Sword work:

[Chuckie]

Now I`v had a bit of time to look over the riddle of steel.

Firstly, I`m not being harsh here to be mean or anything, I`m being harsh because it is SO close to being great.  I don't expect this from other games but if these issues were addressed it would be truly great.

Also this only addresses swordwork and that as gained from the combat simulator, So here goes:

The concept of single time attack/response is one they don't seem to fully understand,

Simultaneous black with shield and attack, you have two different items, you shouldn't need to separate your dice pool, yes it gives he person with the shield a HUGE advantage... So?  That's life, in his next incarnation the person without the shield should use a shield.

When you have a red, red situation both attacks should land if not defended. Yes that may result in a double kill but that's life... or death.  The point is that the momentum is already in the attack, the attack doesn't stop immediately and if they are both going within a microsecond (ie the red red situation) then they both hit.

They don't understand single time offence/defense with a longsword, you should put combat pool into that and 75% of that amount goes into defense and 75% of that amount goes into the attack. This is not as good an attack as a strait up attack but you are covered, even if not as well as if it was a dedicated defense.

You can weight for the opponent to attack and still do a simultaneous response.

They dont understand that evading is VERY easy, (although not looking at the rules, just the program they may could dice pool as two for one when doing this), you just go backwards and even an unskilled opponent can do it, and if I got injured I would spend the next round going back so fast the attacker wouldn't reach me then, Oh sure the attacker would chase me and while he would catch up fairly quickly, he doesn't know if I am going to counter attack so it slows him down or leaves him vulnerable.

Lastly distance, they have no concept of the fact that while your arm is in distance your body isn't, so I attack my opponents arm he can't hit my head.

Charles

[Stuart]

Hi All,

I would like to back Chuck on this one.
Both he and I are serious western historical fencers. Our friends and I have reconstructed techniques from manuals ranging from the early 1700s to the 1300s.

Dont dismiss what Charles has said. Single time defences are very important to historical weaponplay. Countercuts at the arm constitute a large part of the defences found in this system:
http://www.cbc2.org/faculty/dabbott/duBriefParadox.htm

Double kills are more common than we would like, especially when employing thrusting weapons.

Against cutting weapons, it is ridiculously easy to pass backwards out of distance and watch a cut go whistling by. Passing back is a popular defence because it allows a countercut to the arm from a position of safety.

This is a great game that just needs a little tweaking to make it truly wonderful.
Cheers
Stu.

[Chuckie]

Also note that this is trying to promote discussions or have the game makers change things for V2 so if anyone thinks this is wrong, to complicated or simply doesn't like it then post up.  They wont know if we don't talk.

Anyway this is possibly suitable for house rules, so I`m probably going to get it and make up house rules, the only thing I want to do is check out how the skills work, can anyone post a link to a message on this forum that discuses this particularly well? I`ll look through myself anyway.

Charles

[Lance D. Allen]

I think for the most part, Jake is the only one who can answer your concerns, however I do want to point out a few facts..

Jake is also a serious practitioner of the Western Martial Arts, and knows as much as anyone how real combat works. I don't want to discount anything you guys know, considering that it's probably more than I do, but the fact is, it really seems to me that ya'll are selling Jake short on experience. It would be a good idea for you guys to read through the more relevant posts in this forum, to see what has been discussed, and to see why things are the way they are.

[Jake Norwood]

Chuckie and Stu-

I, too, am a "serious historical fencer," so we can talk shop any time you'd like. I'd like to briefly explain a number of things concerning the "less than real" issues you brought up in your posts from the perspective of the designer (which is me).

First, you're dealing with the combat sim program, which--while great--hardly grazes the surface of what TROS combat can do. A lot of your "issues" would be alleviated by actual play.

Simultaneous black with shield and attack, you have two different items, you shouldn't need to separate your dice pool, yes it gives he person with the shield a HUGE advantage... So? That's life, in his next incarnation the person without the shield should use a shield.

I disagree. I've fought this way for a long time. Shields are immensely powerful/useful, but not all-powerful. On the other hand, are you trying to tell me that you can divide your attention, simultaneously blocking and striking, with no problem whatsover. I have a feeling that what you're referring to is a block followed--an instant aftwards--by a strike, which is the normal process of stealing initiative in standard TROS rules.

When you have a red, red situation both attacks should land if not defended. Yes that may result in a double kill but that's life... or death. The point is that the momentum is already in the attack, the attack doesn't stop immediately and if they are both going within a microsecond (ie the red red situation) then they both hit.

A agree and disagree here. First, double kills are, IRL, more common than currently represented in TROS. This is intential, mostly because double kills aren't that cool. They are, however, still quite possible in TROS. More actual play will show this to be true. You'll find also that forensic evidence and historical accounts make what you're talking about almost always true with rapiers and thrusts, but much much much less so with cutting instruments. Note that when both parties throw red, no one has defense, so that if the "slower" guy isn't out of dice, than he still gets a potentially leathal and undefended attack.

