Another simple combat question

gran_orco

Mongoose
Why must I do two actions to attack someone to 4 meters of me if I can attack someone to 8 meters spending an action (charge)?
I don´t understand this. I do not have benefits when I move towards the combat, and the defender obtains an extra attack!
 
I understand the "can move a minimum of 5 metres" as being capable of moving that far/fast after factoring encumbrance and wounds, not a requirement to move 5 metres of ground, to build up enough momentum to "charge"
 
I have a feeling that the charge rule kind of implies the momentum based definition, i.e. that to get that extra d4 you need to move at least 5m into your enemy.
I think that the 4m move = 1 combat action followed by a second action to attack is probably correct in terms of the rules as they are written, in spite of the fact that they seem wrong.

Speaking as a GM I think that you may be getting a little too hung up on exact definitions. I know that it will occasionally crop up as an issue, and if you use figures a lot it will crop up more, but I would let most characters charge as long as they were not already in a melee, rather than worry about the difference between 4m and 5m.

There is also the reality of a situation where you have to make the correct tactical decision, and by identifying the point that it would take you two actions to attack from 4m just shows that you are a switched on runequester. Just make another decision this action and try and get in a better tactical position. I think that this kind of issue doesn't really need a rules based resolution - it's just a part of the game. Sometimes things are unfair and you just have to deal with it. I just love the idea that this system allows this level of decision making.
 
Cleombrotus said:
Speaking as a GM I think that you may be getting a little too hung up on exact definitions. I know that it will occasionally crop up as an issue, and if you use figures a lot it will crop up more, but I would let most characters charge as long as they were not already in a melee, rather than worry about the difference between 4m and 5m.

But then you get the quite common occurence happening when a player have just finished his opponents and go to help one of his team-mates with his. Can he charge then too? The whole charge rule seems not that well thought through.

SGL.
 
I certainly don't see charging into someone else's melee as unfeasible or impossible. It's a very vivid image, and I'm sure that it would leave players with a good memory of the fight. You know as a GM what you're going to have happen in the event that either the guy charging or his ally fumbles.

I like to see players try and use a system proactively, so unless there's a logical reason why it can't happen, I'd let them try. If the opponent was unaware or flanked, then it's perfectly feasible and the combat tables allow for this same opponent to turn a disadvantage into an advantage with a critical dodge or parry. It's just one of those decisions you have to make in the framework of combat.
 
gran_orco said:
Why must I do two actions to attack someone to 4 meters of me if I can attack someone to 8 meters spending an action (charge)?
I don´t understand this. I do not have benefits when I move towards the combat, and the defender obtains an extra attack!
Yeah. This has been discussed before and there are various attempts to get around it. What's more, if the defender uses Flurry he can gain 1 Reaction attack + 2-4 blows before the attacker can strike.

The MRQ Wiki has some suggestions and get arounds (http://www.justanotherwebsite.net/mrqwiki/index.php/Combat)

I suspect some GMs just ignore the rule, otherwise characters are constantly running out to 8m and back in again to close. TBH in our games we find the ruling "as is" a pain, awkward and incredibly "unrealistic": not everyone charged into combat and an attacker is as much of a risk charging into combat against a prepared opponent as he is advancing, possibly more. If it helps, I run with one of the Mr Qwiki options.
 
I haven't read anything that's gone before about this subject, so feel free to lambast me for my unoriginality and laziness, but the problems raised by halfbat are clearly serious problems and within the rules as written.

I think, in a ponderous way, waiting to be shot down, that rather than adding a new combat action called Close, as per the wiki, if you read the definition of 'adjacent' (as per the close combat attack option) as anything within your movement rate then this all sorts itself out.
To me, any close combat attack can imply a degree of movement, not to mention the reach of your weapon.
I think that the move and sprint options are merely there to quantify the act of moving and sprinting in relation to everybody else's actions when said characters are not involved in melee (i.e how long it takes and how far you get). They include rules for the ramifications of moving through someone else's reach (i.e. free attacks), so this makes sense to me with just a little tweak, rather than a new Combat action.
It also seems to allow for anything with a larger movement stat to chase down or intercept anyone trying to do something clever or sneaky, which also seems to make sense to me. It's sort of like an area of influence dictated by your movement rate.
Have to tread carefully or before I know it I'll be playing Harnmaster...
 
Back
Top