Possible solution to Brian's SimB/S issue

[Harlequin]

This comes from a slightly stale thread, so I'll reopen rather than continuing...

Brian raised a point about the simultaneous block/strike, and indeed IMO about all use of attacks in place of defenses, which never did get properly addressed in his thread (it got distracted by other issues and left hanging).

The trigger situation is pretty straightforward.  It's the first Exchange of any round, and the aggressor launches a smallish attack, wishing to save the bulk of his dice for a probable need to defend.  Perfectly reasonable strategy from an overall-defensive style.

The defender answers not with a defense, but with the simultaneous block/strike maneuver.  Enough dice for a solid defense, plus an attack the aggressor - even if he, too, has a shield and access to SimB/S - can do nothing whatsoever about.  Either a small attack (minimum of 1/2 the defense, so maybe 2-3 dice), or a huge one (up to twice the dice of his defense), either is trouble.  

The problem is that the aggressor is given no opportunity to see this attack coming and respond, even though he in theory has the upper hand and control of the tempo.  The defender's strike will land second, but it will (barring a totally failed roll) land, and we all know how important the first hit is to a fight.  If he went for "all but empty my pool" then it's almost certain to end it.  And this situation can trigger anytime you make a probing attack vs. a shield.  Period.  (Feinting goes a very limited way toward fixing this, but the return is very poor.)

Compare this to, for example, blocking with the same number of dice as in this problem situation, and then striking on the next exchange with the same number of dice that would have gone into the strike portion of the SimB/S.  Your opponent launched a small attack, meaning that if you're even close to evenly matched, he's got plenty of capacity left to defend with, rather than absolutely none (despite that mostly-full pool).

IMO the problem is similar with the use of any attack in place of defense.  The aggressor ought to have control of the tempo, but for little cost, the defender can completely flat-foot him.  Your opponent throws a Toss, a Stop Short, anything that doesn't actually threaten to damage you?  Empty your pool, use that option to hit "hard" (1 die lost for +1 dmg), and gut him like a fish.  Even if we take the dice from his maneuver away from your strike (common house rule), you still end up with a smaller but probably still viable attack, against which he has no defense whatsoever.

Unless I missed a thread, Brian never did get a satisfactory answer.

However, in reading through that section trying to figure out why Jake didn't think this was broken, I hit upon one possible interpretation of what's written which, while it contradicts stuff written elsewhere and hasn't been raised here, might do the trick.

Remove the (apparent) option to respond to an already-declared attack, with an attack of your own.  Note the words already-declared.  If you want to become an aggressor instead of a defender, even though you've lost the initiative, you say so at the very beginning of the exchange, before the owner of the initiative says anything at all.  Then you declare your offensive maneuver and commitment first, after which he responds with an attack of his own (which will still land before yours) or, if he chooses, a defense.  In essence, you're creating a red-red, where the Reflex roll has already been made - and you lost - and you were considered to have a lower Reflex to boot.  

If you wait until after he has declared his attack, then you're relegated to the ranks of the nonaggressors... you may defend or do nothing, but not attack, because aggressors (esp. ones who have "lower Reflex") don't get to declare after seeing the faster guy's move.

It's pretty consistent and, I think, relegates the "respond with an attack" trick to the status it deserves - possible, but risky - instead of making it the universal solvent.  And it means that it's the owner of the initiative, not the loser of it, who can go "Hmm, okay, no defense, then I'll hit you hard enough that you just won't get up again," and makes it less than purely fatal to use probing attacks and tosses.

Comments?

- Eric

[Mike Holmes]

I no expert on combat, but it seems to me that I'm missing part of the analysis here. If I do an attack against your attack, aren't I likely to have already been wounded when mine lands? In which case, I'm likely to not have the dice I'd like to do anything to my opponent?

Sure, if I make a probing attack that's unlikely to do damage, then I leave myself open to this. So, I'd say that tactically this means that one shouldn't make such attacks if one wants to stay alive. Put another way, if I attack fairly large, is the problem still there? And, yes, then the opponent can counter or something, but isn't that the advantage of defending first against someone dropping red? Hence why you often need to taunt to get people to attack?

