Pre-emptive attack too good?

[Ace]

On this line of thought. If you have a shield why not throw red?

With the simulataneous attack/block manuever if your opponent throws red you will have a defense. If he throws white you will have tempo in the fight and with a bit of luck be able to keep initiative.

Oh there are nasty tricks your opponent can do if he also has a shield but I would think the presence of a good shield would make a huge difference in fight pacing.

AFAICT it allows a lot more attacks to be thrown than being armedwith just a weapon.

[Jake Norwood]

On this line of thought. If you have a shield why not throw red?

With the simulataneous attack/block manuever if your opponent throws red you will have a defense. If he throws white you will have tempo in the fight and with a bit of luck be able to keep initiative.

Oh there are nasty tricks your opponent can do if he also has a shield but I would think the presence of a good shield would make a huge difference in fight pacing.

AFAICT it allows a lot more attacks to be thrown than being armedwith just a weapon.

That's part of why shields were so prevalent. They're relatively easy to use and effective. On the practical side, they're heavy, a pain to use for long periods of time, and not so much fun to travel with (also true of armor, especially leg armor, which was largely discarded by the Landsknechten and other career infantry.

Jake

[Lance D. Allen]

That's part of why shields were so prevalent. They're relatively easy to use and effective. On the practical side, they're heavy, a pain to use for long periods of time, and not so much fun to travel with (also true of armor, especially leg armor, which was largely discarded by the Landsknechten and other career infantry.

A truism, but even when the Seneschal enforces this reality on the PCs, you have to keep in mind that they are not generally grunts, and can afford a mule at least (esp. if you've a party mentality, or a patron) to carry armor and shields... Which is why I ambushed my PCs in the last session. The sword and board/greatsword guy wasn't even able to get a weapon out, and ended up kicking his foe in the forehead (incidentally killing him... 6 successes and a ST of 7 can do that)

Remember, however, that sword and shield, while a very nice combo, does impose certain penalties on the CP. In full chain armor, on foot with sword and shield, a CP 14 can be quickly whittled to a more manageable 9 (though anything besides a face shot had best be counted out if you fight with a short sword... bugger.)

And again, I reiterate, and will continue to do so until Jake says otherwise, that you CANNOT declare an offensive action after throwing white unless you attempt to steal initiative. In and of itself, that is a balancing factor. You can, however, declare a simul. block/strike on any round thereafter, even if you do not have initiative. It is a risk though, becauseif you fail to block, you will almost certainly lose.. I know, I have used this technique to both good and ill effect.

[Lyrax]

Also remember that simultaneous block/strike is an offensive action, and doing one from a defensive stance gives you -2 dice (that's 8 dice instead of 12 for our example in the beginning).  In this event, he'd have to attack with at least 3 dice (one can't be more than twice as large as the other), leaving him 5 dice to defend with.  That's really, really gutsy.  Especially considering that, if he screws up the attack (which is possible), then his opponent will have a nice 8 dice to attack with... basically for free.

Simultaneous block/strike is NOT the be-all, end-all of "defensive" moves.  Mostly, this is because it's an aggressive move.

[Brian Leybourne]

Also remember that simultaneous block/strike is an offensive action, and doing one from a defensive stance gives you -2 dice (that's 8 dice instead of 12 for our example in the beginning).  In this event, he'd have to attack with at least 3 dice (one can't be more than twice as large as the other), leaving him 5 dice to defend with.  That's really, really gutsy.  Especially considering that, if he screws up the attack (which is possible), then his opponent will have a nice 8 dice to attack with... basically for free.

Simultaneous block/strike is NOT the be-all, end-all of "defensive" moves.  Mostly, this is because it's an aggressive move.

Who says he's in a defensive stance? Could be neutral. Plus, I'm not just talking about the exchange after initiative dice are thrown, it could be 7 exchanges down the line (when stance isn't an issue anyway).

You're right about the attacl/defend raio however, although you can still do 6 block / 4 attack with 10 dice, and assuming uour opponent only attacked you with 4-6 dice, 6 blocking dice (at DTN5) would make me feel pretty safe.

