Movement Issues

[DamonJynx]

Unless the charging creature willingly stops or is forcibly
stopped dead, the charge only allows a single Combat Action
for the Attacker, their mount (if combat capable) and the
Defender during that round, because the speed of the charging
creature carries it clear of the engagement zone.

I think this is a very important point to remember.

In most fights, where a PC is charging an opponent (unmounted), the intent is to stop when in melee range and belt the proverbial out of the opponent!

Taking this into consideration makes charging a lot less complicated. Lets look at Bert and Alf again assuming Bert has a higher SR than Alf, remebering this all takes place in 1 block of 5 seconds:

CA1 Bert declares charge starts moving. This takes up CA2 and CA3
CA1 Alf, loads bow
CA2 Alf fires bow, Bert having seen Alf shoot at his mates is charging with his shield up and gets cover - he does not 'parry'.
CA3 Alf drops his bow and sets his spear to accept the charge
CA4 Bert gets into range and makes his attack - *EDIT* resolve the attacks. The combatant with the longest reach going first.

Remember, the rules are their to guide your game. Where there is an apparent contradiction, use your common sense.

 

[DamonJynx]

At the risk of flogging the proverbial dead horse...

You, my son, are putting way too much thought in this.

Ok here I hit a wall. I see a problem here. If you look at the following list of things you can do in one Combat Round, one of them is:

Move: If unengaged, the Adventurer may move his full movement rate.

It is said, that the above should read '1 Combat Round' and not '1 Combat Action'. But how can you 'spend' 1 Combat Round? Part of the confusion, I think, stems from the fact that the above text follows on from an explanation about Combat Actions.

It's my thinking that, it isn't that the above should read '1 Combat Round', as opposed to '1 Combat Action', but that the 'Move' entry shouldn't be listed there.

The shorter question is, how far can you move in one round, spending one CA?

What do you think? It's the only thing I'm having trouble with right now.

IMO There is nothing wrong with that statement. In 1 CA, if unengaged you can move your movement. Therefore for the rest of that round you cannot move if you move your full movement. If you chose to move less than your full movement, you could use subsequent CA's to move up to your movement. I don't see the problem.

 

[Grimolde]

At the risk of flogging the proverbial dead horse...

You, my son, are putting way too much thought in this.

I know, I always do. It's a curse

Ok here I hit a wall. I see a problem here. If you look at the following list of things you can do in one Combat Round, one of them is:

Move: If unengaged, the Adventurer may move his full movement rate.

It is said, that the above should read '1 Combat Round' and not '1 Combat Action'. But how can you 'spend' 1 Combat Round? Part of the confusion, I think, stems from the fact that the above text follows on from an explanation about Combat Actions.

It's my thinking that, it isn't that the above should read '1 Combat Round', as opposed to '1 Combat Action', but that the 'Move' entry shouldn't be listed there.

The shorter question is, how far can you move in one round, spending one CA?

What do you think? It's the only thing I'm having trouble with right now.

IMO There is nothing wrong with that statement. In 1 CA, if unengaged you can move your movement. Therefore for the rest of that round you cannot move if you move your full movement. If you chose to move less than your full movement, you could use subsequent CA's to move up to your movement. I don't see the problem.

It's not so much a case that it's wrong/broken/nonsensical. At least not on another read through. But it did throw me a bit. Once I added that last part to the sentence it clarified it.

 

[DamonJynx]

Sweet. So are you happy with your understanding of movement now?

I know it's all a bit confusing when you first sit down and look at the system, particularly if you're coming from a D&D D20 system like our group.

