Combat Confusion Cleared - Comments and Discussion

[Dr. Halflight]

It seems that the system works pretty well. Confusion has been thrown up by one very unfortunate mistake in one example of play.

First of all, I like what I've seen of MRQ. BUT, its not just one example. The Trigger Effect for a Parry or Dodge is a Successful Attack in Combat, according to the rulebook. TECHNICALLY, the rules as written, don't allow for the Defender to take a Reaction if the attacker misses, as Matt had said. So, honestly, the Trigger Events under Parry & Dodge, AS WELL AS the Combat Example AND the Parry & Dodge tables are contradictory to Matt's response (thank you for the response though, as I said, I'm not a MRQ Hater). I'm not saying I'm not going to play MRQ or you shouldn't buy the game, its just frustrating. And honestly it reminds me of Conan. As much as I WANTED MRQ, I'd have rather waited a month or 2 so that these wrinkles had been ironed out by Mongoose, before it was printed.


Doc

 

[iamtim]

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.

 

[JonGeere]

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.

This was my experience. I started to get confused with the forum discussion and so waited until I got the book. Doing so prevented some of the misconceptions (looking back again over the discussions) from developing.

Saying that some discussions are helpful, others less so.

 

[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.

 

[iamtim]

So there's been two attack rolls, not one, looking at this example!

Hmm. Ok, I see what you're saying now. The example is kinda muddled. So essentially it's a "who do you trust" issue: the rules, or the example?

*deep sigh*

Since Matt's come on and explained that it should be only one roll, I'd still be inclined to go by the rules, and not the example.

 

[Archer]

I think we can end this debatte right here and now, because we have an official answer. And you can obviously run it with just one or two rolls, depending on what you prefer.

And I think we all can agree on that it is unfortunate that the missunderstandings occured. Lets see if it in the future appears a lot of players, new to this forum and who has not participated in the discussions, who questions about the issue.
If that is so, then we can say there is a problem with the example, not before.

 

[iamtim]

Lets see if it in the future appears a lot of players, new to this forum and who has not participated in the discussions, who questions about the issue.
If that is so, then we can say there is a problem with the example, not before.

Sounds good to me.

 

[canology]

The table says you get a Riposte even if the attacker succeeded with his roll if you get a critical success on your parry.

So the example works in that regard...

 

[Dr. Halflight]

Lets see if it in the future appears a lot of players, new to this forum and who has not participated in the discussions, who questions about the issue.
If that is so, then we can say there is a problem with the example, not before.

Yeah, the most important part of all of this is that RuneQuest is back in print & being supported.

And I'd still rather introuduce new gamers to MRQ than anything else.

Doc

 

[Rurik]

Lets see if it in the future appears a lot of players, new to this forum and who has not participated in the discussions, who questions about the issue.
If that is so, then we can say there is a problem with the example, not before.

Sounds good to me.

New players will see the Topic at the top of the forum explaining the rules and probably not participate in this debate.

We all know how the rules are supposed to work. The ongoing argument seems to be whether or not the book is clear on how they are supposed to work.

The fact that this is argument is still ongoing, niggling over contradictory rules, examples, and tables is a pretty good indication of the state of the matter.

 

[iamtim]

And I'd still rather introuduce new gamers to MRQ than anything else.

Preach it, brother.

 

[iamtim]

The fact that this is argument is still ongoing, niggling over contradictory rules, examples, and tables is a pretty good indication of the state of the matter.

Either that, or it proves that we are bored, have nothing better to do, or aren't playing the game or doing our jobs enough to keep us off the board.

 

[MBdS]

The table says you get a Riposte even if the attacker succeeded with his roll if you get a critical success on your parry.

So the example works in that regard...

the example says the trollking attack fails... and you cant obtain that result with a success on the attack and a critical success on the defender. The troll attack would have succeeded, but Bruka's weapons would have get 2xAP and riposte.
The example says the troll fails the attack and Bruka ripostes... if we want to assume that the 2xAP absorbed all damage so the attack fails, we can... but... it would stretch a bit what should've been an example to clarify what happens... wouldn't it?

 

[Rurik]

The fact that this is argument is still ongoing, niggling over contradictory rules, examples, and tables is a pretty good indication of the state of the matter.

