Combat Confusion Cleared - Comments and Discussion

[Dr. Halflight]

Also where Dr Halflight writes

TECHNICALLY, the rules as written, don't allow for the Defender to take a Reaction if the attacker misses,

I suggest rereading Matts official note where he shows that it is possible to react to a failed attack......presumably a "trigger" is still a matter of player choice.

Your right, Matt's post makes everything clear. But they aren't supported by the rulebook. It just seems to me that either there was some last minute changes, a change due to customer reactions or some miscommunication during production at Mongoose.

Doc

 

[atgxtg]

I suggest rereading Matts official note where he shows that it is possible to react to a failed attack......presumably a "trigger" is still a matter of player choice.

Your right, Matt's post makes everything clear. But they aren't supported by the rulebook. It just seems to me that either there was some last minute changes, a change due to customer reactions or some miscommunication during production at Mongoose.

Doc[/quote]

Were ypo around during the "character sheet controversy"? Something similar happended then.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

Were ypo around during the "character sheet controversy"? Something similar happended then.

I was, but I didn't follow it. Did Mongoose change the sheet?

Doc

 

[atgxtg]

Were ypo around during the "character sheet controversy"? Something similar happended then.

I was, but I didn't follow it. Did Mongoose change the sheet?

Doc

Here is how I remember it:

Mongoose put the character sheet out as a MRQ Preview. Most people didn't like it. THe general consenus was that it looked like something someone worked up in a hour or so that morning. A couple of days of criticisim and a couple of good "unoffical" sheets (Melkor led the pack, with the first unoffical MRQ sheet, and it was a nice one) later and Suddenly a new character was up in place of the one that people didn't like.

Almost as if the sheet was rewritten in reponse to the players' posts.



As for the MRQ rule confusion, I suspect that there are difficent faction in Mongoose who have thier own likes and sislikes about how certain rules should be run. Matts comment about the havling rule at the office sort of suppots this. Not too suprising either. I havent seen a group of gamers yet who have agreed on everything in a rulebook.

 

[Melkor]

Melkor led the pack, with the first unoffical MRQ sheet, and it was a nice one) later and Suddenly a new character was up in place of the one that people didn't like.

I'd like to take credit, but I can't - a different Melkor maybe ?

I wasn't around much for the character sheet issue either, but I might have made a comment or two. That said, the preview sheet doesn't look a whole lot different from the one found in the back of the MRQ rulebook...

And that's probably my biggest gripe with MRQ right now....I love the art in the rulebook, I also like the layout and design, but that character sheet leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

Some background on the character sheet. . .

We were going to do an 'artsy' one. However, every time we do an attractive character sheet, we get bombarded with messages telling us to do simple sheets that don't printers.

So, we did a simple sheet.

Actually, the first one that went up was never intended for public consumption - it was a pre-pro sheet that got misfiled and, as soon as we realised it had been posted, we changed it to the final version. Our bad.

That said, we will only be doing artsy character sheets in the future - those who disagree with that policy are an order of magnitude less numerous than those who went against the RQ sheet.

 

[Melkor]

That said, we will only be doing artsy character sheets in the future - those who disagree with that policy are an order of magnitude less numerous than those who went against the RQ sheet.

LOL Matt -

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I guess that's the nature of the RPG business...especially when dealing with an RPG that dates back close to 30 years.

You know what they say: You can please some of the people some of the time....

 

[iamtim]

I guess that's the nature of the RPG business...especially when dealing with a n RPG that dates back close to 30 years.

Yeah, I'm waiting to see the reaction from the "Old Guard" when some non-Mongoose RQ products hit the shelves via the OGL and RQ Trademark License. "The Slayers Guide to Ducks," for instance.

Heh.

 

[Enpeze]

I guess that's the nature of the RPG business...especially when dealing with a n RPG that dates back close to 30 years.

Yeah, I'm waiting to see the reaction from the "Old Guard" when some non-Mongoose RQ products hit the shelves via the OGL and RQ Trademark License. "The Slayers Guide to Ducks," for instance.

Heh.

