Interpreting the combat table

[zanshin]

Ok trying to understand how the opposed check integrates with the combat table - in the correction PDF it says ( i paraphrase very slightly)

'If the attack is successful a reaction may be declared.
The opponent rolls, effectively making this an opposed test, his dodge or parry against the weapon skill already rolled.
Compare the two rolls like an opposed test - the only difference between a 'true' opposed skill test and these combat rolls is that the result is compared to on the tables on pages 50-51.
There are not two sets of rolls in combat for the attacker. He just rolls once and the result of that roll is what the defender compares his dodge/parry to. This is covered for dodges on p50 , last paragraph of the first column. Parry has a similair paragraph'

If an attacker has hit and the opponent rolls under their dodge score but below the attack roll (ignore criticals) is that a dodge success or dodge failure ?

If the attacker has hit but the reacting player rolls a successful dodge which is higher then the attack roll is that an attack success or an attack failure?

Under what circumstances can both attack and dodge be a success?

Are opposed rolls relevant at all? or is it just a matter of looking it up on the table?

If an attacker crits and the opponent dodges , but not with a critical roll, have they downgraded the crit to a normal hit, or does 'the attack hits as normal' mean that the crit has succeeded.

I am really making heavy weather of this. Could someone help me out please.

 

[simonh]

If an attacker has hit and the opponent rolls under their dodge score but below the attack roll (ignore criticals) is that a dodge success or dodge failure ?

If the attacker has hit but the reacting player rolls a successful dodge which is higher then the attack roll is that an attack success or an attack failure?

Highest/lowest roll don't matter in combat. You just compare the results (crit, success, fail or fumble) for each combatant on the appropriate table.

Under what circumstances can both attack and dodge be a success?

If they both rolled successes in their skill roll. If that hapens, cross reference successful attack versus successful dodge on the dodge table.

Are opposed rolls relevant at all? or is it just a matter of looking it up on the table?

The latter. Combat opposed rolls do not have anything whatever to do with the normal opposed roll rules. They use completely independent rules.

If an attacker crits and the opponent dodges , but not with a critical roll, have they downgraded the crit to a normal hit, or does 'the attack hits as normal' mean that the crit has succeeded.

It means the attacker does normal damage, not max damage as you'd normaly get for a crit.

I am really making heavy weather of this. Could someone help me out please.

Don't sweat it, it's not immediately obvious and the oddness of some of the results (successful dodge means you get damaged by a failed attack) lead sensible people to assume that they must be using the table wrong. Actualy it realy is supposed to work like that.

Simon Hibbs

 

[zanshin]

Thank you Simon. It does render certain results impossible to obtain , like the attacker over extended, or 2 X AP of parrying weapon , which would be possible with certain interpretations of the opposed roll test.

Cheers.

 

[Rurik]

In real life combat is a very chaotic, confusing event, not at all clear or easy to follow like often portrayed in games.

MRQ captures this aspect of combat very well.

 

[simonh]

Thank you Simon. It does render certain results impossible to obtain , like the attacker over extended, or 2 X AP of parrying weapon , which would be possible with certain interpretations of the opposed roll test.

I don't have the rules handy just now, but I don't see why these results are unobtainable.

It's quite possible my interpretation of what the rules are supposed to be is flawed though.


Simon Hibbs

 

[zanshin]

because you cant fail an attack if you have succeded in an attack to have a reaction in the first place, unless you allow reactions to missed attacks, which currently , you are not.

 

[simonh]

because you cant fail an attack if you have succeded in an attack to have a reaction in the first place, unless you allow reactions to missed attacks, which currently , you are not.

You're quite right. The "Players Guide" PDF linked to in the sticky at the top of the forum clarifies this. They call these unobtainable results on the combat tables "placeholders" for future rules.


Simon Hibbs

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I am really making heavy weather of this. Could someone help me out please.

The first problem with the tables is that there is an entire row and column missing. It does not allow for either the Attacker or the Defender to fumble.

The second problem is that common sense and Matthew's clarification notwithstanding, the tables are written in such a way as to imply that a second roll is made by the attacker. Otherwise why bother to say that a Critical success is "Upgraded" to a critical on a failed dodge - it's already a dodge. Also why say that Critical attack countered by a Critical Parry does minimum damage unless it's a critical, since it can't be anything else?

 

[zanshin]

The first problem with the tables is that there is an entire row and column missing. It does not allow for either the Attacker or the Defender to fumble.

The second problem is that common sense and Matthew's clarification notwithstanding, the tables are written in such a way as to imply that a second roll is made by the attacker. Otherwise why bother to say that a Critical success is "Upgraded" to a critical on a failed dodge - it's already a dodge. Also why say that Critical attack countered by a Critical Parry does minimum damage unless it's a critical, since it can't be anything else?

That was pretty much my first interpretation as well, that it was designed around a two roll system for the attacker, which I was not happy about. I think my current preference would be for a single opposed test (ie highest under skill wins the test) integrated with a simple matrix. I will probably have to design it myself.