When I started looking for a new system to play I discovered BRP which is a compiled version of the various D100 rules for games published by Chaosium, one of which was the original Runequest. BRP is a great system and very versatile, however, to run a gritty Swords & Sorcery type game of the kind I wanted to run, required the use of heaps of optional rules (all contained in the Big Gold Book that forms the system). Then I was surfing the net for Stormbringer (Elric) stuff and came across an article by Loz on Stormbringerrpg.com which obviously led to MRQII. So I had a look at the system and while there are somethings I think BRP does better (the Resistance Table for example) overall MRQII was a much better fit RAW for the type of game I wanted to run and so here I am. After running a few sessions, I really, really like this system and once you get your head around it, it is very intuitive and easy to play and learn, at least IMO anyway.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Argh, another complication. All CAs are already used to pay the charge, but then again why not parry with the same CA that is "spent" on movement "on that turn".
So, it costs a CA - but one of the CAs already used to pay the charge. This way one can also effectively ruin a charge by peppering him with arrows - since they spend all their time parrying, he has no CAs left when reaching the target...

But yes... Common sense indicates he should be able to parry (at least to me) if he would have CAs to parry if he weren't moving.

How about - A charge must be declared at the start of a round. The character will make contact on their last Combat Action of the round (unless the target has managed to evade in the meantime). If the character is equiped with a shield they may parry attacks from the (general direction of*) the target as normal (ie at the cost of Combat Actions).

* This is so that if A charges B and C charges D, where B and D are standing side by side they can't choose B shoots C and D shoots A to prevent the attacks being parried. However E who is half way between the two parties and 20 metres to the left can shoot unhindered as the chargers are not looking in his direction...

If a Charging character uses up all his available CA's parrying then he still arrives at the target on his last CA, but can't attack until next round - they will still get the benefits of the charge (because combat is fluid and not a discreet series of moves)

 

[Grimolde]

Sweet. So are you happy with your understanding of movement now?

I've done quite a few mock battles in a colisieum type setting, and the issues are diminishing all the time.

I know it's all a bit confusing when you first sit down and look at the system, particularly if you're coming from a D&D D20 system like our group.

I think this affected our learning more than we thought it did.

When I started looking for a new system to play I discovered BRP which is a compiled version of the various D100 rules for games published by Chaosium, one of which was the original Runequest. BRP is a great system and very versatile, however, to run a gritty Swords & Sorcery type game of the kind I wanted to run, required the use of heaps of optional rules (all contained in the Big Gold Book that forms the system). Then I was surfing the net for Stormbringer (Elric) stuff and came across an article by Loz on Stormbringerrpg.com which obviously led to MRQII. So I had a look at the system and while there are somethings I think BRP does better (the Resistance Table for example) overall MRQII was a much better fit RAW for the type of game I wanted to run and so here I am. After running a few sessions, I really, really like this system and once you get your head around it, it is very intuitive and easy to play and learn, at least IMO anyway.

I love the system, I really do. About the best compliment I can give it, is that I've stuck with it for the last two months and worked through the issues I've had. Trust me when i say that's a major compliment.

Looking forward to starting my Harnworld game with MRQ2

 

[Verderer]

Unless the charging creature willingly stops or is forcibly
stopped dead, the charge only allows a single Combat Action
for the Attacker, their mount (if combat capable) and the
Defender during that round, because the speed of the charging
creature carries it clear of the engagement zone.

I think this is a very important point to remember.

In most fights, where a PC is charging an opponent (unmounted), the intent is to stop when in melee range and belt the proverbial out of the opponent!

Taking this into consideration makes charging a lot less complicated. Lets look at Bert and Alf again assuming Bert has a higher SR than Alf, remebering this all takes place in 1 block of 5 seconds:

CA1 Bert declares charge starts moving. This takes up CA2 and CA3
CA1 Alf, loads bow
CA2 Alf fires bow, Bert having seen Alf shoot at his mates is charging with his shield up and gets cover - he does not 'parry'.
CA3 Alf drops his bow and sets his spear to accept the charge
CA4 Bert gets into range and makes his attack - *EDIT* resolve the attacks. The combatant with the longest reach going first.

Remember, the rules are their to guide your game. Where there is an apparent contradiction, use your common sense.

