Reactive vs. declared parries

[master of reality]

On page 85 and 86 under Attacks and Parries, it says the following. "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. This does mean, though, that he will not gain a defensive Combat Manoeuvre [sic]..."
This makes perfect sense to me and it's how I've been playing.
However, on page 84, under declared actions for a parry, it says the following. "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 before his next Strike Rank occurs." I interpret this to mean that if the GM says to the player, "ok, your turn. What do want to do?" The player can reply, "I'm going to parry." So in this case, a player declares a parry before an attack is declared against his character, as opposed to a reactive parry where the parry is declared after an attack is declared but before the attacker rolls. If the attacker fails against the defender who declared a parry as an action, it appears that the defender must follow through with the parry anyways or lose a CA. If this is true, What's the advantage of declaring a parry as an action versus declaring a parry as a reaction? It sounds like a player would be better off declaring a parry as a reaction to an attack so that if the attack fails, the defender can choose to save his CA. Am I missing something?

 

[Deleriad]

On page 85 and 86 under Attacks and Parries, it says the following. "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. This does mean, though, that he will not gain a defensive Combat Manoeuvre [sic]..."
This makes perfect sense to me and it's how I've been playing.
However, on page 84, under declared actions for a parry, it says the following. "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 before his next Strike Rank occurs." I interpret this to mean that if the GM says to the player, "ok, your turn. What do want to do?" The player can reply, "I'm going to parry." So in this case, a player declares a parry before an attack is declared against his character, as opposed to a reactive parry where the parry is declared after an attack is declared but before the attacker rolls. If the attacker fails against the defender who declared a parry as an action, it appears that the defender must follow through with the parry anyways or lose a CA. If this is true, What's the advantage of declaring a parry as an action versus declaring a parry as a reaction? It sounds like a player would be better off declaring a parry as a reaction to an attack so that if the attack fails, the defender can choose to save his CA. Am I missing something?

The biggest thing you're missing is that declaring your parry in advance allows you to save your combat action for the next Strike Rank cycle. This can be life saving if you're outnumbered and trying to hold the fort until a friend arrives for example. It's also useful if you're stunned (e.g. due to a serious wound) and can't attack.

Basically it's an ultra defensive move for those times when you want to be sure that every single CA you have is dedicated to parrying.

 

[master of reality]

The biggest thing you're missing is that declaring your parry in advance allows you to save your combat action for the next Strike Rank cycle. This can be life saving if you're outnumbered and trying to hold the fort until a friend arrives for example. It's also useful if you're stunned (e.g. due to a serious wound) and can't attack.

Basically it's an ultra defensive move for those times when you want to be sure that every single CA you have is dedicated to parrying.

Okay, I get it now. So by declaring a parry as an action, the player is saving his action for when his character is attacked, even if it means cycling through the next sequence of strike ranks back to that player's turn again. That player does not have to spend that action doing something else (or waste it by doing nothing at all) and then spend an additional action to parry as a reaction to an attack. Of course, if the player's character is attacked more than once before the player's turn comes up again, he might expend both that parry action and a parry reaction, before it's the player's turn again. If the character is attacked, but the attack fails, the player can still choose not to expend his parry action, but if he does not use his parry action by the time it's his turn again, the parry action is expended anyways.
Thanks for the response. You've answered my question perfectly.