Disengaging from combat and "Free" attacks.

[danskmacabre]

I was reading through the Legend Core rules last night for some bedtime reading (the A5 book is perfect for reading laying down ) and noticed in the combat section it says if you disengage from combat and don't bother trying to evade your way out, this gives the opponent a "Free" attack as you disengage.

The question I have is does the opponent have to spend a CA to get this "Free" attack or is it literally free and even if they have run out of CAs, they still get it.

My gut feeling is it still costs a CA, but would like to get the official word on this, or at least opinions.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Da Boss]

I would go with completely free unless for some reason they can't attack.

 

[mwsasser]

Yea, wouldn't free be um... free?

 

[Lemnoc]

it says if you disengage from combat and don't bother trying to evade your way out, this gives the opponent a "Free" attack as you disengage.

Kind of an inconvenient rule, tho. When fighting parties are all out of CAs, that seems the perfect time, strategically, to try to disengage. Having to evade on the way out strips you of an attack the following round.

 

[danskmacabre]

Yea, wouldn't free be um... free?

Well yes.. but it seems such a big exception to all the other rules about requiring free CAs for everything.

 

[Dan True]

Kind of an inconvenient rule, tho. When fighting parties are all out of CAs, that seems the perfect time, strategically, to try to disengage. Having to evade on the way out strips you of an attack the following round.

Well, using the evade skill doesn't necessarily mean you can't attack on your next CA. It's just that evading an attack, does that. The evade roll for disengaging is the same as for changing distance - and that doesn't mean you can't attack on your next CA.

Yea, wouldn't free be um... free?

Well yes.. but it seems such a big exception to all the other rules about requiring free CAs for everything.

I think so too.. I have a hard time imagining it should be totally free. I think "free" in this sense means that you don't parry it, but that is a stretch.. I dunno.

- Dan

 

[Lemnoc]

Well, using the evade skill doesn't necessarily mean you can't attack on your next CA. It's just that evading an attack, does that. The evade roll for disengaging is the same as for changing distance - and that doesn't mean you can't attack on your next CA.

Page 127:

"The CA available on the character’s next Strike Rank following an Evade attempt cannot be used to make an Attack. This penalty carries over to a new round if the Adventurer uses his last available CA in a round to Evade."

If I'm misreading that, or if it is superceded or more fully explained elsewhere, it would be good to know. You seem to be saying that you can use Evade without the CA penalty as long as you're not being directly, aggressively attacked? That would be useful in the scenario I explore below...

I have a hard time imagining it should be totally free. I think "free" in this sense means that you don't parry it, but that is a stretch.. I dunno.

I can imagine a situation where a fighter either has a poorer SR or elects to delay at his SR and uses that opportunity to withdraw after his opponent has exhausted his CAs. Under what's being proposed, that would allow his opponent a free attack against what I would view as an [otherwise] prudential strategy (the better part of valor, and all that).

 

[DamonJynx]

"The CA available on the character’s next Strike Rank following an Evade attempt cannot be used to make an Attack. This penalty carries over to a new round if the Adventurer uses his last available CA in a round to Evade."

The Evade attempt referred to here is that of avoiding an attack. Not using the Evade skill to change distance. Dan is 100% correct.

I have a hard time imagining it should be totally free. I think "free" in this sense means that you don't parry it, but that is a stretch.. I dunno.

IMO, the attack is free in the sense that you can make an attack in response to your opponents movement when it's not your turn. It still costs a CA. When disengaging or closing any attacks are opposed by the persons Evade skill. If the person moving succeeds on their roll, but loses the opposed roll they take damage and may be subject to offensive CA's as normal, provided none of these incapacitate the 'victim' or hinder movement, they change the range. Similarly, if you wished to maintain the distance, it would cost you a CA and it would be opposed Evade rolls. What you have to remember is that when disengaging or closing you are using the Evade skill, not evading an attack, the opposed rolls are handled in the same way as any opposed skill roll. You need to look at the closing and disengaging rules for proper clarification.