We're slowly learning the rules in our group playign Clockwork and Chivalry, and adding stuff little by little. Such things as fatigue, and most recently charging. So this rule came up in our game for the first time last night. The way we read it, the above would not be legit? Because the rule clearlyt states two things:

1) the defender can decide to either stand firm (and attack the charger) or flee (using evade).

2) Both the charger (& his horse, if any) and the defender are only allowed to use one CA in the whole turn (either to attack or flee, as we understood it?)

So the defender wouldn't be able to use that many CA for a start? If I am incorrect, please indicate where it says otherwise (newbie GM, not trying to be snotty here :wink: ). So in effect, when someone declares a charge, he effective removes himself and his target from the regular turn procedure, as both of them are locked in the one CA charge procedure?

This in turn raised several other questions, especially in regard to missile fire and the above mentioned parrying. There were several instances where our target of a charge was using black powder weapons, and I ruled that they could either stand firm and shoot before the charger hit them (as their 'reach' would be longer with a missile weapon), or they could evade. Which ever they chose, that would be the only action for that turn.

Then again we had also a couple of instances where the defender had a sword and a pistol. So in this case they would have the capability to both shoot and/or hack with their sword at the attacker. So my thinking would be to allow either sword or pistol attack, or perhaps even both? They are trained in pistol and sword style, so that would maybe make sense?

But this also brings up the issue of parrying, is parry even allowed at all? Because the rules do not mention it specifically, but they do say one CA and then seem to imply either an attack or evade?

My thinking would be allow parry, but this would replace either the attack or the evade roll. After all, parry and evade are treated pretty much equally in the rules generally. And if you have two weapons (or shield and a weapon) maybe allow a parry and attack? From the defenders point of view, if you have a, say, spear and shield, the common sense response to a charge is to raise the shield to protects yourself and soak the impact, and also hold the spear towards the enemy to try to score a hit etc.?

EDIT: also, I would disagree with this:

In most fights, where a PC is charging an opponent (unmounted), the intent is to stop when in melee range and belt the proverbial out of the opponent!

I don't see how this can be the case. Isn't the whole purpose of charging to combine your mass and speed into the pointy end of your weapon, therefore using your impetus to crash into the enemy (and preferably through him?). Starting braking when you enter the melee range would completely nullify the benefit of a charge, simply making it a handy super movement (breaking the 8 meters rule) into melee?

EDIT2: Ok, I realise that a lot hinges on that brief mention "...charging creature willingly stops or is forcibly stopped dead". Willingly stops, that bit I find difficult. If that is indeed allowed, AND you can then use more of your CA on the charge turn, doesn't that completely nullify any disadvantage of Charging, and allow multiple actions and huge movement too? This seems odd and conflicting to me?

Would willingly stopping a charge actually mean that the charge is aborted before it hits the opponent? Because if it doesn't, then it seems to me the whole point of charging defeated, and the multiple points concerning charge become pretty moot.

 

[Da Boss]

taken from the first page of the thread - quote from Pete

A sprint takes a full round, therefore a sprint must be begun in Phase 1 of the round with the first Action available to the sprinter. The sprinter may still use other CA's to defend himself throughout the round.

Perhaps Charge should work them in the same way rather than as described in the rulebook?

 

[Verderer]

Well, ok. I take Pete is the author of the rules?

But as the rules are written in the book, I don't think that is true? Because for one, sprinting is not listed in CA list? So you can use it only when you're not directly engaged in combat 'rounds'? Whereas move and charge are, so they're different case in that regards as well.

So if you can't sprint when in combat, it should follow that you cant do CA when sprinting, yes? Unless some other rules says so elsewhere in the book? I am not that familiar with the rules that I can say.

Charge only resembles sprinting because it uses the same rule for determinng range of movement, otherwise it is a very different case. It's a combat action with a avery specific purpose, and comes with benefits and disadvantages, right?

