Dodge Ideas

[svenlein]

Jake's partial evade rule

People were suggesting to avoid the pike's high DTN by dodging at a DTN of 7 instead. This is fine, but I would not penalize the attacker with the range difference between his dagger (or whatever) and the defending pikeman. Thus a pikeman can dodge, but he loses the bonus for having a longer weapon in the process, because he's not trying to keep his weapon between himself and his opponent--which is what "parrying" sort-of represents in TROS.

My interpretation of what Jake is saying:
Geralt has an arming sword (medium) and arming glove, Stefan has a longsword (long).
They both throw white for a while.  Geralt then throws red and Stefan white.  Geralt declares a beat so instead of a 1 die penalty he get a ½ die penalty rounded down to wind up being no penalty.  Lets say Geralt succeeds.  Next Geralt slashes at Stephan at a 1 die penalty due to range, Stephan partial evades b/c his longsword is beaten.  Normally only if Geralts attack hits would the new range between the people be medium, but with Jake's idea even if he misses the range next round would be medium.

Did I interpret this right?
I like this rule does this sound good to other people?

Thirsty's partial evade rule

In case the point was missed... dodging with a range advantage is not running backwards... I'd say that clearly wouldn't work. It is shifting position a step or two IMO, while readying the weapon in a threat that deters the advance. the charachters in Wyerth, live and die by thier dueling, and would have war more intimate understanding of the weapons than we do... They will respect an appropriate threat and break off. If a player declares that he will not honor that.(after defensive dice are selected, before the dodge roll).. I'd allow an oportunity attack.... If sucessful the player is hit and probably stopped. Possibly with serious injury. Reroll the # of success from the TN 7 Dodge roll as an ATTACK roll and apply dammage normally. then the charachter can roll his attack after lost dice for shock. ( he loses his attack dice first, and may not add more dice). This is less successful than a counter with a pike and less effective but keeps every successful beat from automatically negating range penaltes. First time i've tried to quantify this.

First off "while readying the weapon in a threat that deters the advance" is what Jake calles a parry "trying to keep his weapon between himself and his opponent--which is what "parrying" sort-of represents in TROS" not a partial evade.

My interpretation of what Thirsty is saying:
Geralt has an arming sword (medium) and arming glove, Stefan has a longsword (long).
They both throw white for a while.  Geralt then throws red and Stefan white.  Geralt declares a beat so instead of a 1 die penalty he get a ½ die penalty rounded down to wind up being no penalty.  Lets say Geralt succeeds.  Next Geralt slashes at Stephan at a 1 die penalty due to range, Stephan partial evades b/c his longsword is beaten.  First Stephan rolls his dodge dice vs 7, then he rolls an unblocked attack vs Geralt with dice equal to the number of successes he got on his dodge roll.  Geralt subtracts shock and pain and then makes his attack.

Did I interpret this right?
I don't like this rule does this sound good to other people?

Jake please tell me if I should take this off list.

Scott

[Thirsty Viking]

My interpretation of what Thirsty is saying:
Geralt has an arming sword (medium) and arming glove, Stefan has a longsword (long).
They both throw white for a while.  Geralt then throws red and Stefan white.  Geralt declares a beat so instead of a 1 die penalty he get a ½ die penalty rounded down to wind up being no penalty.  Lets say Geralt succeeds.  Next Geralt slashes at Stephan at a 1 die penalty due to range, Stephan partial evades b/c his longsword is beaten.  First Stephan rolls his dodge dice vs 7, then he rolls an unblocked attack vs Geralt with dice equal to the number of successes he got on his dodge roll.  Geralt subtracts shock and pain and then makes his attack.

Did I interpret this right?
I don't like this rule does this sound good to other people?

Jake please tell me if I should take this off list.

Scott

Ok you didn't get what I was attempting to say.  Perhaps i was unclear,  Let me try to be clearer to avoid confusssion.

Parry: uses your weapong to deflect your opponents attack just enough that with minor movement on your part it misses.  

Block uses your weapon/shield to stop the blow of the weapon.  

Counter is a counter-ATTACK used from the defense.  If you succeed you get the The Success LVL of your opponents attack in free successes on your attack for the next exchange(You also get initiative)    

Patrtial Evasion  when you don't have a range advantage is pretty much dodging for all your worth..  as Jake has posted

Partial Evasion when you have the range advantage IMO is retreating enough and threatening with your weapon so that the opponent  gives up or alters thier attack.  This maintains the Range advantage if successful (the oponent abandoned the attack).  But gives no attack in normal situations...  The attacker seeing the threat changes his actions.

