Combat Issues

[Grimolde]

If you can attack with a shield, how does that work exactly during a fight? Can you attack twice in a row, or is it a backup if you lose your main weapon? I'm assuming the latter as only a riposte allows you to attack twice in a row (theoretically speaking).

No, it doesn't allow you to attack twice in a row, any more than holding two weapons does. You get your turn, you attack with one of your weapons. Are you thinking about Riposte? Just because the Riposte was generated from a shield parry, that doesn't mean that the shield is used to do the attack. You can use your main weapon.

So I guess it's handy if you somehow lose your primary weapon, or get it pinned or something?

 

[Grimolde]

Wow, only now realised that 'two weapon' fighting grants you an extra CA.

How'd I miss that!

 

[Grimolde]

That's partly because you can abort parries to save the CA so it's very rare in my group for characters to go ahead with a parry if the opponent missed an attack. I've occasionally felt that allowing parries to be aborted has removed some of the flavour from combats. It does speed things up because you don't have to agonise about whether to parry before the roll and does make combat more survivable.

I thought that once you'd declared an intent to parry, you could only abort in order to parry someone else who is about to attack you - i.e. the CA is still committed to parrying. If you don't use it to parry before the next SR reset, it's lost.

Nope. Specifically says that you can choose not to parry once you see the results of the attack.

I'm not so sure. On page 84
Parry: "As well as being a reactive response, this action can also be declared in advance of an expected attack by adopting a defensive stance. However, once committed, the CA cannot be converted back to any other type of action and is lost if not used before his next Strike Rank occurs."

Unless it is saying if you declare you can't change - but then why would you ever bother declaring and putting a needless restriction on yourself?

But then, on page 85:
Attacks & Parries The intention to parry must be declared before any attack roll is made. However, if the attack misses then the parrying participant can opt not to complete the parry, thereby saving his CA from being spent.

Official clarification needed?

 

[Deleriad]

I'm not so sure. On page 84
Parry: "As well as being a reactive response, this action can also be declared in advance of an expected attack by adopting a defensive stance. However, once committed, the CA cannot be converted back to any other type of action and is lost if not used before his next Strike Rank occurs."

Unless it is saying if you declare you can't change - but then why would you ever bother declaring and putting a needless restriction on yourself?

You are confusing the CA of "declare a parry in advance" with a 'normal' reactive parry.

Declaring a parry in advance often seems pointless but it is the only action that lets your character save their CA until their next active SR is due. All other actions must be taken before SR 0 or else your character must take the "do nothing" CA and spend a CA doing nothing.

A parry that is declared in advance can be used at any time before the character's next active SR.

Why would you do it? Well if you're outnumbered and trying to defend a position until reinforcements arrive you can use it instead of having to attack when it might do you no good. Similarly if you're pretty sure an enemy is going to attack but probably not straight away then you can declare a parry to prevent your CA going to waste.

Finally a "pre-declared" parry still doesn't have to be used if an attack fails. The CA will be lost if the parry is not used before the next active SR but you are not forced to use it.

Basically it lets you swap out a 'normal' CA (e.g. an attack) for a parry that needs to be used before your next active SR.

If it's any consolation, this question comes up a lot.

 

[Grimolde]

You are confusing the CA of "declare a parry in advance" with a 'normal' reactive parry.

If it's any consolation, this question comes up a lot.

I think understand, at least I understand the 'spirit' of what you are saying.

Is it really important to declare in play, or can you just go with it? I mean, if I'm surrounded by 3 attackers, what difference does it make if I declare a parry or not? About the only reason I can see to declare a parry, is to gain a possible defensive CM. I.e, if you don't declare, you can't parry, and you can't gain a defensive CM.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Is it really important to declare in play, or can you just go with it? I mean, if I'm surrounded by 3 attackers, what difference does it make if I declare a parry or not?

If you're surrounded by 3 attackers, there's not a lot you can do unless you have a ridiculous number of CAs. They're going to be attacking you 6 times. If you are holding off two people until the cavalry arrive, then you might want to consider this. Lets assume that they have 2 attacks each (they may have shields, but you aren't attacking them, so lets assume that you are using the house rule that a bonus shield action can only be used to parry) and that you are a good fighter with 3 CAs and a bonus one from a shield.

You win initiative, but you don't want to attack, because you need all 4 CAs to parry. So, you pre-declare a parry. They both attack you, using up the pre-declared parry and a CA for a reactive parry. Same again on the second actions. If one of them had missed their first attack, you would have had a spare CA available in the second turn to have a go at one of them.

Lets see how this could have gone. You elect to hit one of them, and he uses his bonus CA to parry. Then they both attack you and hit, and you need to use up two CAs to parry them. Then on your turn you decide to pre-declare a parry, but you only have one CA now, so if they both hit you again then you are in big trouble.

 

[Deleriad]

You are confusing the CA of "declare a parry in advance" with a 'normal' reactive parry.

If it's any consolation, this question comes up a lot.

I think understand, at least I understand the 'spirit' of what you are saying.