 

[DamonJynx]

EDIT: also, I would disagree with this:

In most fights, where a PC is charging an opponent (unmounted), the intent is to stop when in melee range and belt the proverbial out of the opponent!

I don't see how this can be the case. Isn't the whole purpose of charging to combine your mass and speed into the pointy end of your weapon, therefore using your impetus to crash into the enemy (and preferably through him?). Starting braking when you enter the melee range would completely nullify the benefit of a charge, simply making it a handy super movement (breaking the 8 meters rule) into melee?

EDIT2: Ok, I realise that a lot hinges on that brief mention "...charging creature willingly stops or is forcibly stopped dead". Willingly stops, that bit I find difficult. If that is indeed allowed, AND you can then use more of your CA on the charge turn, doesn't that completely nullify any disadvantage of Charging, and allow multiple actions and huge movement too? This seems odd and conflicting to me?

Would willingly stopping a charge actually mean that the charge is aborted before it hits the opponent? Because if it doesn't, then it seems to me the whole point of charging defeated, and the multiple points concerning charge become pretty moot.

I'm probably misinterpreting things a little regarding the CA issue, but it seems reasonable to me. However, regarding the stopping and belting your opponent: In my mind if I'm charging at you, I'm not trying to run into you and impale you or knock you over, I'm running upto you and swinging my sword and axe with the additional momentum of the "charge".

 

[duncan_disorderly]

The way we read it, the above would not be legit? Because the rule clearlyt states two things:

1) the defender can decide to either stand firm (and attack the charger) or flee (using evade).

2) Both the charger (& his horse, if any) and the defender are only allowed to use one CA in the whole turn (either to attack or flee, as we understood it?)

So the defender wouldn't be able to use that many CA for a start? If I am incorrect, please indicate where it says otherwise (newbie GM, not trying to be snotty here :wink: ). So in effect, when someone declares a charge, he effective removes himself and his target from the regular turn procedure, as both of them are locked in the one CA charge procedure?

Common sense says this can't be true.
Imagine the situation where A and B are fighting. Both have 3 CA's.
A's mate C arrives on the scene at the start of the next round and declares a charge on B. (We'll asume he has a clear path that is not blocked by A). If being the target of a charge meant B could only act at the end of the round then merely by declaring the charge , C would be allowing A 2 unopposed attacks.

Conversely if X and Y have identical stats, and are standing side by side, each armed with 2 loaded and primed flintlock pistols when Z declares a charge on X. If this prevented Z from acting miore than once you would have the situation where Y could shoot Z twice, but Z only once...

 

[Deleriad]

As I understand it, the rules for charge are written on the assumption that the charger will continue moving after the charge either because he's trampled the defender underfoot or the defender got out of the way. Either way the charger ends up (whether intended or not) a few metres beyond the target.

The lack of remaining CAs is meant (again this is my understanding) to represent two things:

For the attacker: the charge is all consuming and even if he shudders to a halt he has no CAs left that round due to having to recover his footing.

For the defender: after the point of impact either the attacker has moved out of reach or has collided with enough force that the defender needs to spend the rest of the round recovering. If the defender evaded then I would simply use the normal restrictions on actions after evade.

If at all possible it's usually best not to resolve charges in CAs and SRs. Simply treat it as the thing that happens between the two participants that round. If the round is already using CAs and SRs, simply pick a good time in the round for it to happen.

 

[Grimolde]

Just use common sense, using real life as a guide.

Can the charger parry missile attacks with a shield? I say yes, probably at a penalty

Can the target get an arrow off before the charger closes? Sure, again at a penalty for a moving target

Can the charger cancel his charge if the target moves out of range? Yes, why not?

I also rule that the target loses CAs 'doing nothing' as per the rules, so that's why the target has no CAs left upon impact. I was even thinking that he loses as many CAs as the charger, so if the charger had 4CAs, and had to use 3, the target loses a minimum of 3 (he does still get to set v the charge though, regardless)

My point is, I've found I need to be free and easy with MRQ2, if I try and force issues 'by the book', it breaks down a bit.