I gave the ATTACKER the Right to DECLARE RECKLESS ATTACK and thus Ignore this stategy - not the defender!  The ATTACKER makes his DECLARATION AFTER he sees how many dice the defender is rolling but before the defender roles,  if he does,  then the defender roles his Dodge dice.   He picks up any success  and he gets to roll those in an ATTACK vs DTN of his weapon - on the person charging in with utter disreguard to life and limb (before he gets attacked).   Note  if the weapon was beaten...  then the Defender doesn't have too many dice around...  Each beat success margin reduces CP by 2 in addition to dice spent trying to keep the weapon from being beaten.  If the attacker just allows the dice to be rolled normally he will usually have the advantage, close the distance and hit (assuming ~ Equal Starting CP and small range advantage and typical rolls.)

The idea that a BEAT always Negates all Range advantage if successful is disliked very much by me.   This is what happens when Dodge is Ruled to lose range bonus.

I agree with the weapon being out of position for blocks and parry's and normal counters.  But it isn't entirely gone,  I feel it can still threaten swing attacks (made clumsy by the loss of CP from the Beat),  but not the precise ones needed in normal defense.  What I proposed is in reality an option for the attacker that explained my position on this.  Even if the defenders CP is reduced to 0 by the beat,  I'd still assess the CP cost to close the range.

I NEVER Suggested that taking these blows was a good idea.  These are the types of tactics used by bersekers that all but ensure their accumulating wounds that result in thier death when thier rage departs them.    

By rolling the oportunity attack against the DTN  this better represents the effectivness of attacks off of partial evades  against reckless charges.  It allso shows why a short staff kicks butt.  When you beat it,  it snaps back pretty easy maintaining the range before the attacker can close, you just have to step back a few feet readying your weapon.


I hope this makes it clear, and in retrospect is seen to expand upon but be in agreement with what I was atempting to say before.

[svenlein]

Here's a narrative and how I think Thirsty would interpret it and how I would interpret it.

A Roman Legionary is fighting with a Short Sword and Shield, he is fighting a Macedonian with a pike, both have been split off from there compatriots during a recent rout, neither is sure which army is routing, but they decided to fight each other because they both received visions in there dreams the previous night that they where destined to fight the other man and that if they ran they would be forever cursed.  The Macedonian is very cautious, the Roman who is a rash strikes the Macedonians pike as it comes close to him and tries to rush the Mace.  The Mace steps back and returns his pike back into a position to menace the Legionary, but the Roman charges anyway and the Macedonian skewers him.  Then the Macedonian turns around just in time to be trampled by an elephant.

Thirsty's example of play:
Roman beats pike
Macedonian declares a 7 die dodge, Roman continues attack, Macedonian rolls dice and gets some successes and stabs Roman in the face because the Roman gets no defense.
(I just realized Thirsty's rule makes longer weapons even better than they where before, so not only does the pike have a 5 die advantage over the short sword, but he also gets to use dodges to kill the short sword user, I think with Jake's new dodge rule length advantages are more correctly modeled)

My example of play:
Roman rolls red, mace white
Roman beats pike
Macedonian Full Evades and succeeds
Roman rolls red, mace white
Roman attacks and fails (b/c the 5 die advantage of the pike)
Macedonian attacks and kills Roman
Macedonian fails Terrain roll vs elephant.

Silver only said when both weapons are not optimal lengths the one closest to short staff length has the advantage (not will win every time, like a walk in the park)

Scott

[Brian Leybourne]

Macedonian fails Terrain roll vs elephant.
Scott

Nah, the Elephant was just using the Stampede attack maneuver from Of Beasts and Men, and the macedonian hadn't saved any dice to evade with... ;-)

Brian.