Basically, nothing I've heard so far sounds unrealisitc. But, again, I may be missing the problem entirely.

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

If I do an attack against your attack, aren't I likely to have already been wounded when mine lands?

Not with the Simo Block/Strike maneuver. You relegate most of the dice you're using to the block, and less to attack. Chances are, you'll successfully block, or at least reduce the attacker's MoS to a level where it's less damaging, then your attack is entirely undefended.

However, you do risk a feint, or a lousy defense roll/maximal attack roll or what have you, so the risk is still there.. But overall, the simo block/strike is a considerable option to probing attacks.

But is this unrealistic? Not really. You don't probe a shieldman. You push him so hard that he can't do anything but defend, and you kill him as soon as you're able.

[Mike Holmes]

But is this unrealistic? Not really. You don't probe a shieldman. You push him so hard that he can't do anything but defend, and you kill him as soon as you're able.

That was my point when I mentioned the probing attack as well.

There are bad tactics in TROS, and this would be one of them. It's not designed to make all options equal, but rather so that you have to think your way through combat to stay alive. It's rather unique that way, actually. To "fix" this sort of "problem" would be to eliminate the tactics from play.

Mike

[Edge]

K this is my understanding of the Sim B/S.
It is an offensive maneovre so is only useful if you both throw red?
Would you still need to roll reflexes? i imagine you would so that you still need to win so that your opponent declares first.
Can he defend against it at all? the text says your opponents defence if any

This maneovre in my opinion is one of the benefits of fighting with a shield.
If you fight 2 handed you get half-swording, cut and thrust you get 2 weapons, rapiers...well you get rapiers coz they are so cool :)

and so sword and shield as sim block strike.

[Jake Norwood]

K this is my understanding of the Sim B/S.
It is an offensive maneovre so is only useful if you both throw red?

Or any time you're the agressor.

Would you still need to roll reflexes? i imagine you would so that you still need to win so that your opponent declares first.

In a red/red situation, yeah. In the middle of a fight, no, you just automatically go second. Brian's sim is very good at showing this tactic.

Can he defend against it at all? the text says your opponents defence if any

He = the guy not b/s-ing? Nope. It's vicious.

This maneovre in my opinion is one of the benefits of fighting with a shield.

And usually forgotten when people whine about how shields aren't that good in TROS...

If you fight 2 handed you get half-swording, cut and thrust you get 2 weapons, rapiers...well you get rapiers coz they are so cool :)

Yup. You're gettin' it.

Jake

[Harlequin]

The basic problem as I see it is that a small, probing, conservative attack should not leave you open the way it does.  The whole point of the fairly conservative 'probing' attack is to not open yourself up particularly, just get a feel for how he'll defend himself preparatory to further strikes (or to try and draw him off-balance with the threat of a feint).

I don't see why this would not be true against a shield just as much as against anything else.  In fact, trying to make him move that shield around a lot is a perfectly valid tactic.

So I don't see why the decision to save a lot of dice for defense ends up leaving you defenseless against this relatively straightforward tactic.

(And none of the above addresses the issue that Toss, Stop Short, et al end up being invitations to slaughter if used first exchange, without even bothering to use SimB/S on the other side - just a big enough offense to take the dice loss, because ignoring a Toss usually costs the toss-er more than twice as many dice as the toss-ee.  Same basic problem: the defender gets to declare second even if he chooses to be aggressive, which is a much bigger advantage than striking first in many cases.)

IMO, it needs a fix.  Probing attacks, and non-damaging attacks, should not equal suicide.

- Eric

[Edge]

K this is my understanding of the Sim B/S.
It is an offensive maneovre so is only useful if you both throw red?

Or any time you're the agressor.

Jake

K i think i might be missing something here.  How can you block/strike unless the opponent is also attacking?

[Brian Leybourne]

K i think i might be missing something here.  How can you block/strike unless the opponent is also attacking?