They dont understand that evading is VERY easy, (although not looking at the rules, just the program they may could dice pool as two for one when doing this), you just go backwards and even an unskilled opponent can do it, and if I got injured I would spend the next round going back so fast the attacker wouldn't reach me then, Oh sure the attacker would chase me and while he would catch up fairly quickly, he doesn't know if I am going to counter attack so it slows him down or leaves him vulnerable.

Evading has the lowest TN in the entire system. It is incredibly easy in TROS. There is almost no situation where a person performing a full evasion--no matter how low his CP--will get hit.

Lastly distance, they have no concept of the fact that while your arm is in distance your body isn't, so I attack my opponents arm he can't hit my head.

I find your tone insulting, without providing solutions. You constantly say "they have no concept of..." Sorry, but bullcrap. I understand it very well. I am an accomplished fighter. I don't mean to be "full of myself," but I am not a "fanboy" or any such thing. Part of what irks me so is that you assume much without asking "why" to either yourselves or me. I will tell you "why." Playability. I'm not saying that there isn't a better way to do it, but I don't have that way. You will be happy to know that the ease of striking the arms is reflected in optional rules in the TROS rulebook.

Basically its like this--I appreciate having other serious historical fencers loot at and try to improve TROS. Most of the early playtesters were such, and when we ran combats I said "just describe what you would really do, and the mechanics will mirror it." It worked very well, even to the point that when the tried stuff that they knew didn't work the results were exactly what we expected. We are very pleased with TROS as a model of medieval/renn combat. And this is coming from not one, but several seroius historical fencers.

Despite all this I am painfully aware that TROS is just a game. As such certain issues had to be sacrificed for playability. Some were re-introduced as "optional rules," others will be "house rules," and yet others will appear in the "Flower of Battle" supplement.

I am very happy to have you here, but please don't tell me what I do or don't understand until you have discussed the issue with me personally. I'm very approachable, and am always willing to admit when I'm proven wrong (PM anyone on this forum if you want proof). So let's talk about the why's and how's, and see if you all can't help me find solutions.

I think that if there are any rules on the TROS forum it's this: don't bitch until you have (a) played for real and/or (b) you've got a solution or are looking for one.

Thanks again and I look forward to further correspondence.

Jake
Free Scholar

[Chuckie]

Great lets talk shop! :) Firstly I am with the Stoccata School of Defence, a Sydney based group that has been around for about 5 years (disclaimer these are my own views...*shrug*), are you affiliated with ARMA?

I disagree. I've fought this way for a long time. Shields are immensely powerful/useful, but not all-powerful. On the other hand, are you trying to tell me that you can divide your attention, simultaneously blocking and striking, with no problem whatsover. I have a feeling that what you're referring to is a block followed--an instant aftwards--by a strike, which is the normal process of stealing initiative in standard TROS rules.

No I`m not actually, in Sword and buckler you do a lot of simultaneous attacks, blocking as you strike, but you do it in a similar way to closing the line thrusting with a longsword, that is the buckler is held in front of the attacking hand at about the fort of there blade closig the line as you thrust/cut.

With larger shields some of the Provosts here have been looking into Tallhoffer large shield stuff, it clearly shows closing the line while attacking, they have analyzed artwork from earlier times back to Ancient Greece, and also shown why the similarities there aren't just artists interpretation, because they show people in shieldwalls holding there shield differently.  for further information look for the SPADA journal when it comes out.

A agree and disagree here. First, double kills are, IRL, more common than currently represented in TROS. This is intential, mostly because double kills aren't that cool. They are, however, still quite possible in TROS. More actual play will show this to be true. You'll find also that forensic evidence and historical accounts make what you're talking about almost always true with rapiers and thrusts, but much much much less so with cutting instruments. Note that when both parties throw red, no one has defense, so that if the "slower" guy isn't out of dice, than he still gets a potentially leathal and undefended attack.

Fair call.

Evading has the lowest TN in the entire system. It is incredibly easy in TROS. There is almost no situation where a person performing a full evasion--no matter how low his CP--will get hit.

Thats that comes from not working from the rule book, just playing with the simulator it didn't seem that way.

I find your tone insulting, without providing solutions. You constantly say "they have no concept of..." Sorry, but bullcrap. I understand it very well. I am an accomplished fighter. I don't mean to be "full of myself," but I am not a "fanboy" or any such thing. Part of what irks me so is that you assume much without asking "why" to either yourselves or me. I will tell you "why." Playability. I'm not saying that there isn't a better way to do it, but I don't have that way. You will be happy to know that the ease of striking the arms is reflected in optional rules in the TROS rulebook.