[Thirsty Viking]

I can't tell if you are diliberately mistating what I posted or you are just that confused.   I had thought from previous postings of yours that you'd be avble to understand what i was saying...  here is the combat example exactly as i explained the rule to you since you were unable or unwilling to follow it.  And distorted your distorted version yet again.

pike man 13 dice vs swordsman 13 dice
e activation cost)
Both throw red,  
pike uses 7 dice rolls bad 2 success.
Sword rolls 4 dice (pays 2 dice activation cost) gets three success and i as Senchal declare this a contested roll where the swords man doesn't get hit, and has a 1 success Beat.  Pike loses 2 dice  and now has 4 left,  the swordsman has 7.   I've not see this addressed here are two

Code Select Expand


Other first round optional rulings that seem relatively fair:
option 1 -  I have the pike hit first and then be beat aside after hitting swordsman.  wounded swordaman has next round as normal
option 2 -  I have the beat go first,  but take effect this round and the pike is ready next exchange normally and still has inititive.  In effect the beat is converted to a parry.

Exchange 2 round 1,  the swordsman has 7/13  dice and the pike has 4/13.  The swordsman has initiative because of successful beat.   The pike man is prohibited from throwing red without dropping the pike, and is prohibited from Full Evasion, because he alttacked in the previous exchange.  His only option keeping the pike is to Partial evade.

Swordsamn uses 2 dice for his attack paying 5 in closing cost.  The pike man uses all 4 dice in partial evasion stepping back once or twice and recovering his weapon as a threat.    

As written in the book  both roll.   Swordsman gets 1 success typically and the Pikeman gets 2 typically but lets say only one,  The swordsman seing the threat aborts his attack, range is maintained.  CP refresh, new round,  no beats, no wounds on either.  
If however Luck continues to desert the pike man and he gets 1 success but the swordsman gets 2.  The swordsman seing a threat, alters his line of attack to avaiod it and gets one success margin.  This is how I see the system.

Jakes RULE acording to you... )IMO it was only a thought he was mulling because of what was being said here about DTN>7 and he never responded to questions about it.  So I consider it less than settled in his mind. ) looks like this

Exchange 2:  pike throws 4 dice dodge(as established his only option).   Because he dodged (having no choice)  there is no closing cost and the swordsman attacks with 7 dice!  Talk about making something more powerful than it was as written in the rule book.  I think Jake was discussing a first thought here...  and he has stayed silent on it since...  I think he is considering it more.

I said the Swordsman may choose a FOOLISH CHARGE before dice are rolled.  He is ignoring everything in an effort to reach the pike man. If he does this  then the pike man rerolls his 2 partial evasion success dice (20% of time he'll have only 1) VERSUS TN 9 (DTN of a pike).  
Assuming 2 success

Code Select Expand


36% of time (with 2 dice) he gets 1 success,  for a level 3 wound assuming equal ST and TO+armor.  As senechal I'd declare this a swung blunt attack given the situation,  and the Swordsman loses sufficient shock that he can't attack, pike man maintains range advantage recovering sufficient room to propperly wield his pike.  
64% the swordsman gets to the PIKE without damage and hits with one success wounds are resolved appropriately.  Next round range is closed, Dice refresh, and swordsman has initiative. and pikeman has been wounded

Perhaps a little more care in your reading will prevent repeated misinterpretations in the future.  If somehow my previous post was still vague without the minutely analyzed sample combat,  I hope i have now made clear what I was trying to explain.

[svenlein]

I can't tell if you are diliberately mistating what I posted or you are just that confused.   I had thought from previous postings of yours that you'd be avble to understand what i was saying...  here is the combat example exactly as i explained the rule to you since you were unable or unwilling to follow it.  And distorted your distorted version yet again.

I didn't try to distort your words and subvert your meaning in an attempt to discredit you.

pike man 13 dice vs swordsman 13 dice activation cost)
Both throw red,  
pike uses 7 dice rolls bad 2 success.
Sword rolls 4 dice (pays 2 dice activation cost) gets three success and i as Senchal declare this a contested roll where the swords man doesn't get hit, and has a 1 success Beat.  Pike loses 2 dice  and now has 4 left,  the swordsman has 7.   I've not see this addressed here are two
Other first round optional rulings that seem relatively fair:
option 1 -  I have the pike hit first and then be beat aside after hitting swordsman.  wounded swordaman has next round as normal
option 2 -  I have the beat go first,  but take effect this round and the pike is ready next exchange normally and still has inititive.  In effect the beat is converted to a parry.