Either that, or it proves that we are bored, have nothing better to do, or aren't playing the game or doing our jobs enough to keep us off the board.

True, True, and True or True. Hmmm :?

I still bet the next printing will have some changes to the way combat is explained.

 

[burdock]

I would like to re-iterate my comment that the confusion arises from one teeny-weeny example of play that had a mistake in it. That to me is not a failure on the part of mongoose.....just a mistake. There are mistakes in most publications - this little tiny one was just unfortunately placed.

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.

 

[Rurik]

I would like to re-iterate my comment that the confusion arises from one teeny-weeny example of play that had a mistake in it.

That one teeny weeny mistake in that teeny weenie example happens to dramitically change how combat works is just a teeny weeny side affect.

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 Matt's 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.

You just found a second little example of a mistake, Matt's official explanation contradicts the printed rulebook on triggers as well.

If you reread Matt's official clarification he admits that the fact that the halving rule does not apply to combat is not clearly stated anywhere, which is an unfortunate oversight. So that is a third mistake.

I don't really understand this need to say these editorial errors don't exist or accuse the people who brought them to light of overreacting. They are mistakes, and they are printed on paper as plain as day.

Look, most first releases have errors, and this one is certainly no exception. We all have read Matt's explanation and pretty much agreed "good, that is how it should be" But I don't know who you are kidding when you argue that these errors were never printed.

 

[burdock]

But I don't know who you are kidding when you argue that these errors were never printed.

The people who had CAREFULLY read the rules before reading these forums generally seem not to have been affected by these minor mistakes.....I hadn't read the rules and was largely (though not completely) unconvinced by the interpretations promulgated in the forum.

 

[MBdS]

Hmm... one question come to my mind.
Looking at table on page 51 or (50, but 51 make it clearer what I wanna express)...
Attack vs. Parry. For simplicity sake we ignore criticals hits.
Okay I hit and my opponent chooses to parry: he fails the roll, the table say hit him, he succeeds, can use weapon/shield AP to lower my weapon's damage, if he's critical he can even riposte.. So far no problem.

Dare I say I miss the attack... He chooses to parry nonetheless... on a critical the attack fails, and defender riposte... no prob

on success... the attacked (who failed his roll) succeed and player can apply 2xAP to deduct from damage... hmm... okay, I see the point, but... you intercept the opponent's weapon with yours more efficiently and so you got more to subtract... but what's the point? You are exposing yourself to the risk of being damaged!
And even forse if you fail the parry... the failed attack suddenly becomes a hit... so try to parry after a failed attack from the opponent is a risky proposition, if you're not absolutely sure to succeed. The same for a dodge, if you try to dodge a failed attack, it suddenly become a succesfull attack. Actually Parry a failed attack if you think you're good enough, else let it be... Hmmm, more or less what Matt said... the last row is there for completness (text need to be clarified on this point in a revision or foreign edition)

 

[Melkor]

The Trigger Effect for a Parry or Dodge is a Successful Attack in Combat, according to the rulebook. TECHNICALLY, the rules as written, don't allow for the Defender to take a Reaction if the attacker misses, as Matt had said. So, honestly, the Trigger Events under Parry & Dodge, AS WELL AS the Combat Example AND the Parry & Dodge tables are contradictory to Matt's response...

Doc

I agree 100% Doc.

There are a lot of minor rules questions that I haven't seen addressed, and the ones tht have been spoken to are contradictory with what is in the book.

To be perfectly honest, I had some very minor questions (which I posted) after reading the MRQ rulebook - but for the most part, I fealt that I had a really clear cut understanding of how the system (and especially combat) worked on first read.

After reading Matt's response about not needing what was clearly-stated in the rulebook as a trigger event for a reaction (the SUCCESSFUL attack), and how the halving rule (however wonky the statistics are) was used for all Opposed actions EXCEPT IN COMBAT, I was actually much more confused about the system.

That's a bit frustrating.

 

[andakitty]

I understand the rules well enough after one read through, but I have to admit I would have been a bit confused had I done so cold turkey. The line 'similar to an opposed roll' can generate a pretty wild variation of interpretations, and it did.