[Circle of Hands] Combat system getting nailed down

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

>>I thought that principle was already embedded and obvious.

OK. I guess all I can say is that I didn't find it so obvious.

"I thought" meant "Amazing what one thinks, stupid head of mine," not, "And you should have seen it but you were dumb." You guys are great - without you, I'd never have realized that was a necessary issue.

>>No situation arises where two characters go to the back of the line simultaneously, because the events that send them there don't occur simultaneously.

Again, have I missed or misread something?
I've been going along thinking that the events inside clashes are explicitly simultaneous actions.
Same with counter magic where the second wizard gets into the first one's action.
Neither of those are simultaneous..?

Simultaneous enough for the fiction, not simultaneous in terms of player statements. Or if you prefer to stay in the fiction, pumping B to counter someone else's spell necessarily puts you a microsecond in front of that action; otherwise we're in the philosophical hell of saying that something simultaneously happens and does not happen.

I very much like how the game isn't 'narrative heavy' but the moment-to-moment described details really do matter nonetheless.

Me too. My operating principle is that you don't make shit up out of nothing right before you roll, to get a mechanical advantage; nor does the order of who-shouts-what matter.

Thinking more about that particular combat, BTW, I realise there was no real reason for the second Knight to spend Brawn in the final clash.
He could have let the guy come at him and still gone full offence.
The difference I decided it made - in that particular instance rather than as any kind of general rule - was that it allowed him to take the advantage die.
Does that sound about right?

Yes, with the proviso that "clash initiator" gets the advantage only as a decider of last resort. If the two characters were squared off in a way that you really see as equal circumstances, then that's the deciding factor. Otherwise, whatever factor the GM thinks is the real-deal advantage is the one which matters, no matter who initiated the clash.

[Nyhteg]

Good, good.

So, would you mind awfully just summing up where the system has got to now, just for reference?
Making the not-simultaneous simultaneous stuff clear and laying out the who goes where when, and so forth?

Is it useful to think of the order being changed at the moment of announcement rather than at resolution?
I say "I attack you", my marker goes to the end of the queue. You say "I totally fight back" and yours moves too.
I say "I cast a spell", my marker goes to the end of the queue. You say "I spend B and cast a counterspell" and yours moves too.

Waiting until the dice are rolled can make things more confused maybe?

Anyway, what I notice about most about this now is that ranged attacks are total arse. :)
I think it was John a few posts ago who was concerned that constantly fighting back in a clash would repeatedly 'use up' your go. What's far, far worse than that is getting repeatedly injured from a distance by some dickhead with a shortbow.
Every time you take damage - go to the end of the queue. Talk about suppression fire..!
It's either spend B to rush that sucker or spend the whole fight dodging arrows, I guess.

In other news, check this out:

I've just finished writing a javascript 'Combat Management Tool' along similar lines to the character roller.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29364274/CoH%20Combat%20Tool.html

Lets you set up a list of characters with their B, Q, Names and so on, then click buttons to zap them to the top and bottom of the list at will. Handy?

G

[Ron Edwards]

I think it's pretty much set in stone the way I posted it last. I don't think any of the concerns about order for who goes to the end led to any changes. If I'm not mistaken, there's no simultaneity - that word seems to have been inserted into the discussion and I'm not sure why - except for area-attack cases, and the rule then is that everyone gets arranged by Q at the end.

I'll summarize:

Arrange everyone order of Q, highest goes first. With each "go," the character goes to the end of the line.

If you get pulled* into a clash, and go full defense, you preserve your place in the order.
If you get pulled into a clash and fight back within it, then you pop to the end of the line (behind the guy who just did, for initiating his or her action).

If you take damage, then go to the end of the line - note that if it's your turn and you take damage, then there may not be any difference, you still go to the end - but if you hurt the other guy, then you both go to the end but he's behind/after you.

If you pump B to jump to the front, you jump all the way in front so the guy you're pre-empting is still in place.
This is very slightly altered for oppositional magic, because you jump right in front of that guy by a microsecond but his spell still goes off - you're blending with his action rather than utterly pre-empting it. In this case, when the dust clears, you go to the end of the line, and then he goes to the very end (after you). So the effect is not different from that of a clash that you just pulled him into.

In the rare cases in which more than one character is simultaneously injured by an area attack, then all such characters go to the end and get arranged there by Q, highest first.

Don't let simultaneity bug you. Yes, the combatants in a clash are hurting one another "simultaneously" in the fiction, but really, they aren't, right? Nothing dictates that the one guy's axe-strike connects exactly at the same microsecond as the other guy's flail-hit. Simultaneity is a game mechanics term, not a fictional one. So as long as who initiated the clash is clear, then the procedures keep us safe from mechanical simultaneity.

Anyway, what I notice about most about this now is that ranged attacks are total arse. :)
I think it was John a few posts ago who was concerned that constantly fighting back in a clash would repeatedly 'use up' your go. What's far, far worse than that is getting repeatedly injured from a distance by some dickhead with a shortbow.
Every time you take damage - go to the end of the queue. Talk about suppression fire..!
It's either spend B to rush that sucker or spend the whole fight dodging arrows, I guess.