I hadn't thought about Red – Red exchanges, I was mostly thinking about Red-White exchanges.
I would have had them do a Reflex/ATN check to see which happens first.
If the Pike went first, I'd have him roll then do damage if he hit, then I'm not sure if I would remove shock and pain from the Beat's dice or from the unassigned Combat pool, off the top of my head I'd take from the Beat.  Then I would let the Beat happen.
If the Beat went first, I have him roll and if he succeeds I'd first take the dice from the Thrust's dice, then if they ran out I'd then take from the Pike man's unassigned CP.  If the Thrust had dice left I'd then let him attack with those dice undefended, and he would still be able to use his pike next round as if he hadn't been Beat.  If the Thrust had lost all it's dice it would be like a normal Beat had just happened to the Thrust.
If they tied I have them both roll the dice they wagered and who's ever roll was higher I would let them do there action with Successes equal to the margin of success, the other ones action would not happen.

Exchange 2 round 1,  the swordsman has 7/13  dice and the pike has 4/13.  The swordsman has initiative because of successful beat.

Why would they be rolling initiative?  If swordsman has initiative he should declare his action, then pike can declare a defense.

Swordsamn uses 2 dice for his attack paying 5 in closing cost.  The pike man uses all 4 dice in partial evasion stepping back once or twice and recovering his weapon as a threat.    

One idea I had was if the partial evasion's margin of success was 1-2 then he would lose his range advantage, if it was 3+ he would keep his range advantage.

Jakes RULE acording to you... )IMO it was only a thought he was mulling because of what was being said here about DTN>7 and he never responded to questions about it.  So I consider it less than settled in his mind.
...
I think Jake was discussing a first thought here...  and he has stayed silent on it since...  I think he is considering it more.

Jake is Thirsty right about your thoughts on partial evasion?

Exchange 2:  pike throws 4 dice dodge(as established his only option).   Because he dodged (having no choice)  there is no closing cost and the swordsman attacks with 7 dice!

I wasn't clear in my example:

Geralt has an arming sword (medium) and arming glove, Stefan has a longsword (long).
They both throw white for a while. Geralt then throws red and Stefan white. Geralt declares a beat so instead of a 1 die penalty he get a ½ die penalty rounded down to wind up being no penalty. Lets say Geralt succeeds. Next Geralt slashes at Stephan at a 1 die penalty due to range, Stephan partial evades b/c his longsword is beaten. Normally only if Geralts attack hits would the new range between the people be medium, but with Jake's idea even if he misses the range next round would be medium.

Specifically when I say "Next Geralt slashes at Stephan at a 1 die penalty due to range, Stephan partial evades b/c his longsword is beaten."  I meant to imply that during the partial evasion the attacker still has to pay range penalty, only following the partial evasion are the range penalties lost.  I'm sorry for not being more clear.

I said the Swordsman may choose a FOOLISH CHARGE before dice are rolled.  He is ignoring everything in an effort to reach the pike man. If he does this  then the pike man rerolls his 2 partial evasion success dice (20% of time he'll have only 1) VERSUS TN 9 (DTN of a pike).  
Assuming 2 success 36% of time (with 2 dice) he gets 1 success,  for a level 3 wound assuming equal ST and TO+armor.  As senechal I'd declare this a swung blunt attack given the situation,  and the Swordsman loses sufficient shock that he can't attack, pike man maintains range advantage recovering sufficient room to propperly wield his pike.  
64% the swordsman gets to the PIKE without damage and hits with one success wounds are resolved appropriately.  Next round range is closed, Dice refresh, and swordsman has initiative. and pikeman has been wounded

I should have been more detailed in my sample combat, does this correctly represent how you would rule the combat:

Rome (15 cp, length 2) throws Red, Mace (15 cp, length 6) throws White.
Rome declares Beat pays 2 ((6-2)/2) activation for range plus 6 dice.  Mace does a parry using 6 dice.  Lets say Rome got 4 successes and Mace got 3.  Rome now has 7 (15-2-6) CP Mace has 7 (15-6-2).  Rome declares Thrust to chest he pays 4 for range and puts 3 into the attack, Mace partial evades with 7 dice.  Rome can decide to continue attack or stop, he decides to charge in.  Mace rolls 7 dice, gets 4 successes (towards evasion), then rolls 4 dice to attack Mace in the chest rolls 3 success and hits Rome in the chest

Did I interpret you right?

Perhaps a little more care in your reading will prevent repeated misinterpretations in the future.  If somehow my previous post was still vague without the minutely analyzed sample combat,  I hope i have now made clear what I was trying to explain.