A attacks B
B says "Bugger defending, I declare an attack instead"
B declares Sim B/S as his attack

B's attack comes AFTER A's attack, but the difference is that B gets his defense against A's attack, while A has no defense.

For the record, my original query was from a really old thread, and I since learned better. Once you try it out in play, you'll find (as mentioned above) that it's a feature, not a flaw. The answer is that shields are a big advantage (because of maneuvers like this, and Bind/Strike also) and you need to keep that in mind while fighting a shield user.

Brian.

[Ben Lehman]

The basic problem as I see it is that a small, probing, conservative attack should not leave you open the way it does.  The whole point of the fairly conservative 'probing' attack is to not open yourself up particularly, just get a feel for how he'll defend himself preparatory to further strikes (or to try and draw him off-balance with the threat of a feint).

BL>  See, in all practice fighting I've done with a shield, the most effective tactic I've found is to wait for someone to make a "conservative" attack, smash my shield into his sword and pound the beejesuz out of him.

Doesn't work on a guy with two swords, natch.

A conservative attack, against a shield fighter, is either a feint, a smash, or a committing swing to the head, feet, or shoulder.

yrs--
--Ben

[Richard_Strey]

I'm with Brian on this one, due to real-life training experience. If I have a shield (even if it's "only" a buckler), the best thing you can do is a probing attack. Why? Because in that instant I know
a) where your weapon is (location, vector, kinetic energy) in that instant
and
b) that your attack is not going to breach my defense.
Thus, as Ben said, I am able to control your weapon and focus all I have on hitting. If you had been doing a more comitted attack, I'd have to spend more of my "ressources" defending. On the other hand, if I don't take care of your weapon properly, you can always feint, i.e. change the angle of attack, avoid my defense and nail me. It really is all there in the rules.

[Harlequin]

Fair enough.  I'm a swishy-poke (rapier & dagger) man, my sword 'n board training is nonexistent, so I'll happily yield on this one.  

My experience in rapier work is that a targe doesn't change things much over either a hat or a main gauche, defensively, but that's a pretty tiny shield and is definitely an extreme of the spectrum, so no big deal.  (One could even consider it covered in the system - Rapier lets you use a whatever in your off hand, but doesn't include SimB/S.  Tidy.)

I yield the floor, to those with more practical experience.

- Eric

[Harlequin]

Though as one last note: "Doesn't work on a guy with two swords, natch."

Does in the system as it stands.  Also works 100% effective on a guy with a shield as well.  Still bugs me, but not worth fixing at this point, I think.

- Eric

[Valamir]

Personally, I also have a big problem with the idea that the simo attack leaves the original attacker absolutely defenseless.

I'm absolutely certain that the simo block/strike should be a highly effective tactic, but as it exists leaving the attacker defenseless is not the best way to model this.

The situation goes way beyond the effectiveness of a shield

The ability of the defender to declare an attack instead of a defense is not just occasionally useful.  Nor is it a "fool hardy maneuver" as the game text suggests.  It is an overwhelmingly powerful, useful thing to do that completely ruins the balance between attacker and defender tactics and invalidates a whole range of attacker actions that should be useful.

Consider:

Attacker Binds
Attacker Tosses
Attacker Beats
Attacker does ANYTHING at all that doesn't translate to an immediate loss of MAJOR dice (i.e. defenders entire pool all at once)

...and the absolute, without a doubt, beyond compare BEST defense is to say "screw defense, I'm attacking".

This is just fundamentally wrong.

The only way for an attacker to protect himself against this is for every single attack the attacker makes to be full bore 100% hyper aggressive.

Sure, the best defense is a good offense.  And yes, I understand that the attacker must be aggressive and not wishy washy.  But I have to believe that to make it impossible for the attacker to do anything else except throw the majority of his dice into each and every attack is fundamentally wrong in a "model reality" sense.

But regardless of that, its fundamentally wrong from a game sense because it destroys 80% of the tactics of dice allocation in the game.


I am aware that ripostes and counters and taking advantage of the attacker's mistakes for an immediate and brutal response *IS* in fact, the way combat actually works.

