Manuevers questions

[Mokkurkalfe]

Opinion:
I think the activation cost of the feint should depend on the opponents profency level.

Suggestion:
If the attacker uses a beat, then the defender has to roll over TN 5+attackers margin of success with a Reflex roll, or he will be penalized in some way. He could lose half or all his CP, it could work like a botch or perhaps he will be disarmed.

Yet another suggestion:
The attacker cuts at zone IV with 10(out of 13 dice). The defender is now forced to assign a lot of dice to defend. However, the attacker declares a stop-short, as you do with a feint. If he then succeds with an Attackers WP vs. Defenders Reflex contest, he only uses up half the dice he assigned to the attack(5 out of 10 in this case). The defender loses a lot of dice and cannot gain initiative, as he is thrown of guard. Note that no exchange actually take place. Both opponents just throw away some dice.

If the attacker fails the contest however, he uses all the dice he declared, and the defender can now gain initiative.
If the defender wins the exchange, he gains initiative.
If the attacker wins the exchange, he keeps initiative, but does no harm since he stopped in mid-attack.

This makes the stop-short the opposite of the feint. Instead of using a few dice to lure the opponent into a trap, one forces the opponent to use a lot of dice to defend.

This just came out of my head and will probably need heavy modification, so I'm open to suggestions.

[Jaif]

Mokkurkalfe,

I really liked your idea about the attacker keeping some dice if he succeeds.  Actually, though, I think it's very appropriate for a beat, and works much better than the half-assed stuff I wrote down just before.

So beats work the same as in the book, but not only does the defender lose a die for each die of success, but the attacker keeps one as well. Beats may need a die or two cost to activate for balance, but that wouldn't be hard.

-Jeff

[ScarletJester]

Quick thing on feints: Can you declare an attack, thinking only to do a cut or whatever, and after seeing that your opponent only defends with a small amount, suddenly think "hmm...maybe I'll do a feint...", so declare "ya, I'm feinting...20 dice to the noggin"?

On the other hand, could you declare an attack expecting to do a feint, but after seeing your opponent dump a huge amount of defence into it think "hmm...lets not actually declare a feint...tis a silly idea...", and keep quiet and get parried?

On beats, they'd be brilliant if the system included details on defending areas (doesn't have to be specific, can be general like "defending high" or "defending low"). You would use your weapon to defend vital areas, using armour to naturally defend other bits. The whole point of a beat could then be to knock your opponents sword away from the vital areas its defending, so that your next attack can strike at them unopposed. I always thought that the point of a beat was to put the opponent's weapon in a location that he doesn't want. I don't think I'd want that extra level of detail in the system though.
However, as the system stands right now shields give massive passive armour bonuses to great locations (including my favourite target: belly). Even a passive buckler gives +4 armour bonus. Can you use a beat to knock a buckler away so that he no longer gets the armour to that location for your next strike? If he defends against the beat you force him to use dice, if he doesn't then you keep initiative for a follow up attack for which he isn't getting the armour bonus where he wants it. If you can do that, I'd beat his shield away, follow up with a stab to the belly, then go evasive till he bleeds to death.

BTW, where does it tell you which locations the different shield types give their armour bonus too? On page 85 it mentions areas III, XI, and IV, but I assumed that was just for bucklers. The same question really goes for all armour types too. I know somebody mentioned that they couldn't give a straight answer in the book because it depends on the timezone (I think they gave the example of plate mail defending the neck or not depending on the era), but some of us really haven't got a clue and need a couple of hints.

Ta :).

[Mokkurkalfe]

Your talking about shields reminded me of a question I have.

The book says that shields protect area III, IV, XI and maybe more as a passive instrument. When you say passive instrument, does that include small movements of the shield, like raising it just a little?

Is a "heater" shield really harder to penetrate than a round shield?

Regarding the feint, no one can prove you didn't plan that feint all along, so I let my players(and myself) declare feints on the fly.

