Ulzgoroth Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: Rapid Strike with different attack maneuvers? Your insistence on believing that "one full yard apart" and "in adjoining hexes" are synonymous despite the text expressly presenting them as in opposition to each other is the problem here. __________________ I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.

06-02-2019, 01:15 PM	#23
Boge Join Date: Jul 2015	Re: Rapid Strike with different attack maneuvers? I understood it as a hex between them. If a target is in a hex, they're in that hex. They're "occupying" that hex. You don't separate the parts of the hex and say he's in the left side of the hex. Each hex next to each other is 1 yard away, or 1 reach away, regardless of who is in the hex and where they're actually standing (it's not realistic and exact, but that's the game rulings). So a hex between two people would be the empty hex between them. So if you look at the chart on B385, if someone was in the left front hex, and someone was in the center front hex, they'd be "adjacent", and you could attack them with multiple attacks like a Rapid Strike, or Dual Weapon Attack...two attacks, two adjacent targets. If they were occupying the left front and right front hex with the center front hex empty, you'd need three attacks to attack both targets, one for the left front hex, one for the center hex (even though there isn't anything there), and one for the right front hex. Obviously, if they're occupying the same hex, they're adjacent. A question that just popped into my mind...in the example, you get the picture I just explained above, both targets being on your front. But what if a target is in your Front Left hex and one in your Right Side hex? Do you do three attacks including the one from the hex you are in, going through you, or do you have to go around you "attacking" Front Left, Front Center, Front Right, and then Side Right (Wild Swing) in order to attack those two targets? Could I attack the target on the Left Front hex, then step back or turn (with my Step) and attack the other target who would now be in the Right Front hex? Could I do that with a Rapid Strike, or would that have to be an All Out Attack Double or Extra Attack requirement? Last edited by Boge; 06-02-2019 at 04:01 PM.

06-02-2019, 10:31 PM	#27
Ulzgoroth Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: Rapid Strike with different attack maneuvers? If what you're trying to do is only to say that you think the RAW fails to say what it means (something I do myself at times) it's probably best to expressly communicate that, because otherwise people are likely to try to help you understand the rules. I think it's clear that the RAW does not say, as we're calling it, B. Because parts of it expressly contradict that reading. You can read it as also contradicting A, perhaps... __________________ I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.

06-03-2019, 01:27 AM	#28
Plane Join Date: Aug 2018	Re: Rapid Strike with different attack maneuvers? Nothing in the MA127 ruling itself contradicts B, what contradicts it is the parenthesis in Example 1 (MA128) since it defines the expression "adjacent" to include those in adjoining hexes. "full yard he skips between" just seems like it would make more sense as "empty yard he skips past". The "Skipping the one in the middle would be like fighting two people a yard apart" messes with my mental preconception of what hexes represent, because when I picture 2 goons in adjoining hexes, I picture them being a yard apart. As you pointed out though that's not true (even if their midlines are exactly that distance apart, they have thickness to lessen that gap to 2 or even 1 feet) which is why I think originally punches were reach 1 in 3e despite arms tending to be less than 36 inches long. Some UFC fighters have 72 inch reaches index-to-index but that's including the width of shoulders. So "two people a yard apart" as expressed in Example 2, actually means people TWO yards apart, because we measure the tactical distances (for movement, weapon reach) between people by their averaged/central locations in the middle of those hexes, not their outer extremities. Yet for casual conversation we should acknowledge the dangling-out-side-midline reduces all functional distance assumptions by 1 yard. when I reread PK's explanatiotion of tactical hexes I think it helps me grasp this better. Except the difference being unlike radius (measured from center) distance between people is being measured from their outer extremities, so do the reverse and bump it up instead of one (reach 1 becomes reach 2 instead of reach C like with Area Effect) Last edited by Plane; 06-03-2019 at 01:31 AM.

06-03-2019, 02:04 PM	#29
Boge Join Date: Jul 2015	Re: Rapid Strike with different attack maneuvers? 1 yard means 1 hex in Gurps terminology.

06-03-2019, 03:50 PM	#30
Plane Join Date: Aug 2018	Re: Rapid Strike with different attack maneuvers? The midpoints of hexes are a yard apart (GURPS hexes have an Apothem of 18 inches) but since even a "perfectly centered in the middle of my hex" (which is not a guarantee) target has thickness. This is the 100% valid observation Ulzgoroth made which I totally overlooked. For example: a 1-dimensional point in space with no thickness would be exactly 18 inches away from the midpoints of the 6 edges of a hex, and something like 20.7846 inches away from the vertexes (this also happens to be the rough length of the sides) If that 1-dimensional point in space was instead a circle with a radius of 2 inches (a 4 inch diameter circle) then you'd be looking at between 16 inches (edge midpoints) and 18.7846 inches (vertices) between the perimeter of that circle and the perimeter of the hex the circle is within. If you have a pair of these 2-inch radius circles occupying the exact centers of adjacent (edge-sharing) hexes, the distances between the perimeters of those circles would merely be 32 inches, and not the required 36 inches you would need to have a 1 yard gap between the ENTIRE circles, rather than just the circles' midpoints. Going front to back, I think humans have to be at least 4 inches thick, so I think that's why "full yard" requires "there's an unoccupied hex between the hexes you two occupy" rather than "your hexes are adjacent", since it's the only guarantee due to people being thicc and also the wobbling off-centre that happens (Schroedinger's Target)