I can see this thread is going nowhere (well, not on my original point anyway). All I was trying to sayis that IMO the guy who holds back is in a far better situation because he can have an attack as well as defense (via sim b/s or evasive attack) while the other guy who went first only has an attack and no defense except armour if the defender chooses to attack.

Can't be bothered arguing any more actually, so this will be my last post on the subject. Rather than blindly arguing numbers, try it out and you'll see what I mean.

Brian.

[Brian Leybourne]

And again, I reiterate, and will continue to do so until Jake says otherwise, that you CANNOT declare an offensive action after throwing white unless you attempt to steal initiative. In and of itself, that is a balancing factor. You can, however, declare a simul. block/strike on any round thereafter, even if you do not have initiative. It is a risk though, becauseif you fail to block, you will almost certainly lose.. I know, I have used this technique to both good and ill effect.

Alright, it was my second to last post. THIS is my last post.

Page 77 of the rulebook:

"Finally, should the loser wish to attack in the next exchange (normally impossible), he has two choices. First, he may simply declare an attack. The winner attacks and resolves damage first; if the loser has any dice left he can attack. This is a foolhardy maneuver. The second choice is to buy initiative, as per Setp 2..."

Pretty clear cut there. And Jake has already confirmed several times that the guy who goes second still gets his defensive dice against the first attack, he just might not get his attack if the guy with initative hits him (he would lose the dice assigned to attack, but the defense part still works).

And for those of you fixated on the red/white dice thing - I'm not just talking about the exchange after the red/white throw, I'm talking any exchange at any point in the combat where one guy is attacking and the other is defending, but chooses to attack instead.

Brian.

[Brand_Robins]

Unless I am totally reading the rules wrong, Simultaneous Block and Strike can only be used when you are the aggressor. If you throw white you have to steal initiative in order to use it. As it says, offensive maneuvers are only done when you are the aggressor (red dice) and defensive only when you are the defender (white dice). This is stated pretty clearly on pages 59, 64, and 74.

Also, in the description of Simultaneous Block/Strike itself it says, "This maneuver is obviously only useful in situations where both you AND your opponent are attacking at once."

If you want to knock your opponent's weapon aside and then counter attack when you've thrown white, the maneuver to use is block open and strike.

Now, all that said, if you do throw red Sim B/S is a good maneuver, and can be lethal -- until you miss. If you've used all your dice and miss then chances are you die in the next phase. Trust me on this one, I've been playing RoS for months now and anytime someone puts too many dice into one maneuver too many times they end up dead.

[Brand_Robins]

Page 77 of the rulebook: "Finally, should the loser wish to attack in the next exchange (normally impossible), he has two choices. First, he may simply declare an attack.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out! I'd forgotten that part. If Jake's said you can still use your defense dice from sim B/S in that situation then you are right -- it is a bit too powerful. I don't know if I'd allow it though, as shifting to the offensive like that should carry a heavy penalty that getting full defense from sim B/S would negate.

[Lyrax]

Announcing one's moves goes in order from least reflex to greatest.

Thus we see the strategic importance of a high reflex.

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay Brian, you've not proved me wrong, but simply reinforced my point. I *know* that you can opt to attack rather than defend any time during the fight, except after throwing initiative. I've done it, many times. MY only point is that it cannot be done when you've thrown white. At other times, I totally agree that it is an effective maneuver, and so we have no contention. To be perfectly clear, I will requote the passage you quoted back at you.

"Finally, should the loser wish to attack in the next exchange (normally impossible), he has two choices. First, he may simply declare an attack. The winner attacks and resolves damage first; if the loser has any dice left he can attack. This is a foolhardy maneuver. The second choice is to buy initiative, as per Setp 2..."

The part bolded is what is important. This does not allow you to ignore the fact that you threw white, it only allows you to ignore the fact that you lost initiative in the previous exchange and attack anyway, albeit after their own. If you are well enough armored, this can be done without considerable risk. As I said, other than that, we have no argument about the effectiveness of the maneuver. That is why tactics and playing it safe against better armed and armored opponents is the only way to keep yourself alive.  