But my point is...that is what is *already modeled* by the ability of the defender to win initiative because the attack wasn't successful, and begin attacking himself.  If the attacker isn't aggressive enough in his attack, the defender will be able to defend with few dice, win initiative and then attack with plenty of dice on his own.  The attacker is already being penalized for being wishy washy...but in a way that is interesting, entertaining, and plays to the strengths of the CP and exchange system.

For more aggressive counters, we have the counter maneuver.


To also allow the defender to just forgo defense and attack (with virtual immunity in too many cases) I think breaks the whole system.  The fun of working out how many dice to defend with in order to win initiative and have enough left to attack effectively, is ruined.


There are a couple of easy fixes to this, that IMO don't change the fact that simo block strike is and should be an effective maneuver, and don't render the "attack instead of defending" choice to be completely useless...but does put that choice back to being usually a "fool hardy maneuver" the way the text suggests it should be.

1) is Eric's idea of making the defender declare the attack before dice are declared.  I think this is really easy to implement, and highly effective, although it likely goes too far in making the "attack instead of defending" choice not just fool hardy but completely suicidal.

2) is allowing the attacker to abort his attack to a full evade (or perhaps partial evade would be more reasonable).  This to me seems entirely reasonable from a non practitioners perspective...I view it as being an "oh shit" moment where the attacker is just suddenly forced to scramble for his life.  Dice spent on attack are gone, but new dice from the CP can be used for an emergency dodge...a real practioner would have to judge how possible such a scramble actually is in practice.

3) is potentially my favorite (and could actually be combined with 2 also).  The TN of any attack against a non defending target automatically becomes 2 (or perhaps 4).  If the defender is doing NOTHING to prevent the attacker from landing a blow (i.e. spending no dice on parry, block, or evade) then the defender should be a sitting duck and have to eat the attackers attack full on.  What this means is that the number of occassions where the defender can simply ignore the attack without repurcussion is diminished...because the repurcussion is alot more attacker successes in that first attacker roll.  

This has the additional benefit of addressing another issue that I've found...the helpless opponent who just won't go down.  His CP has been reduced to 0 repeatedly from shock and pain, but the attacker just can't do enough damage to actually put him away.  This rule would seriously up the number of successes the attacker could expect against a helpless opponent and allow for a much more effective finishing move.

I probably wouldn't allow this TN adjustment in a buy Initiative situation, because that would make the buy Initiative option too effective.

[Mike Holmes]

You make a good argument, Ralph, but I'm still not sure that I agree.

First, yes, if you throw a really small Bind or something, that's going to get you into trouble. These things really do have to be done with some force behind them to work. Basically, don't tempt your opponent into not defending against your Beat or whatever. If you put enough dice into it, the player may have some dice left, but not neccessarily enough to do you in. And that may use up all his remaining dice to do so...

Player A (CP10) Beats, for 5 dice, and the Player B decides not to defend, but attack. Player A gets 6 dice knocked off the Player A's pool. He attacks with the remaining 4 against no defense. He'd better injure the opponent with this, because if he doesn't, he's facing 5 dice unopposed in the Player A's next attack. If Player A rolls better, he does eliminate player B's whole pool, and then B was very foolish not to defend against the beat. If I throw 7 dice into the beat, that can't be ignored, and I still have three dice for the following attack.

I think that the tactical options are still pretty sound even with the attacking back option. OTOH, I'm doing this analysis without a book, so maybe I've messed up in some assumption somehow.

But, yes, any attack that doesn't threaten to reduce the opponent to zero if it's not defended against is probably ill advised. But I think that only mandates half the pool or so.

What this does is open up the feint option. Because the player defending has to worry about whether any "probing attack," that is one less than half dice or so, is worth worrying about or not. I mean, in the example above, if I only throw two, and you decide not to defend, can't I then get in a hit potentially with 7 dice by feinting against no defense?

Note that this is all with relatively low dice pools. With 15 CP, your options increase (a matter of proportion of CP being larger with respect to armor and TO) - which seems sensible.

I've probably messed this up somewhere (no book with me), but I'm still seeing a range of viable options.

Mike