Attacking with long weapons at close range

[Deleriad]

At first I thought you guys were completely wrong, but reading it again I understand that it can be read either way. The section on evading (page 90), starts by listing multiple examples of when to use the evade skill. Dragon's breath, charging and missile fire among them. Then goes on to mention that it is always an opposed skill. Then it says: Whatever the result, the evasive gambit momentarily places the Defender at a disadvantage as he regains his balance, preventing him from performing an attack with the CA available to him on his next strike rank.
Simply tells us that using evade in combat places you at a certain disadvantage, I would think this also applies to closing/disengaging.

I'm afraid you're over-applying one specific use of Evade skill to all uses of it. The examples given are all examples of using Evade to dodge an incoming attack of some sort.

Using the Evade skill for other things (e.g. to resist a trip CM, to perform an Out-manoeuvre, to close/disengage) does not require dodging therefore has no other ill-effect.

 

[Dan True]

At first I thought you guys were completely wrong, but reading it again I understand that it can be read either way. The section on evading (page 90), starts by listing multiple examples of when to use the evade skill. Dragon's breath, charging and missile fire among them. Then goes on to mention that it is always an opposed skill. Then it says: Whatever the result, the evasive gambit momentarily places the Defender at a disadvantage as he regains his balance, preventing him from performing an attack with the CA available to him on his next strike rank.
Simply tells us that using evade in combat places you at a certain disadvantage, I would think this also applies to closing/disengaging.

To me it is clear that you are not put at a disadvantage from closing/disengaging, for various reasons:

- From RAW: The rule for "not able to attack on next SR" is stated under "Evading", whereas closing/disengaging is discussed under it's own headline - it is two different actions, and therefore to me there is RAW no connection unless otherwise stated.

- From practical experience: I was a fighting training yesterday and I really got to see where the rule came from: when fighting sword and buckler I constantly evaded instead of trying to parry. The result was that my counter attacks were badly placed because I always attacked when out of balance.. We made some exercises trying to make me parry instead, and I instantly got better at fighting. I went from hitting him 1 out of 10 rounds, to 1 out of 4 or something like that (he has 4 years of training on me, so that is acceptable ).
On the other than, I did not feel near the same penalty when trying to go closer to him or moving away. It was a much simpler thing to do, and we often did it while attacking.

- From theoretical analysis: Evading an attack is often a sideways movement. It requires a quick movement to the side, shifting one's balance point in combination with leadping backwards or to the side. It puts you at a significant disadvantage to perform such a movement.
On the other than, with the weapon reach categories we have, the distances are pretty short. I mean, the engagement distance between longsword (L reach) is something like 1.20 meters, while shortswords are perhaps 0.9 meters. Moving yourself those 30 centimeters closer to the opponent, is not nearly as demanding and balance-ruining as the movement needed to dodge a blade - here the hard thing to do it, is to do it without getting hit in the process (as illustrated with the opposed evade or automatic attack rule).

(@Mixster: you were talking about trying out combat at some point. You're welcome to join us wednesday evenings. Nikolaj has begun there also.)

- Dan

 

[Tamerlin]

- From theoretical analysis: Evading an attack is often a sideways movement. It requires a quick movement to the side, shifting one's balance point in combination with leadping backwards or to the side. It puts you at a significant disadvantage to perform such a movement.
- Dan

Another observation I'd add is that if you attempt to close distance without parrying, you end up eating the "other end" of the weapon anyway. If it's a staff type, and I strike at you with the "front" and you just get out of the way and try to close, there's nothing to stop me from hitting you with the other end, which is very quick and every bit as powerful as the first strike. If you parry the initial attack, you can prevent me from doing that by using my own weapon's leverage against me. The same leverage that allows me to ratchet up the velocity of the tip of my weapon allows you to put the brakes on me with very little force, effectively jamming me and forcing me to change tactics drastically.

Weapons like sai are particularly well suited to this sort of thing, because of the curved tines and octagonal tongue. The octagonal tongue (on traditional, hand-hammered say, at any rate) gives a nice bite on a weapon trapped between the tongue and a tine, or between both tongues. And the short handle makes for a lot of torque, so you can trap a staff with very little effort while you move in for the kill. Angle it in the right direction, and that same torque can enable you to bend the spine of a katana quite badly.

 

[Mixster]

Since I'm mostly discussing RAW (since everything else is house rules, which is fine, but hard to discuss) I'll comment on things pertaining to that.

- From RAW: The rule for "not able to attack on next SR" is stated under "Evading", whereas closing/disengaging is discussed under it's own headline - it is two different actions, and therefore to me there is RAW no connection unless otherwise stated.

This is only partways correct. If your opponent decides to attack you, you are actually trying to dodge that attack while moving closer. In which case you are evading against an attack, which is described on the page before.

This could also be seen from a balance viewpoint. If my opponent would be able to move in, and my attack on his turn would be a worse option than simply attacking on my own turn, why would I do it?

If my opponent could close in and didn't suffer from evading my attacks while doing so. Why aren't I just striking him on my own strike rank? If this is how it is supposed to be, the attack option almost only makes sense on an opponent moving away from you.

I guess you guys are right though. This makes the Evade skill even more important in Close Combat, since whoever has the most decides on what range the combat is fought. If an opponent closes you could move away, he could then close again, you move away. Etc. Etc. until the guy with the lesser evade fails it. Gets stuck in an unfavorable range, and killed.

@Dan, I will probably join you guys soon, but I have a lot of work and homework these next few weeks.