marit said:DamonJynx said: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?
If "A" fails his evade roll, yes. My example was based on A succeeding in which case B would only get the CM on a critical hit. There are some people that play with a house rule where 'free' attacks don't generate CM's, the additional attack being seen as benefit enough.
Interpret that how you will. My interpretation is that both combatants move; A towards the B and B away from A. Think of them circling each other awaiting an opening.marit said: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.
It is emulated in the rules, that's what the Evade roll is for. A can't determine how is opponent is going to react, he just moves in ducking and weaving in the hope that he can wrong foot B and get in close.marit said: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?
Would you as a Player appreciate the GM saying that, "Barfred the Barbarian closes with you make an attack at -20 because Barfred's 1H Axe & Shield style is 120%" without giving you other options?
As always though, YGMV.