Sorry again for not understanding you.

Scott

[Jake Norwood]

Yeah...um...I'm mulling over it.

Its funny, but (maybe because I made it up) I really do have a feel for what's arbitrary in TROS, and so I make up rules whenever I want because--hey--they're official.

Jake

[Thirsty Viking]

Rome (15 cp, length 2) throws Red, Mace (15 cp, length 6) throws White.
Rome declares Beat pays 2 ((6-2)/2) activation for range plus 6 dice.  Mace does a parry using 6 dice.  Lets say Rome got 4 successes and Mace got 3.  Rome now has 7 (15-2-6) CP Mace has 7 (15-6-2).  Rome declares Thrust to chest he pays 4 for range and puts 3 into the attack, Mace partial evades with 7 dice.  Rome can decide to continue attack or stop, he decides to charge in.  Mace rolls 7 dice, gets 4 successes (towards evasion), then rolls 4 dice to attack Mace in the chest rolls 3 success and hits Rome in the chest

Did I interpret you right?

Essentially yes,   but Rome Has to declare before the Dice are rolled....   As i said  it is a FOOLISH tactic. But then again,  A Pike throwing White Die in single combat is a Stupid Tactic. in one on one battle when pike has range IMO,    also  rolling 3 success on 6 dice with a TN 9  is very unlikely (but possible)  most likely is 1 success,  1 success leaves Mace with only 3 dice.     Also  since the pike was  beat out of position I had said that it would be a Swung blunt blow.  Not a chest thrust.  My intent was never to create a house rule for this...    just to show how i felt throwing away Range was a bad Idea.   It works with all examples...  but is displayed more with the greator disparity.   If i am beating a pike(or any other weapon that has a Range advantage over me),  I'd leave myself only 2 dice to attack with after i close the range.  The dice are better spent on the Beat IMO.  Particularly on the Pike where the current printed rules make it so easy to beat.

As to Jakes Thought  I took it to mean that there was no closing cost on the current round...   not that range will be successfully closed by paying the closing cost...     that is better, i guess.

As for initiative when there is a range increment of more than 2 lets say for example...   it seems to me that there should be some initiative advantage.  Also I don't like the idea of a Beat Nullifying 2 exchanges worth of actions from the beaten weapon.  This is what happens if you allow beat to go first, destroy the attack and make the weapon unusable for the next exchange.  this is why i chose to treat beat versus attack as a parry.  Also why i have the players assign thier movements with Cards face down on table before the toss the die.  I took the hesitation rule to be an attempt to prevent people throwing after they had seen what the other player was throwing.

If you seek to create a world where longer range weapons die more often to shorter range weapons...   than the BEAT charge becomes king, and unarmored daggerwielders will kill Platmailed dopplehanders almost every time.   Why because they easily close the distance and the fewer CP dopple hander(because of the plate) has to drop weapon and wrestle or box the dagger wielder or be  at an even greator disadvantage. We have already made heavy armor such a disadvantage that few of my players wish to wear it.    Uber powering the beat  will just make it more so.  This assumes equal skill, of course.


Under this new interpretation of Jakes Comment :    short weapon successfully beats long wepon exchange 1,  Short weapon attacks with
closing cost and initiative on exchange 2,  but misses (however range is closed anyway because long weapon partial evaded).
Rd2 EX1   CP REFRESH Short weapon declares Attack with CP -1 dice

Pike on defence...  throw white die
ignore beat...   a Waste of to try to parry it if it is decently strong beat attempt. loses 8 cp to the Beat (4 success)
Full evades and restores range  Most likely repeated untill another person arrives,  or fatigue kicks in. or pike is somehow manuvered into a corner...   at which time he throws CP-1 dice in a desperate attack.  
This rediculous strategy seems totally valid under the rules (unless i missed something).  But then as seneshcal I might require the pike to be dropped for full evade....



As for a reflex/ATN  test that is a thought...   I'd probably modify the TN of the short weapon by +1 for each 2 points of range disadvantage.  That would make dagger a TN 9 i against most pole arms, tn 8 against swords longer than short..  I'll have to play with this.  see how these numbers work out.  I suspect i like it better than assigning the dice closing cost to his reflex pool for this roll.  Just seems like this same advantage should show up in initiative for simultaneous attacks.  Assigning 5 dice cost to reflex would be too strong IMO.