Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anaximander

Aesir23, do you have a citation for that?

Well, it's outright stated in the Harsh Realism for Unarmed Fighters box on MA124, for one thing.

[Anaximander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Well, it's outright stated in the Harsh Realism for Unarmed Fighters box on MA124, for one thing.

A-ha. I see I forgot a single sentence in a side box of a sourcebook. How foolish of me to even ask. Grazie.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Well, it's outright stated in the Harsh Realism for Unarmed Fighters box on MA124, for one thing.

I can't find in anywhere in Basic Set, which is odd.

[Anaximander]

Originally Posted by lexington

I can't find in anywhere in Basic Set, which is odd.

Nor could I. except for that you could perform two separate parries at no penalty and the wording of off-hand weapon training letting you buy off the penalty for "one specific Melee Weapon skill".

[PK]

Originally Posted by lexington

I can't find in anywhere in Basic Set, which is odd.

You won't find it stated explicitly, though a careful reading reveals that it was the base assumption while many rules were written. This is an oversight that was corrected in GURPS Martial Arts.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by joppeknol

Hello,

Hello and, first of all, welcome in GURPS! You discovered one of the best roleplaying game ever designed, perhaps even the best one!

Originally Posted by joppeknol

After a first session of with a GURPS-converted Call of Cthulhu 90s adventure (Eye of wicked sight).

Very good choice! I often use Call of Cthulhu adventures with GURPS rules (classic ones, during the roaring twenties). It works very well and adventures are very easy to adapt...

Originally Posted by joppeknol

1) Is retreating dodge always possible, provided there is space behind you? It would lead to boxers stepping to and fro during defense and attack, which seems a bit silly. Do people rule that you can only retreat when you haven't spend a step in your turn? Why do or why don't?

Here is how I understand rules...

Retreating needs being able to step back. The attack maneuver allows to do only one step (forward or backward, before or after the attack). So, if the character already did his step, he can't do it again: he can't retreat. If h didn't use his step, he can retreat, but only once.

[Gollum]

Oh! A lot of people answered you as I was writing my own answer... I made a good choice to write it question by question rather than all in a raw... Thus, I can avoid repeating what they already wrote...

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

About retreat and step back
This is a houserule apparently used by some. It is not at all RAW.

I do agree!

The rules, in the paragraph "Attack" (Basic Set, page 365) say: "Movement: Step.", and not "Steps"; and, in the paragraph "Retreat" (Basic Set, page 377), they say: "you must move away from your attacker: at least one yard... exactly as for a step", which leads me to the conclusion that it is not just a house rule. But it is still an interpretation of the rules. So once can disagree.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Aesir23

About the question 2
Unarmed Combat never takes a handedness penalty unless you use certain optional rules from Martial Arts.

I fully do agree.

There is a harsh optional rule in Martial Arts to make the difference between the two hands. After all, a left-handed boxer, even if his is well trained to use his two hands, strikes stronger and quicker with his left hand... And such a very realistic rule is welcome in a Call of Cthulhu campaign! But it is just an option.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gollum

I do agree!

The rules, in the paragraph "Attack" (Basic Set, page 365) say: "Movement: Step.", and not "Steps"; and, in the paragraph "Retreat" (Basic Set, page 377), they say: "you must move away from your attacker: at least one yard... exactly as for a step", which leads me to the conclusion that it is not just a house rule. But it is still an interpretation of the rules. So once can disagree.

Er, one can, but I can't imagine how you reconcile that interpretation with the book. The movement listed for maneuvers is taken immediately, as part of the maneuver. There's nothing anywhere that says you have to save some of it for a retreat, or indeed that you can save any of it, for anything. If a Retreat had to be part of your normal movement for a maneuver you couldn't do it at all.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Er, one can, but I can't imagine how you reconcile that interpretation with the book.

Simple. Maneuver, movement allowed: one step; Retreat, movement required: one step. Step (page 368): “most maneuvers allow you to take a step.”

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The movement listed for maneuvers is taken immediately, as part of the maneuver. There's nothing anywhere that says you have to save some of it for a retreat, or indeed that you can save any of it, for anything.

Right.

But nothing in the rules says you have to step just before your attack or just after your attack… You are not even enforced to step at all. It is just an option.

The turn begins when you choose your maneuver and ends when you choose your next maneuver, doesn't it? So, if the movement is part of the maneuver, the defense is part of the maneuver, too. The maneuver governs your defenses as well as your move… It is even written exactly with the same typo: “Movement: …”, “Active Defense: …” So, to my mind, it is linked.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If a Retreat had to be part of your normal movement for a maneuver you couldn't do it at all.

Yes, you could do it… Because nothing in the rule enforce you to do your step before your active defense. And since the rules specify that “you can retreat only once during your turn” (Retreat, page 377), there is another link, here.

But, as I wrote it, it is just a point of view. My point of view. And a lot of people can disagree, of course, because I agree with you: this is not rule as they are explicitly written. Just an interpretation.

I can be completely wrong, of course. But I do believe that my point of view remains coherent.