 

[Deleriad]

My point is, I've found I need to be free and easy with MRQ2, if I try and force issues 'by the book', it breaks down a bit.

+1 to that. Especially when it comes to movement try to work on what makes sense at the time.

 

[Verderer]

The more I think about this, the more confused I get...

Just use common sense, using real life as a guide.

Can the charger parry missile attacks with a shield? I say yes, probably at a penalty

Hm, maybe. But perhaps only when the shooter is the target of the charge? If the missile attack comes from another direction, I would not allow parrying it, since I would assume the charger is completely focused on his prey and accordingly have his shield towards the target.

Can the target get an arrow off before the charger closes? Sure, again at a penalty for a moving target

Yep, this I am allowing as per myc example with musket/pistol. Though perhaps the penalty wouldnt necessarily be as big as for normal moving target, because the target is moving straight towards the shooter?

Can the charger cancel his charge if the target moves out of range? Yes, why not?

Well, yes when thinking in common sense and real life terms, but within the turn structure, I dunno? I am assuming that the charge has to be declared at the first available strike rank for the character in that turn? Otherwise, if he uses the first action for something else, he's already used one CA, and this would disqualify him from the charge (which specifies only one CA + charge movement)? And as the charge occurs on that first strike rank, the defender can't really move out of range because it's not his turn yet, and because the rule allows only attack/evade? Unless you mean evade by moving out of range?

As I see it, there's problem with the definition of charge. It's a bit vague and problematic, especially as it is a an exception to the turn sequence. As Duncan mentions above, what happens when there are multiple characters nearby, some are charging/charged at, and some aren't? This is where it gets pretty hairy, it seems?

Common sense says this can't be true.
Imagine the situation where A and B are fighting. Both have 3 CA's.
A's mate C arrives on the scene at the start of the next round and declares a charge on B. (We'll asume he has a clear path that is not blocked by A). If being the target of a charge meant B could only act at the end of the round then merely by declaring the charge , C would be allowing A 2 unopposed attacks.

Yes, this is tricky. Assuming that the charge has to happen on the first available SR to C, A and B may have already exchanged a blow before the charge (depending on SRs?) Then when C charges, B may either turn towards C and attack, thus ignoring A, or he may Evade C, in which case I might rule he also tries to Evade A as well? In any case, if you're facing multiple opponents, you're bound to be in trouble in any case, ie. running out of CA to parry and so on. But that's beside the point, as far the charge rule is concerned.

Conversely if X and Y have identical stats, and are standing side by side, each armed with 2 loaded and primed flintlock pistols when Z declares a charge on X. If this prevented Z from acting miore than once you would have the situation where Y could shoot Z twice, but Z only once...

Assuming Z would actually use melee weapon? If Z had a long way to charge, then I think it would quite reasonable to allow both pistoliers discharging their weapons before the charge resolution took place, unless X and Y are very slow? I think they could shoot both pistols at the same time, if necessary, so X would have shoot more in haste, using a single attack for both pistols (if he wanted to shoot both barrels) taking a heavy penalty perhaps, and Y could shoot more leisurely fashion, knowing he's not about to get his head bashed in? Then with the charge resolution, Z would be free to hack away at X (who can't do anything, as he's attacked already as a response to the charge, plus possibly his pistols are spent), and Y would have used either one or two actions, depending on SR and charge distance. If the charge distance was relatively short, and the charger very quick (high SR), then I would allow Y to attack before the charge resolution only if his SR was before Z?

Does that make sense? I am not trying to make any definite claims or rulings, just trying to get my head around the concept write things up?

Anyways, it seems I am not alone in being confused about this matter?

 

[Grimolde]

I think everyone has houserules charge in one way or another.