I can imagine a situation where a fighter either has a poorer SR or elects to delay at his SR and uses that opportunity to withdraw after his opponent has exhausted his CAs. Under what's being proposed, that would allow his opponent a free attack against what I would view as an [otherwise] prudential strategy (the better part of valor, and all that).

Don't forget, you can't indefinitely delay, if you don't use your delayed action for that CA before your next SR you lose it. But if you can, what you propose above is perfectly legal. If your opponent is out of CA and you disengage he can not attack you.

 

[Dan True]

"The CA available on the character’s next Strike Rank following an Evade attempt cannot be used to make an Attack. This penalty carries over to a new round if the Adventurer uses his last available CA in a round to Evade."

If I'm misreading that, or if it is superceded or more fully explained elsewhere, it would be good to know. You seem to be saying that you can use Evade without the CA penalty as long as you're not being directly, aggressively attacked? That would be useful in the scenario I explore below...

The "next CA cannot be used to attack", is when you have spent an "Evade attempt" - i.e. attempting to not get hit by a sword. This "action/reaction" happends to be using the evade skill.
Disengaging/Closing distance however, is another option/action/reaction all together, that also happends to be using the evade skill - but it is still not an evade attempt.

If any use of the evade skill (not just dodging attacks) resulted in next CA cannot be used to attack, then A and B fighting could look like this:

A wishes to close distance, so he attempts to do so through the "Close distance" action. B does not wish A to get closer, so he tries to counter by opposing his evade against A. A wins the opposed roll and is now at short reach.
Since B has just used evade in an opposed roll, he cannot attack, he chooses to parry in advance in case any other attacks him.
Since A has just used evade in an opposed roll, he cannot attack even though he closed the distance to do so.

Soh, any situation where another attempts to counter an opponent closing, will result in them both gaping awkvardly at each other the next SR? Seems both unrealistic, and also ruins the action-packed feeling of an opponent closing in to jam his gladius into his opponents stomach - since he will have to wait a run.

- Dan

 

[RangerDan]

My understanding is there is no such thing as a "free" attack. The attack against a disengaging enemy still costs a CA and is not possible if the CA is not available.
I believe the "free" part refers to being able to attack out of sequence.

 

[danskmacabre]

I believe the "free" part refers to being able to attack out of sequence.

This seems to make the most sense to me and feels more consistent with the rules.

 

[Dan True]

I believe the "free" part refers to being able to attack out of sequence.

This seems to make the most sense to me and feels more consistent with the rules.

I agree.

 

[RangerDan]

I think so too.. I have a hard time imagining it should be totally free. I think "free" in this sense means that you don't parry it, but that is a stretch.. I dunno.

I will further add that I would also allow the "recipient" of such an attack to defend himself when struck assuming he has the CAs to do so.

I like this discussion, illustrates the elegance of the Legend combat system.
Basically a fighter who wants to disengage has some interesting choices.

He can:

A) Disengage using the Evade skill. This costs a CA and generally succeeds unless the opponent uses a CA to (attempt to) oppose this. He basically uses a CA for a a fairly "safe" option where the worst outcome is losing an opposed roll - both combatants have used a CA to maneuver to no immediate ill effect (although the fighter presumably wanted to disengage for a reason).

B) Run for it and be attacked. This costs no CA. The opponent can get an out of sequence attack against him if he has the CA to spare. If the opponent misses this is good, because he has used a CA to no effect, and the fighter has still succesfully disengaged. If the opponent hits the fighter can still use a CA to defend himself, either by parrying or Evading (though this use of Evade would mean no attacking next CA). This is the more high-risk/high-reward gambit, where the outcomes range from getting away free at no CA cost to spending a CA to defend oneself, failing, and getting injured or killed.

So what does this mean?
Basically, using the Run for It option is pretty good against inexperienced fighters, especially if you're quite good at swordplay yourself. You basically assume they will miss, and use your superior skill to parry the lucky hit.

