Rules Clarification: Mandatory Melee Combat?

[Yenaldlooshi]

Core pg76 states: "When a Traveller is within two metres of an enemy, they are said to be locked in close combat. At this very short range, certain rules apply."

and one of those rules is: "If one combatant moves while locked in close combat, their enemy may make an immediate (and ‘free’) attack with DM+2 to the attack roll."

Does this mean, that if Friendly Fred is trying to move past Enemy Ed in a ship's corridor, and Ed does not have a delayed action, if Fred tries to run past Ed but happens to come with in 2m at any point mid-move, then Fred at that point mid-movement, has just entered Melee combat and if he tried to continue his move that he has remaining from that minor action, Ed will get a free +2 attack?

Logically, that is what the rules amount to but I am wondering if that was really the intent and if others play this way, or require there to be a delayed action by Ed to interrupt Fred's move as the only way he could be attacked mid move.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Seems reasonable?

If you run/brush past an enemy, ignoring him, he gets an opportunity attack?

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Seems reasonable?

If you run/brush past an enemy, ignoring him, he gets an opportunity attack?

I actually agree, I just found it odd that rather than this being stated explicitly in the rules, one must make that assumption from the wording of two different parts of the wording of Melee combat. This created enough doubt in me that I wanted to see how the forum would weigh in on this.

Have you played it this way before or is this news to you too?

 

[Arkathan]

I've always played that way. If you had initiative and had already shot down the corridor, and an enemy tries to charge past you, are you going to let him go or body check him into some piping/conduits? Or skewer him on the pointy thing in your hand?

 

[Sigtrygg]

That's not what is really happening though is it.

The reality is you are shooting down the corridor and the enemy is charging past you. You would have to abort your shooting as he draws level in order to attack.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

That's not what is really happening though is it.

The reality is you are shooting down the corridor and the enemy is charging past you. You would have to abort your shooting as he draws level in order to attack.

Reality? I have no use for that. Game mechanics and where I live with this. Game mechanics should always trump reality or your game ends up crappy and since it was not real to begin with, un-real.

In game mechanics, you shoot down the corridor on your turn, all actions over for you. You did shoot right? If not, and its your initative, just shoot! Otherwise:
Enemy tries to charge past you, so you get a free +2 attack. You can:
Shoot him if your ranged weapon is single-handed OR
you can use your two-handed ranged weapon as a club OR
if your weapon is single-handed you could do an an armed attack with your free hand. Maybe even a grapple! (and might I suggest the option of inflicting damage with the same weapon in the other hand as a grappling choice if your unarmed is better than your ranged skill)

This, btw, is all rules as written. Not my house rules.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Unreal is you getting all your actions against manikins, then the manikins moving and you getting to act again just because he moves next to you.

There are better combat systems...

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Unreal is you getting all your actions against manikins, then the manikins moving and you getting to act again just because he moves next to you.

It's called abstraction. The mechanics produce results in certain order and scope. That does not mean the mechanics is what the characters would see. It is an abstract that you can layer your "realistic" (be that cinematic or tactical) vision onto. (also being turn based with players getting minutes to mull over decisions their character's would have to make in less than seconds is also unreal, but if you don't pick the point where you can accept it being unreal, you will be larping with live ammo)

There are better combat systems...

maybe, but I am actually fine with Traveller... especially when y'know, I want to play Traveller... even though I occasionally post questions about Traveller in here, ...the Traveller forum.

 

[Sigtrygg]

If you are happy with the way combat works in the 2022 Core Rulebook update great, I am not looking to tell you how to play the game you like at your table.

The current MgT opportunity attack is an obvious transposition from D&D, I didn't like it in D&D and I definitely don't like it in Traveller. MegaTraveller has a combat system that is a hybrid of Snapshot and AHL with action points removed, it plugs into Mongoose Traveller.

There are several Traveller combat systems on offer in the other versions of Traveller, and Mongoose now owns them all.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

What do you like about MegaTraveller better than Mg Update 2022? Specifically that is?

 

[Arkathan]

Snapshot is more realistic, but also quite tedious.

 

[Sigtrygg]

What do you like about MegaTraveller better than Mg Update 2022? Specifically that is?

Specifically Initiative and interrupts.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Specifically Initiative and interrupts.

Taking these as a sort of a recommendation, I looked up those rules.

For initiative, in my game, if one side roles for tactics(military) then both sides must roll even if the other side has a -3 to the roll for lacking the skill. Outside of that, initiative rolls in 2022 factor intelligence or dexterity vs fortune (die roll). MegaT seems to do something similar but makes it far more complex than is really needed, then it loses all realism with the idea that one whole side goes, then the other whole side goes. Which I guess makes the turn order simpler (though I never had the need for that), but makes it far less realistic. Talk about manikins waiting to act.

Looking at interrupts. Those are great! They make total sense and make for more realistic game play. But I really don't see the difference between interrupts in Mega and delayed actions in 2022. Granted, I think there could be a little more clarification about when the use of a delayed action can be declared after information of the enemy's next action has been revealed to the table, but other than that, it seems to be about the same as Mega in its effect but less wordy and allowing for GM situational interpretation.

Maybe I am not reading these right as I have not played Mega since 1987? and I was not very good at it back then, if I am being honest.

I guess it comes down to which system do you feel more comfortable with. I DO think Mega is more realistic, but that complexity price is too steep for me to have as much fun and have others have as much fun as current 2022. imho

 

[Sigtrygg]

In MT the side that wins initiative has one person go, then one person on the opponents side, and they keep alternating.

"Initiative: In each combat round, the side with the largest tactical point pool has the initiative and selects which side goes first.*

Resolution: Once a side has been selected, one unit from that side may take its turn. The unit may move and make an attack (limited to one attack per unit per combat round). Any attacks made take effect immediately. Once the unit’s turn is finished, one unit from the other side may take a turn. Turns continue to alternate from side to side in this manner until all units on both sides have had an opportunity to take a turn.** Once all have had a chance to take their turn, the combat round is over, and a new combat round begins.

* variants were introduced where a random element could be introduced, a leadership task could provide a bonus, Int and Dex DMs, all sorts of stuff in Q&A in DGP magazines, possibly Challenge but it has been a long time
** this always made little sense, how often are both sides going to be the same number of units
Again I think this was cleared up by the larger force getting to move two or more units on their turn, but only after the first unit had taken its turn.

So a group of 3 PCs (A,B,C) face off against 5 thugs (1->5)

A, 1, B, 2, 3, C, 4, 5