Yeah, arrows really stink. They don't stop you from moving, so you can charge a bowman, and once you're on top of him the bow doesn't work any more. (No Legolas point-blank arrows, thank you)

Also, if the bowman is unnamed, then all you're doing is making Q vs. 12 rolls to avoid getting shot. As such, that's not so bad for the typical player-character in this game as long as they can get to the guy pretty soon. And I'm speculating that maybe beasts are immune to arrows for purposes of immediate combat - great for hunting, not so good for stopping power (Seriously no Legolas now!) - so if you're mounted, and charging, the bowman might get off a couple shots but better run soon. Seems to make sense historically, cavalry can always scatter the bow-armed skirmishers.

But really, your best bet is to shoot back. Or get wizardly on them.

Back to the Q vs. 12 roll to avoid arrowshot,** my current thinking is that if you miss that roll, then you take 6 + the amount by which you missed. I have Q 6, I roll a friggin' 4 on two dice, so I take 12 - 10 + 6 = 8 BQ. You may note that armor is great in these circumstances, hence the image of the mailed knight with five arrows stuck in his armor.

One problem with that is that no one wears mail to go ridin' around in the countryside, la de dah. (That's going to be hard to convince role-players about, I know ...)

However, the real problem is when the bowmen have the advantage - as in, look, the locals have ambushed us - and then you're rolling with a single die.

Yes, when the locals ambush you in a place of their choice, with bows, you are fucked. This concept doesn't seem to have penetrated very far into either cinema or gaming ...

Best, Ron

* Note term change.
** Historical weapons pedants may note that I don't say "fire" an arrow.

[Nyhteg]

That'a great! I've had all my questions about sequencing answered at this point.
And I'm completely over the simultaneous stuff. :)

Is the Q vs 12 roll the new rule you alluded to recently for how unnamed characters hurt PCs in general, or is it specifically for unnamed folks with bows?
The ambush/advantage rule is pleadingly brutal in any event.

Did you take a look at the tool?

G

[Ron Edwards]

Is the Q vs 12 roll the new rule you alluded to recently for how unnamed characters hurt PCs in general, or is it specifically for unnamed folks with bows?

Yeah, it's the standard vs. unnamed technique. Might be too clunky, we'll see.

I'm currently in a rush, will check out the management tool a bit later.

[John W]

I just tried out the little scene with the 2 knights, the manticore and 3 unnamed freemen with spears.  Here's how it went.

The manticore went down in 2 hits, and never did a scratch of damage.  The knights acted first, and I had given the knights Advantage since they were mounted and on a rise relative to the manticore.  The first knight dropped the manticore's B/Q to 5/2.  The manticore, now eith Q 2, missed its attack.  The knight's second attack easily finished it off.

The fight against the 3 freemen had a lot of wiffs, and became a bit silly.  The knights attacked with Q vs.12 rolls using one die.  Since they both had Q 6, this meant they could only succeed on a roll of 6, which didn't happen in three or four rounds.  Meanwhile, when the freemen attacked, the knights made Q vs.12 rolls (with 1 die) which they often failed, but: damage = 6 + (12-roll), which was never more than 12.  The knights, having mail, shield and helmet, had Armour 12, so the freement COULDN'T damage them.

One of the knights eventually dismounted to fight on foot with a chain mace.  After another round of fighting, I ruled that the knight was inside the reach of the freeman's spear, and gave the knight the Advantage (in this case, 2d6 on his Q vs.12 roll).  The knight finally scored a hit, and one freeman went down.  I stopped rolling at that point.

Summary: I feel that the fight with the manticore was decided by Advantage.  Fully armoured knights are untouchable by unnamed people, and unnamed people are nearly untouchable by knights unless the knight has Q >> 5 and/or does something to gain a clear advantage.  Ascended people (B/Q 4/4) are easier to kill than unnamed people!

The manticore got unlucky; if it had avoided injury long enough to attack, then I think it could have been much more of a hazard to those knights.  I'll run this scene again and see what happens.

[John W]

I ran the scene a second time, this time allowing the manticore to go first and giving it advantage.  Same outcome, it was trounced.

The third time, I had the manticore open with a stinger attack, full out (intent +6).  It hit, delivering the Paralyze effect.  ...which the knight then shrugged off by pumping 1 B.

Paralyze, the spell, is more effective than the manticore's sting because the caster can pump B to counter-act the victim's pumping (right?).  But I'm assuming the manticore can't do that.  Perhaps the manticore should deliver a Paralyze effect "as if pumped by 3 B by the caster" or something?  Or maybe the manticore should have the option to pump B on spec when it hits - the equivalent of squeezing its venom bulb.

Also, I think the stinger strike should do normal injury damage (attack - defense + B - armour) on top of the Paralyze effect.  Maybe that's what you intended, but it's not obvious from the manticore's description.

[Ron Edwards]

Gotta get my monsters to be meaner now.