[MA] Targeted Attack and Hit Location

[Exxar]

Targeted Attacks states that if you use a specific version more than two times in a fight against the same opponent, he gets +1 to all of his defense rolls vs. that TA.

Why don't ordinary attacks targeting hit locations other than the torso suffer the same penalty?

Let's say we have two warriors; warrior A and warrior B. A has TA (Broadsword/swing/neck), while B hasn't. Using a broadsword, they both attempt a swinging attack at their foes' necks several times in a fight. Does A have distinct, noticeable moves which grant that +1 to defenses while B doesn't, just because he isn't trained but tries the same thing over and over nevertheless?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Exxar

Why don't ordinary attacks targeting hit locations other than the torso suffer the same penalty?

Who says it doesn't? If you are using the TA Optional rule than all attacks to Hit Locations and Chinks in Armor are Targeted Attack techniques at default, aren't they?

[Exxar]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Who says it doesn't? If you are using the TA Optional rule than all attacks to Hit Locations and Chinks in Armor are Targeted Attack techniques at default, aren't they?

That's what I suppose. But since it isn't explicitly stated in MA, I was wandering if it's official.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Exxar

That's what I suppose. But since it isn't explicitly stated in MA, I was wandering if it's official.

It's official if you want it to be. It's a logical consequence of an optional rule...

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

It's official if you want it to be. It's a logical consequence of an optional rule...

Yes, I think the thing that's already getting missed here (which is typical of the hardcore GURPS community) is that all the rules in Martial Arts are optional and Targeted Attacks are extra optional (Combinations are even more optional since they require Targeted attacks in the first place).

[PK]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Who says it doesn't? If you are using the TA Optional rule than all attacks to Hit Locations and Chinks in Armor are Targeted Attack techniques at default, aren't they?

Quoted for truth. Remember that techniques are combat options first, traits to purchase second. You don't have to train in one to use one. It's simply logical that if all you do throughout a fight is try to cut your opponent in the neck, he's going to be pretty prepared to parry a neck-swing after the first few times.

And no, that doesn't mean he'll be unprepared when you suddenly swing for his leg, because unless he's a complete moron he's probably expecting the change-up. Of course, at that point, the classic "I start off the swing for his neck and then suddenly chop it down at his legs" move is also a classic Deceptive Attack.

[hal]

Technically speaking, establishing a pattern in a fight/bout and then changing it at the last moment is a ruse or a form of feint. Any time someone is "anticipating" an attack - enough to gain a +1 bonus to a defense, suddenly changing your hit location is taking advantage of the fact he is moving to defend against an attack that isn't going to happen and is going to be delayed in countering the real attack location. In a way, that is what an Evaluate is in fencing. You present a given attack and note how that person responds to it. If you present the same attack again and he does the same defensive manuever - chances are good that the third time you present the same attack, he will use the same defense. THAT is why you gain the bonus to hit when you can predict what your opponent will do under specific circumstances.

I suspect that there is in fact a difference between a targeted attack as a manuever versus an aimed blow. What that difference is - is that the attacker has been practicing a specific move/sequence of movements to enhance his ability to hit a specific point of aim. Every time he begins to make those "rote" movements - the other can spot them. The person who isn't using a rote movement (ie a manuever) to hit a specific location - is leaving less visual cues as to his intent. As a GM, I'd say that there is a definite difference between practiced moves versus taking a target of opportunity or deciding unexpectedly to attack a given location.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by hal

I suspect that there is in fact a difference between a targeted attack as a manuever versus an aimed blow. What that difference is - is that the attacker has been practicing a specific move/sequence of movements to enhance his ability to hit a specific point of aim. Every time he begins to make those "rote" movements - the other can spot them.

Exactly. TAs are basically forms -- they always start the same way and end the same way, and it's this autopilot that makes them faster and smoother than ordinary blows to the same hit location. But it comes at the cost of being a kind of muscle memory that looks the same way every time. Sure . . . you can change up and avoid this. Make your later TAs Deceptive Attacks at a big enough penalty to offset the bonus. Of course, you'll be nuking your TA back to uselessness, but then you're essentially ignoring it, aren't you?

[Ciaran]

The +1 is granted by the repeated use of the same tactic, I would grant it to an opponent of either fighter: I should think this was implicit. Forgive me, but this strikes me as a silly question.

[Ciaran]

I strongly disagree. It's the repeated line of attack being fed into your nervous system that gives you the +1 to defend, not the slickness of said attack. A smooth attack is no easier to block than a lousy one. Otherwise, why are we wasting our time training?