Against a skilled opponent, Run for It is far more dangerous because he is likely to hit with his out of sequence attack and force you to use a CA to defend yourself anyways. Failing this defensive roll has more serious consequences than failing the opposed Evade roll in option A). You may want to do this anyways if you are much better at combat skills than at Evade, but it is generally a far riskier proposition.

 

[danskmacabre]

I disagree on a couple of points.
Disengaging, no matter what will cost a CA to perform. If you don't have a CA, you can't disengage. The rules specifically states disengaging costs a CA.

The person disengaging states his intent, but his opponent decides how he's going to react.

His opponent could try to maintain the range increment (I.E. stay in that range increment) , so an opposed Evade roll (this will cost a CA for both of them).

OR

His opponent chooses to get a "free" out of sequence attack (which costs a CA IMO, the free bit means out of sequence). the guy disengaging must use his evade skill to avoid the attack. Whether he fails the evade or not, he will still get out of that reach increment (or completely out of melee if he chooses I assume), but possibly injured.
I personally don't think he could parry his way out of melee, as parrying implies staying in combat. Evade implies try to get out of combat.

 

[DrBargle]

I agree, getting out of combat, and striking a blow, should always cost a CA.

Would you, however, allow a character to spend a CA initiating a combat withdrawal, and then, when his opponent has declared that they will spend a CA on a 'free' attack, lose their nerve, abandon their evasion, and spend a second, reactive CA to attempt a parry?

 

[Dan True]

Would you, however, allow a character to spend a CA initiating a combat withdrawal, and then, when his opponent has declared that they will spend a CA on a 'free' attack, lose their nerve, abandon their evasion, and spend a second, reactive CA to attempt a parry?

Depends in the situation.. in some situations yes, in others no - mainly depending on visibility, ability etc.

- Dan

 

[DamonJynx]

This is how closing/disengaging works:

"A" closing with "B" (disengaging is the same but instead of moving in, you're moving out)

• A uses a CA and makes a roll against his Evade skill. If successful he closes with B.
  
  B has to decide whether to oppose this movement, attack, or do nothing and let A get into close combat range.
  
  If B opposes the movement he spends a CA and it becomes an opposed test of both combatants Evade skill. If A wins he closes, if B wins he keeps the distance.
  
  If B attacks, he spends a CA, can attack out of the initiative/SR sequence (the free attack) and rolls his attack skill vs. A's evade skill. If he wins the opposed test he damages A normally and may qualify for a CM (if he rolls a Crit). Unless prevented from doing so by B's CM or damage, A closes the distance. He cannot parry as he is already "evading" to get in close.
  
  If B does nothing, A closes.

Using Evade in this way does not grant A any defensive CM's (That's my opinion, the rules are silent on this front).

 

[danskmacabre]

I agree, getting out of combat, and striking a blow, should always cost a CA.

Would you, however, allow a character to spend a CA initiating a combat withdrawal, and then, when his opponent has declared that they will spend a CA on a 'free' attack, lose their nerve, abandon their evasion, and spend a second, reactive CA to attempt a parry?

I would probably say no myself, but if I felt generous or felt is was appropriate, I might allow a snap "Insight" check (which wouldn't cost a CA) to see if he saw the attack coming and thus change back to a parry.
But this is all houseruling, I think RAW, this isn't allowed, but hey, Legend is a pretty adaptable rules set.

 

[danskmacabre]

Yep I agree with all that DamonJynx.

 

[marit]

If he wins the opposed test he damages A normally and may qualify for a CM (if he rolls a Crit).

Just a normal success vs a failure would also provide a CM in this instance correct?

I'm just assuming that remains distance as desired means that the closer doesn't move and not that the defender does move, even though its not stated explicitly.

The rules would make more sense to me if the decision was on the attacker as to whether they wanted to close in all evasively or just move in putting caution to the wind and take the attack. I don't see that emulated in the rules anywhere. I was wondering if anyone had tried to play with letting the closer/disengager make the decision rather than the defender?