Re: the charge cancelling, again, I'll wing it, when it comes to determining at what point during the charge the charger's had to cancel, I'll apply common sense. Early on, 1 CA, a little later, maybe 2 CAs.

I've realised the best is to make a ruling and move on.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I think the first thing to do is get a general statement of intent from everyone - this will allow you to see if there are likely to be any sequencing issues before they arise.
Also be careful of people using a gridded battlemat to move "just" out of range - remember everyone is supposed to be moving at the same time

 

[jolt]

Also be careful of people using a gridded battlemat to move "just" out of range - remember everyone is supposed to be moving at the same time

Agreed. Personally, this is why I feel MRQII plays better without a battlemat. The movement/CA/CM system is a little too abstract and putting things on a mat tends to make things more concrete. Not that it can't be done but I think it tends to rub against the grain of the rules and can lead to players overthinking/complicating things which can snowball pretty rapidly. YMMV.

jolt

 

[Grimolde]

If you use a gridded battlemat, do you go with 1 square equalling 1 metre or 2 metres?

 

[danskmacabre]

Hi all I've been running some test combats and so far I'm kind of happy with the following:

I'm using a square grid Battlemat. I use 1 metre = 1 square.

If you're charging, as the rules state, you have to use the whole combat turn to do the charge and attack.
However you can parry as many times as you have free CAs minus the 1 you need to attack. but not evade as that would mean you have to diverge from your Charge course.

If you're the recipient of a charge and say the charger is 24 metres away
and say you have 4 CAs, you can get 3 actions to do whatever before the charger (assuming you have a higher SR, or it'll be 2 actions), such as firing a bow, fighting, whatever.
You still need a CA to defend/Evade against the charger for when he hits.

If you're being charged, you can charge back, but both of you use up all your CAs for the charge (apart from the exception to parry in the middle of the charge but you must leave 1 CA for the attack at the end of the charge).

The recipient of the charge if he has the CAs can just move out of the way if he dos it before the charger hits. I'd say if he moves at least 2 metres either way or just out of range or put something between him and the charger. that woud be sufficient to scupper the charge.
If this happens the charger should be able to perceive this and can cancel his charge, possibly recovering some CAs. This would need to be worked out on a case by case basis, but I would work this out on the CAs between the statement of change intent and the CA the recipient of the charge moved out of the way.
I think it should be ok for the charger to change targets in the blocked/ moved out of range case if the new target is within 2 metres of the original position of the recipient.

Also other thing, if a Charger has to run past another enemy in order to maintain a straight line of attack, that said enemy can take an out of turn attack as the charger runs past, that is if the enemy has a CA free. The charger can parry if they have a free CA as stated above in another paragraph.

Regarding moving, since I use a battlemat, I will allow as part of an attack a possibility to move up to 2 squares.
This is to allow a bit of freedom, so you can move in a close target without having to waste a CA moving. The total in any round doing this should not add up to any more movement than your movement rate per round.
For example if you have an 8 move and 5 CAs (I know a very high amount of CAs, but useful or this example). then you could attack and move 4 times with a move of 2 each and the final attack would only allow a movement of 1 and an attack.
If you need to disengage though the normal rules apply to disengage first (so requires a CA usage in itself to disengage).

I came to this by reading this movement thread and the charging thread, mulled it over and tried it out in a practice session.

I'm very interested to hear people's views on this.

to explain where I'm coming from with all this, over the past year or so I've been running and Playing Pathfinder, which has a very rich and detailed tactical combat system if you use a battlemat.
Previous to the last 2 years it's mostly been Rolemaster, HARP, and RQ based games (Various earlier editions of Stormbringer/Elric), which didn't have such detailed tactical combat. So I mostly kept combat an abstract affair then.
But I've really grown to like the Tactical combat of Pathfinder over the last couple of years.
So I've sort of adopted some of that style from Pathfinder. Not all of it though as it gets all a bit too much sometimes with tactical rules in Pathfinder.