Or "The Quintessential Humakti Runelord"

 

[iamtim]

Or "The Quintessential Humakti Runelord"

BESM RQ?

 

[Urox]

Yeah, I'm waiting to see the reaction from the "Old Guard" when some non-Mongoose RQ products hit the shelves via the OGL and RQ Trademark License. "The Slayers Guide to Ducks," for instance.

Or "The Quintessential Humakti Runelord"

I dont think you can OGL a cult guide.

As for Ducks, there were those two pretty bland Judges Guild products Duck Pond and (Legendary) Duck Tower, but I suspect they have found their niche in Glorantha (as well as in a lot of collections).

 

[atgxtg]

Yeah, I'm waiting to see the reaction from the "Old Guard" when some non-Mongoose RQ products hit the shelves via the OGL and RQ Trademark License. "The Slayers Guide to Ducks," for instance.

Or "The Quintessential Humakti Runelord"

I dont think you can OGL a cult guide.

Ypu can if it is a gneric cult guide and not a Gloranthan one. The complete guide to death cults or the ultimate book of subpar RW cult writeups are a distinct possibility. That's the thing about OGL, there is copywrite control but not Quality Control.

As for Ducks, there were those two pretty bland Judges Guild products Duck Pond and (Legendary) Duck Tower, but I suspect they have found their niche in Glorantha (as well as in a lot of collections).

Yeah, but Rudy Kraft got better. He wrote Griffin Mountain. He was either better with Griffons or forgot two ducks. :wink:

 

[Dr. Halflight]

That said, we will only be doing artsy character sheets in the future - those who disagree with that policy are an order of magnitude less numerous than those who went against the RQ sheet.

Matt I'd just to like to say thanks for being a part of these boards. MRQ is a great game its great to have answers.

Thanks.

Doc

 

[MBdS]

The rules aren't ambiguous about the dual-rolling in combat, the example given uses two rolls very clearly. Character attacks and hits, target decides to parry and then they both roll again (and this time the attacker rolls a critical). It's at the top of page 61.

I think that's what people want it to say because of all the debate that's gone into this issue. What it actually says is, "Fego ... succeeds in his IH Hammer test to hit the human ... Bruka decides to parry ... The two therefore make an opposed parry test ... Bruka ... rolls 01 - a critical success! The trollkin fails its 1H hammer test." Nowhere does it say that Fego the trollkin re-rolled his 1H hammer test, it says that he succeeded until Bruka critically succeeded at his parry roll.

If you look up opposed parry roll, the rules state it's "... similar to an opposed skill test, except that the attacking and defending players ... compare their results on the Parry table."

Personally, I think that if you read the rules without the preconcieved notions about double rolls in combat, you'll see they are fairly clear and don't say anything about a second roll in combat.

Well the book states

"Fego, on the other hand, decides to use a Charge Combat Action to attack Bruka. While he succeeds in his 1H Hammer test to hit the human, Bruka is not surprised and can therefore use Reactions normally. Bruka decides to parry the club with his military flail. The two therefore make an opposed parry test:

Bruka has a 2H Flail skill of 68%, reduced to 38% as Bruka is in partial darkness (he, unlike the the trollkin, does not have Earth Sense) and because flails are not suited to parrying. Nevertheless, he rolls 01 – a critical success! The trollkin fails its 1H Hammer test. Bruka spends another Reaction to make the Riposte and he succeeds in his 2H Flail attack test. Though Fego tries to dodge the attack (using a Reaction), the trollkin is unsuccessful and the flail smacks hard into the creature’s Chest (Bruka rolled an 11 for hit location)."

If you look at the table, you see it's not possible it could have worked this way.
First it says the trollkin hit the human (so, he have a Success result on the table on page 51), then says tha Bruka parry and obtains a Critical Success... and states that the troll so fails the attack and Bruka get a riposte... but it could have happened only if the troll failed the first roll (so he didn't "hit the human", while the example clearly says he did!). So there's been two attack rolls, not one, looking at this example!

Correct me, but taking the table into count, it seems quite clear to me... and now Matt answer, says the example is wrong.