I do apologies I hadn't intended to imply you were, my phrasing was very bad, its just that for my style of single sword the arm is THE target of choice, we train to the point that we can pass back and hit the arm of people who are better than us but don't do so much counter cutting to the arm, (we do it so much no one in the school falls for it, we know what to do against it) part of the way we do this is passing back to cut at the arm and that judgement of distance is so key to our system. but reading over my post I should have phrased it differently.  Mea culpa.

Basically its like this--I appreciate having other serious historical fencers loot at and try to improve TROS. Most of the early playtesters were such, and when we ran combats I said "just describe what you would really do, and the mechanics will mirror it." It worked very well, even to the point that when the tried stuff that they knew didn't work the results were exactly what we expected. We are very pleased with TROS as a model of medieval/renn combat. And this is coming from not one, but several seroius historical fencers.

It shows. I`m not putting the game down, our style is different and some of the key points we rely on in our style are glossed over or don't give the advantages we count on when we do the technique.

Despite all this I am painfully aware that TROS is just a game. As such certain issues had to be sacrificed for playability. Some were re-introduced as "optional rules," others will be "house rules," and yet others will appear in the "Flower of Battle" supplement.

Cool, I`ll stay around and learn and get a copy of it, its a pity no shops here me have it and its not available on-line any more, but I`m sure you will let all know when that changes.

I am very happy to have you here, but please don't tell me what I do or don't understand until you have discussed the issue with me personally. I'm very approachable, and am always willing to admit when I'm proven wrong (PM anyone on this forum if you want proof). So let's talk about the why's and how's, and see if you all can't help me find solutions.

I think that if there are any rules on the TROS forum it's this: don't bitch until you have (a) played for real and/or (b) you've got a solution or are looking for one.

Thanks again and I look forward to further correspondence.

OK, if there is any talk of swordsmanship I may poke my head in but since the game isn't out for a the moment I cant comment on other issues mores the pity.  I`ll write up some of the techniques and ideas we use in large shield and you can comment on them, and I have some questions about the initative, but I`m out of time.

Sorry I didn't mean to get you off side or imply you knew nothing about WMA.

Charles

[Mokkurkalfe]

Evading has the lowest TN in the entire system. It is incredibly easy in TROS. There is almost no situation where a person performing a full evasion--no matter how low his CP--will get hit.

I feel terribly amateurish with all the knowledge of swordfighting being thrown around here. Anyway, there is this one thing I think should be added to the distance rules, namely this:
When a longer weapon is penalized(i.e. a shorter weapon is within striking range) the (full) evasion maneuver(s) should be penalized too, should the guy with the shorter weapon try to evade.


Example: A guy with a shortsword just successfully ducked&weaved, got in range to strike a quarterstaff guy. He attacks, the staff-guy counters and now has 6 dice against the sword-guys 2. The staff-guy attacks while the sword-guy does a full evasion(getting his ass out of the way ASAP).
Now, the quarter-staff is perhaps 2m long, while the sword-guy stands within striking range of a 75 cm sword. He can't avoid that, right?

Also, a request for the FoB. Some rules for riding past an enemy while slashing at him, so that only one exchange or round is possible before your way out of there.

[Jaif]

I'll reinforce one thing about the mechanics: in many ways, full evasions are king.  A full evasion has the lowest target number of anything in the combat system, and if it succeeds combat is "reset" to the "pick-a-die" point. If you evade on exchange #1, exchange #2 doesn't happen, and this is used by people who start the round at a disadvantage (say, due to shock).

A few sample numbers:

If you roll X or greater on a d10, you succeed at a:

4 - Full evasion
5 - Punch, Thrust with a Rapier or short sword, block w/typical shield.
6 -    *In these two spots lie most*
7 -    *of the other sword values.*
8 - Bash with a Maul
10 - Parry with a Maul

This is not comprehensive by any stretch, but it should give some flavor.

-Jeff

[Lance D. Allen]

There is almost no situation where a person performing a full evasion--no matter how low his CP--will get hit.

Sorry ta undermine you on this one, but it's already happened to me in one of my duels.. IIRC, I was rolling... 15 dice on a Full Evasion because he was throwing about 10 into a nasty, nasty cut for the leg. I not only failed my roll -vs- a DTN of 4, I fumbled. Not a blasted thing over 3, and three 1s. Yeah.. I lost the leg, then the next round, in what amounted to a coup-de-grace my head. Very nasty fight.

That said, I've only been struck once when I fully evaded, and that was against a rapier thrust, which has a ATN one point higher, at 5. Likewise, I have also only struck once when someone fully evaded, and that was when they were fully evading with 2-3 dice, and I was thrusting with 8 or so. They got all 3 successes, but I was still able to hit them. (I believe this was the boys-shot which inspired the "The Masculine Disadvantage" thread).