Is it really important to declare in play, or can you just go with it? I mean, if I'm surrounded by 3 attackers, what difference does it make if I declare a parry or not?

In play you can just wait for the attack roll and then decide. I rarely make my players declare before hand.

However, the text you are quoting is from a special combat action where you declare a parry in advance as your action for the current Strike Rank cycle. E.g. say you are SR 14 and faced by two trollkin (SR 17) and one Great Troll (SR 7). You have three CAs.

SR 17. Both trollkin attack. One hits. You elect to parry it. two CAs remaining.

SR 14. Normally you would attack now but if you do so you'll only have 1 CA left. You don't think you can do any significant damage to the Great troll so you elect to "take a defensive stance" and spend 1 CA to gain a parry to be used before your next SR. 1 CA left.

SR 7. The Great Troll attacks and hits. You use your pre-declared parry. 1 CA left.

SR 17. Two trollkin attack again. 1 hits. You decide not to parry the hit and take a minor wound. The trollkin tries to disarm you with a CM but you resist.

SR 14. Your turn. The Great Troll has an attack left so you delay hoping it will miss.

SR 7. The Great troll swings and misses. You hope it's out of actions so don't parry. You have 1 CA left.

SR 6. You attack one of the trollkin. It tries to parry and misses. It takes a serious wound and is out of the fight.

SR 17. Remaining trollkin has 1 CA left. It attacks and hit. You have no CAs left and this time it does a minor wound and impales.

end of the round.

The pre-declared parry "taking a defensive stance" enabled you to focus the parries on the great troll while still being able to sneak an attack against one of the trollkin.

Hope that helps.

 

[Grimolde]

Thank you both very much for your efforts. I think I have it now.

It's definitely one of those rules which make more sense when you actually play it out in game.

Thanks again.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Another thing to consider if you're outnumbered is "outmanoeuvre". Has anyone seen this used, and how did it turn out?

 

[Grimolde]

Another thing to consider if you're outnumbered is "outmanoeuvre". Has anyone seen this used, and how did it turn out?

Outmanoeuvre is a handy thing to have.

Have to remember to apply fatigue though.

 

[Verderer]

And you can use hero points for extra parries too, right? Although depending on the circumstances, it might best to use them to lessen damage, force a reroll for the opponent etc.

 

[Deleriad]

Another thing to consider if you're outnumbered is "outmanoeuvre". Has anyone seen this used, and how did it turn out?

I must admit that I have a bad habit of forgetting about it as a GM so I suspect that my players have forgotten it exists.

I also sometimes find that the caveat that one enemy can always attack sometimes flummoxes me. Using the example above, you could do this:

SR 17. Both trollkin attack. One hits. You elect to parry it. two CAs remaining.

SR 14. Attempt to Outmanoeuvre. GM rolls once for all trollkin and once for the Great Troll. All fail. GM rules that the trollkin that has already hit you can continue to attack. 1 CA remaining.

SR 7. The Great Troll attacks a wall in frustration.

SR 17. One trollkin attacks, the other mills around uselessly. The attack is a success so you parry. No CAs remaining.

SR 7 great troll hits the ground.

SR 17. Super trollkin has 1 CA left. It attacks and hits. You have no CAs left and this time it does a minor wound and impales.

end of the round.

 

[Grimolde]

Here's one that threw us in our mock combat last night.

A player had a bow, and a spear and shield. He dropped the bow, and picked up the spear and shield. When does he get the extra CA, immediately, or the next cycle of the combat round?

 

[PhilHibbs]

I'd say he could use the shield's bonus CA to parry right away if he needed to, but if his last CA was used to pick them up then he wouldn't be able to get a hit in, because I rule in general that the bonus has to be with the offhand weapon. It's a bit arbitrary, that of the two items he picked up it has to be the one in his off hand that he can use, but sometimes you have to live with the occasionally odd consequences of rules.

 

[danskmacabre]

This came up today, I just quick ruled that it would apply straight away.

 

[Grimolde]

This came up today, I just quick ruled that it would apply straight away.

Same here.

 

[Grimolde]

There was a discussion here about the ruling wherein a ranged attacker who succeeds, can always choose the combat maneouvre; 'Choose Location' (well 90% of the time).

I'm going to house rule that you need a Critical to 'Choose Location' when employing a ranged attacking weapon.

What do you think, any views?

 

[danskmacabre]

hmm, that's interesting.
If you successfully evade (and take the no attack penalty next SR) from a ranged attack (so an opposed test), you will avoid ALL damage, which is quite nice really.
Also if someone DOES have a shield, well they can parry it anyway, which means most of the time blocking ALL the damage (on a successful pary of course).
On top of that the reload times for Missile weapons..

Impale is nice and I choose that at least half the time, depending on the target.

 

[Da Boss]

There was a discussion here about the ruling wherein a ranged attacker who succeeds, can always choose the combat maneouvre; 'Choose Location' (well 90% of the time).

I'm going to house rule that you need a Critical to 'Choose Location' when employing a ranged attacking weapon.

What do you think, any views?

Of course depending if your GM is using the "mook" rules - they may or may not have a hit location to effect................