After rereading the example (I dont know why I stopped at Bruka), there's the example regarding Prints at the end of the page.

While, after thinking a bit, we could even say that Bruka's example makes implicit that Bruka parry effortlessly with 2xPA the trollkin attack and then reacts (even if the writer could have made it more clear in the text), Prints' example say clearly

"Prints (15) acts next. He hurls his hatchet at the apparent ambush leader, Mogolo. His 1H Axe test is a success.

Mogolo uses a Reaction to attempt to dodge the attack: Prints has a 1H Axe skill of 36%, reduced to 16% as he is in partial darkness. He fails his test, but Mogolo also fails his Dodge test. The flying hatchet hits the trollkin leader squarely between the eyes (Prints rolls 20 for hit
location – the Head)."

ehm... Prints first succeed, then fails but hits anyway... hmm... the example is wrong to me...

 

[Vadrus]

"Prints (15) acts next. He hurls his hatchet at the apparent ambush leader, Mogolo. His 1H Axe test is a success.

Mogolo uses a Reaction to attempt to dodge the attack: Prints has a 1H Axe skill of 36%, reduced to 16% as he is in partial darkness. He fails his test, but Mogolo also fails his Dodge test. The flying hatchet hits the trollkin leader squarely between the eyes (Prints rolls 20 for hit
location – the Head)."

ehm... Prints first succeed, then fails but hits anyway... hmm... the example is wrong to me...

IMO only a fumbled dodge would actually put you in the way of a missed attack.


Vadrus

 

[ChesterDesmond]

It seems clear that the clarification of the combat rules is at odds with the rulebook. For example, how does this stack up with the "one roll" rule:

I (the attacker) roll and achieve a critical success! The defender tries to dodge this attack but sadly, for him at least, fumbles. Reaching for my Dodge table (page 50), I see that the result is:

"Attack succeeds and becomes critical hit"

Which is odd because it was a critical hit to begin with. No, it's quite obvious that as written the rules meant two attack rolls (the example backs it up). Is it possible that the guy who wrote the combat example also wrote the dodge and parry rules and errr... got it a bit wrong?

 

[Archer]

Is it possible that the guy who wrote the combat example also wrote the dodge and parry rules and errr... got it a bit wrong?

Quite possible, since Matt said he wrote the rules to be used without the table.

While obviously the confusion on this subject has and continues to be a bad thing, we have our offical answer, and we can only hope that a later printing of the rules (bad for us first-pring buyer) has it fixed.

Still, since I got the official explanation, and see that you can run it either way, choose to roll twice, or just roll once and keep the result when comparing, I say that is a strength of the rules. You can bend them without them breaking, and it allows people to choose which way they want to do it.

I would have found this problem much worse of the rule-system had been as tight in it's workings as d20, where changing the slightest rule can make the whole system fall apart or become "unbalanced" (I hate game balance as it exist in d20 btw. If creature happens to be stronger than average, he should not suffer twice of his bonus on other characteristics just because of "balance". Nature does not work that way, it blesses and curses blindly, not in equal measure.).

 

[King Amenjar]

The clarification of combat doesn't seem to me to be a clarification so much as a total re-write, necessitating the first part of the Combat chapter to be thrown away. Whoever wrote this part of the book clearly had in mind something completely different.
I don't buy this business about being forced to react because you're mind controlled (come on! "Wuahahar - you are in my power and I command you not to stop fighting, but to carry on in a slightly crap way!") and the idea you might want to get a riposte or an overextension is hardly any more likely, unless you know you have reactions to spare and don't mind throwing one away on the off chance you get a critical.

 

[Melkor]

I don't buy this business about being forced to react because you're mind controlled (come on! "Wuahahar - you are in my power and I command you not to stop fighting, but to carry on in a slightly crap way!") and the idea you might want to get a riposte or an overextension is hardly any more likely, unless you know you have reactions to spare and don't mind throwing one away on the off chance you get a critical.

That made me laugh out loud, and was exactly what I thought when I originally read the 'clarification' sticky.