[Jake Norwood]

Chuckie-

Glad to hear that we're more on the same page now. Sorry, too, if my post seemed a bit sharp, but I think we understand each other now.

Yes, I'm a Free Scholar in the ARMA system. Have you dealt with ARMA-Gold coast by any chance? I think that's what the Austrailian group is called. Either way I've heard of Stocatta School.

The Rest-

The only time I've been actually injured sparring was a "full evasion" that I must have botched on--an Oberhau broke my left index finger as I voided back and went into Vom Tag (okay, for all you non WMA types I was going into a high guard when a downward vertical strike whacked my finger). So yeah, you can get whacked doing them, but it's a rare thing.

Anyway, I look forward to Stu and Chuckie shedding insights on TROS combat from (another) "we do this in the physical world" perspective. Oh, and I'll do it too.

Mokkurkalfe's bit on more penalties for evading from longer weapons once you're in close is a good one...I'm curious what kind of usable mechanics might show up for that.

Jake

[Brian Leybourne]

Also, a request for the FoB. Some rules for riding past an enemy while slashing at him, so that only one exchange or round is possible before your way out of there.

I make no promises as to what Jake will and wont use, but the animals chapter I have been writing for the Bestiary has just exactly that in it :-)

Brian.

[Rattlehead]

When a longer weapon is penalized(i.e. a shorter weapon is within striking range) the (full) evasion maneuver(s) should be penalized too, should the guy with the shorter weapon try to evade.


Example: A guy with a shortsword just successfully ducked&weaved, got in range to strike a quarterstaff guy. He attacks, the staff-guy counters and now has 6 dice against the sword-guys 2. The staff-guy attacks while the sword-guy does a full evasion(getting his ass out of the way ASAP).
Now, the quarter-staff is perhaps 2m long, while the sword-guy stands within striking range of a 75 cm sword. He can't avoid that, right?

Ok, it's late and I'm sleepy, so if I'm totally incoherent, just ignore this post... :-)

Just for the sake of simplicity - and I haven't really thought this through - but how does it sound to impose a 1 die penalty to evasion attemps per weapon size category difference. For example, If I'm using a rapier and I get inside on someone using a pike, then they now have a -3 die penalty to attacks against me. But if I attempt to evade, I now have a penalty as well. If I have 5 dice in my pool, and I go for full evasion under these circumstances, I would only have 2 dice to use for the move. Also, this doesn't mean that the penalty is "passed back" to the guy with the shorter weapon, it just means that both have a penalty to the actions that they have chosen to attempt.

Of course, I don't see anything wrong with evasion as it is, although I do see your point, Mokkurkalfe.

Later,
   Brandon

[Lance D. Allen]

I like the idea, it kinda balances out.

At longer range, the shorter weapon has a penalty to CP when attacking, but not when defending.

At shorter range, the longer weapon has a penalty to CP when attacking and defending, if they attempt to use that weapon in the defense. Most times, it won't be the shorter weapon trying to Fully Evade, but if the occasion comes up, it would be a tad bit more difficult to do.. But also remember that the longer weapon would STILL have the same penalty to attack, which means it's that much more likely that the shorter weapon will choose to parry or block.

[Stuart]

Hi All,

Although close range is not the best place to fight with a quarterstaff, it is useful to remember that a Qstaff is almost like two weapons. A quarterstaff for me is about 7ft 2 inches according to Silver's measurements. With one hand in the middle and the other halfway back towards the butt  I have one weapon of just over 3 ft in length at one end and a weapon of somewhere around 1.5 to two feet long at the butt. (The fact that one hand sits 1/4 of the way up the staff is the reason for it's name for those that don't know)

When somebody passes the "point" (some historical examples were actually sharpened btw so point isn't completely inaccurate) you can pass backwards and employ the butt to attack. Advantage can sometimes be gained from doing this on purpose especially if the weapon has a weight on the butt end to change the POB and make butt attacks more powerful
.
The quarterstaff is an underated and powerful weapon. Part of the reason for this is that people imagine wide swinging attacks to be in order. They are in actuality not often required. I have fenced using pulled blows with staves that are about the right weight and thickness. A light tap on the helmet (the staff travelled about 3 feet in total which isn't much of a wind up) made me see stars.
Cheers
Stu.

[Lance D. Allen]

The potential for doing what you said is there, Stu. "Passing Back" to attack is covered by the CP penalty.. But when you successfully attack, you are back at your own optimal range. The only thing I could think of to represent your notation that the reach on the butt is usually shorter is to say that Q-staffs count as medium and long range for attacks and defense.

Also, I was under what might have been an incorrect impression that capping both ends of a quarterstaff with iron or steel was moderately common, but you only speak of capping the butt. Are there disadvantages or advantages to one or the other? Are there even any advantages worth mentioning in game mechanics for capping at all?