I think the defending thing could be an optional rule, giving you bonuses to protect that area. It would be very useful with shields if you could defend your sword-hand side, while the shield took care of the of-hand side.
One just declares: I defend my right(or legs, head or whatnot) side, thus gaining +2 CP dice, while getting an activation cost of two dice should the left side be attacked(Guess what other rule I based this upon!)

[contracycle]

On beats, they'd be brilliant if the system included details on defending areas (doesn't have to be specific, can be general like "defending high" or "defending low"). You would use your weapon to defend vital areas, using armour to naturally defend other bits. The whole point of a beat
could then be to knock your opponents sword away from the vital areas its defending, so that your next attack can strike at them unopposed. I

You don;t necessarily need a rule that covers where you are defending, you just need a rule that says you knock the wepon out of the way.  This might make a beat a bit like a counter in the success garners dice for a follow up blow.

Incidentally, this raises a question - does the system cover combinations of blows like a beat-strike or something that you could drill for, and more or less execute as one manouver?

[Jake Norwood]

Incidentally, this raises a question - does the system cover combinations of blows like a beat-strike or something that you could drill for, and more or less execute as one manouver?

No, but the system does work exceptionally well when you use such combos...it was built for it. The beat mechanics, for example, are probably going to look like this:

Attacker declares beat with die allotment. Defender declares defense with die allotment. If the attacker is successful, then his opponent's weapon is useless for the next exchange and the defender loses 1CP die for every success in the margin. The defender must either parry with another weapon or shield or dodge, but either way if the beat went well he'll have less dice to do so.

This naturally follows up for an attack...in-and-of itself the beat is useless, but if you follow it with an attack it can be devestating. What's more is that you'll be able to beat twice in a row (but not more than that, I think), meaning that the final penalty will not only be considerable, but that you can easily arrange it so that your actual strike (on the third exchange) is with a refreshed CP (and your poor opponent is down a few dice). This sort of thing is very common in actual WMA, and it's the example I looked to when re-working the maneuver.

I realize, Contracycle, that you don't have the book yet and that some of this will be a bit jargony, so if you want it in more layman terms I'll do what I can.

Jake

[Lance D. Allen]

A couple of real-world notes on shields..


A buckler does not cover all the same regions as other shields. A notation next to the weapon name in it's stats (hand) shows that it only covers a small section. It covers the hand, and at the Seneschal's discretion, may cover the upper portions of the wrist.

The higher AV of the heater as opposed to the round shield is due to the points. Though I am not experienced with "sword and board" style combat, those I know who are say that the points are immensely useful. They allow you to catch an attack on the edge and stop it, rather than having it glance of a round edge and just hit somewhere else. They also have added coverage for thrusts because the lower point allows a small adjustment to protect the legs, and the upper corners protect the shoulders with a slight lift.

On the other hand, the weight of the shield has others speaking fondly of the round shield. (This would be represented in game rules, methinks, by the CP penalty of the shield.)

Also, as passive armor, a shield will only protect the shield hand side. It will not offer passive defense to the weapon side, but it can be used in an active block to that side.

This raises a question in my mind, though... If you semi-successfully block (ie, you get at least one success, lessening the number of successes rolled by the attacker) do you get to apply the armor rating of the shield to the location blocked?

[Jake Norwood]

This raises a question in my mind, though... If you semi-successfully block (ie, you get at least one success, lessening the number of successes rolled by the attacker) do you get to apply the armor rating of the shield to the location blocked?

Nope. Remember that your single success is one less in his margin, and the damage he causes is therefore lessened anyway.

In my games at home the AV on shields is only their in case people actually try to cut through the shield instead of trying to get around it, such as attacking the shield arm, firing an arrow at someone's shield-side torso, and so on.

As a side note, having done quite a bit of shield work, yes, shields are awesome. Having learned to fight without one I prefer life with a free left hand, but that's mostly due to my own propensity for grappling and quick in-out footwork, which a shield hampers considerably.

And unlike swords, shields are frikkin' heavy.

Jake