Well, actually.. one more tiny quibble.

You're right about the attacl/defend raio however, although you can still do 6 block / 4 attack with 10 dice, and assuming uour opponent only attacked you with 4-6 dice, 6 blocking dice (at DTN5) would make me feel pretty safe.

No you can't. 6 is not twice the size of 4. 6 is a safe number if your opponent is attacking with 4-6 dice and you are using a shield, but the attack of 4 is a No Go. Of course, an attack of 3 can be effective, esp. if you are using a weapon with reach issues, like I do. Any successful attack, whether or not it does damage, will get you inside their range.

[Brian Leybourne]

You're right about the attacl/defend raio however, although you can still do 6 block / 4 attack with 10 dice, and assuming uour opponent only attacked you with 4-6 dice, 6 blocking dice (at DTN5) would make me feel pretty safe.

No you can't. 6 is not twice the size of 4. 6 is a safe number if your opponent is attacking with 4-6 dice and you are using a shield, but the attack of 4 is a No Go. Of course, an attack of 3 can be effective, esp. if you are using a weapon with reach issues, like I do. Any successful attack, whether or not it does damage, will get you inside their range.

I certainly don't take from the description that one must be EXACTLY half the size of the other, just that it must be AT LEAST half the size of the other (thus, as it states, 7 and 2 is no good but 6/3 would be fine and, as in my example, 6 and 4). Jake? What's the story?

Brian.

[Lyrax]

I think, Brian, that ratios other than 66/33 (as long as they are not less uneven) are acceptable.

I also think that, if you simply keep playing the game (perhaps with this strategy in your mind), you will find something that can beat this strategy.  It's all a big game of paper-rock-scissors.  Many people just throw out scissors, and you found the rock.

[Jaif]

The ruling I've done with sim block/strike is that it must be at least 1/2.  I'm not Jake, but I'm betting that the reason the rules were written with the limitation was to force you to be very uneven: either a large commitment to offense, or one to defense.

Another interpretation, and entirely inline with the rules, is that you can only do sim block/strikes with 3, 6, 9, 12... dice.

I agree with Brian that there's a big advantage for a shield guy going second.  The only counter that I've found is to attack with a lot of dice in the first exchange, and that's not perfect by any stretch.  Certainly attacking with a small amount of dice is suicide - you won't get through the armor, and the other guy will get through yours.

Frankly though, I'm of the opinion that a shield/armor guy should always toss red and declare a simultaneous block/strike if double-red.  I can't see one reason not to do so.

-Jeff

[Brian Leybourne]

The ruling I've done with sim block/strike is that it must be at least 1/2.  I'm not Jake, but I'm betting that the reason the rules were written with the limitation was to force you to be very uneven: either a large commitment to offense, or one to defense.

Don't you mean exactly the opposite? :-) By making it be at least half, you *prevent* uneveness. For 10 dice, 9/1 or 8/2 is unacceptable, as is 7/3 but 6/4 or 5/5 is fine.

Frankly though, I'm of the opinion that a shield/armor guy should always toss red and declare a simultaneous block/strike if double-red.  I can't see one reason not to do so.

Very true, and if you're facing a shield/armour guy, and you're a no shield / no armour guy, you're screwed unles you have a *massive* CP advantage, and I mean massive - even a difference like 14 dice to 8 is often (80:20 IME) a win for the 8-die guy with a shield and 4-6 armor everywhere.

It's a pity Jake's gone away actually, since I have sent him the Combat Sim v2 which I think you guys will like, there's about 20 weapons, full maneuvers etc. I have used it a fait bit testing out my theories in this system (as well as with dice with a mate). I guess it'll have to wait until he gets back to put it on the page (which on top of all this is down at the moment anyway).

Brian.

[Jaif]

Don't you mean exactly the opposite? :-)

Well, I suppose if you want to get all technical about it. :-)

Yeah.  At first, I couldn't figure out why the rule - it seemed rather arbitrary.  Then I guessed he was trying to force a commitment: mostly offense, or mostly defense.

Btw, there's at least one other counter: feints.  It's not a good one if the "defender" goes all out, though.

-Jeff