Yay! Rules question (about reversing the blow in multi-way)

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Joshua is the GM (playing Farmer Fub and his hands). Max (playing Mao), Jim (playing Osric), and Becky (playing Aviva) are players.

Osric: I shoot Farmer Fub. (raise 4)

Joshua: He ducks (see in one - with a 6)

Mao: I kick Fub in the nuts (raise 5)

Joshua: He jumps out of the way (see in one with another 6)

Aviva: I club him on the head (raise 3)

Joshua: Oh no you di'int! (see in one with 4)

... so does Joshua get to raise normally the next round, or do the blow-reverses happen immediately, or is Joshua bound to use those two sixes but can't reverse the blow on the last one, or does he get to raise with three dice, or do the blow reverses add to whatever dice he puts out next up to two?

[Bill Cook]

My take on this: Joshua has Reversed the Blow three times. Set aside those three dice. On his Go, if he Raises, he can use these towards his two dice. A Raise can still only be two at most. Assuming he chooses the highest numbers, his Raise will be six, six, and the four is discarded.

Question by question ..

so does Joshua get to raise normally the next round, or do the blow-reverses happen immediately, ..

The effect of Reversing the Blow (i.e. making further use of that one die) only has context within a Raise. So it would be normal and not immediate.

.. or is Joshua bound to use those two sixes but can't reverse the blow on the last one, ..

Joshua can still Reverse the last Blow. And as many more as he has unused dice to See in one.

.. or does he get to raise with three dice, ..

He gets to choose from those three dice (that he's already used to See) to use up to two towards his next Raise.

.. or do the blow reverses add to whatever dice he puts out next up to two?

Blow Reverse dice may add. Total Raise dice may not exceed two.

[lumpley]

Good question, J!

General answer: if you have to see twice (or more) in a row, and you reverse the first blow, keep the die for your next SEE. In your example, Farmer Fub sees the shot with a 6 and keeps it, sees the nut kick with the same 6 and keeps it again, sees the club with the same 6 and keeps it still again, and then spends it for half of his raise too. If Mao's nut kick had been an 8 instead, Fub would have gotten the 6 and only had to spend a 2 to block or dodge. This isn't in the text but it's the rule.

Meanwhile, "he ducks," "he jumps out of the way," and "oh no you di'int" aren't reversals, they're blocks and dodges. When you reverse you need to say how the blow comes back on the blower. Reversing a blow into a see instead of into a raise might go "with all of Osric's shooting going on, you Mao don't even land a nut kick. But you do manage to get right in Aviva's way!"

Make sense?

-Vincent

[Ginger Stampley]

Keeping a Reverse die for the next See is an elegant answer, because it was looking to me like either you needed a riposte/attack of opportunity on the guy whose blow you were Reversing or you were losing dice in such a way that Reversing the Blow never made sense against multiple opponents. The latter made no sense and the former doesn't sound right either.

I hope the rule is going in the updated version.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

General answer: if you have to see twice (or more) in a row, and you reverse the first blow, keep the die for your next SEE.

Excellent. In other words, Reverse the Blow gives you a die toward the immediate next thing you do. Sweet.

This isn't in the text but it's the rule.

That's surely a 2nd ed. clarification.

Meanwhile, "he ducks," "he jumps out of the way," and "oh no you di'int" aren't reversals, they're blocks and dodges. When you reverse you need to say how the blow comes back on the blower. Reversing a blow into a see instead of into a raise might go "with all of Osric's shooting going on, you Mao don't even land a nut kick. But you do manage to get right in Aviva's way!"

Ah, I figured the actual reversal was going to come when I raised. OK, more colorful!

[Jason Morningstar]

This isn't in the text but it's the rule.

Just chiming in to concur - please put some of these explanatory passages, culled from forum questions, into the second edition, or a PDF "tricky situations" document on your site, or something.  I think without some of your replies I would have been pretty lost.

[lumpley]

Yeah.

The problem is, if I include everybody's favorite explanations, the book'll be 400 pages long and far more confusing than it is now.

There are some things I just missed, like this thread's rule; I'm adding them into the revised text. There are a couple of places where I'm changing my explanations. But no way I'm going to try to include a whole forum's worth of personalized advice and discussion.

-Vincent

[Jason Morningstar]

Rock on.  I read that as dismissive and insulting, which can't be right.  

To clarify, assuming we miscommunicated, I am suggesting that there are numerous places where the rules are unclear or open to incorrect interpretation, and where your replies to posts often do a great job of illustrating your intention.  That's all.

[lumpley]

Yep! Not dismissive or insulting. Overwhelmed, more like.

Thanks for reading me generously. I'll do the best I can.

-Vincent