Observation on bind and strike

[Spartan]

OK, I'm sure this isn't news to anyone, but I thought I'd post what I figured out last night.

Suppose you decide to use a bind & strike maneuver on your opponent, using say 6 dice out of your CP of 10.  Unfortunately for you, your opponent is armed with a falchion, greatsword, or some similar high-impact weapon and instead of defending, decides to attack without bothering to buy initiative, and dumps all of his CP of 10 into a swing at you.  Unless you're well-armoured, or really tough, you're toast.  Even if you take your bind successes off of his offensive successes, chances are he's managed to land a nasty level 2-4 wound on you.  At least, this is what happened in a lot of the bouts I've run between two of the  characters I've rolled up.  This is especially true if the counterstriker has a lot of strength.  He only needs a margin of one to hurt you.

So I guess the moral of the story is, if you're using a Bind maneuver, make sure you use more of your CP that you think you ought to, in case your opponent is willing to take the bind and hit you anyway.

Just my late-night ramblings,

-Mark

[Mokkurkalfe]

Well, if you bind his greatsword, then he can't use it, right?
So, if he decides to ignore initiative and stuff, you will hit first, and very probably succeed to bind his sword, thus he can't use it.
If you bind his (eventual) off-hand weapon it's another story entirely however.

[Lance D. Allen]

Something I've thought about Bind and Strike, and similar maneuvers requiring two exchanges... Honestly, they're not single maneuvers. Bind is a Maneuver unto itself. Quite honestly, it might even be worthwhile to simply bind, then continue to bind next turn, especially if you aren't fighting alone.

For example.. I am using a poleaxe against a shieldman who is concentrating on defense as a holding action. My compatriot is using a cut and thrust sword and style, but can't really get through the shield either. So I bind the shield, allowing him to get in a thrust against the shieldman. He fails to take him down, so I continue to bind the shield allowing him another chance the next round.

Normally, yes, Bind will always be followed by a Strike, but I feel it has merit in tactical situations as it's own maneuver.

[Mokkurkalfe]

That is a cool idea. A "Bind & hold it there" maneuver.
Kinda lika an aggressive defence.

[Spartan]

Well, if you bind his greatsword, then he can't use it, right?
So, if he decides to ignore initiative and stuff, you will hit first, and very probably succeed to bind his sword, thus he can't use it.
If you bind his (eventual) off-hand weapon it's another story entirely however.

Well, that's the thing... If you bind and he attacks, but he still gets a margin, you haven't bound completely, and he gets to take a whack...  at least that's the way I'm interpreting the rules.  The sim does it differently.

-Mark

[Mokkurkalfe]

Well, until an authority on the subject makes a call(hint, hint Jake) this is really a matter of personal taste.
I interpret the dice loss as how awkward your position just became.
So, if all dice are lost, then not only is your weapon temporarily disabled, you are also completely off-balance, leaving you vulnerable to attack.
The remaining dice you have is for defending with other weapon and/or evasion.
At least, that's how I do it.

[Brian Leybourne]

Well, that's the thing... If you bind and he attacks, but he still gets a margin, you haven't bound completely, and he gets to take a whack...  at least that's the way I'm interpreting the rules.  The sim does it differently.

Well, obviously my point of view mirrors the sim, but I'd like to justify it for a second.

Bind & Strike gives two advantages. One, it drops the opponents die pool immediately. Two, it prevents him using whatever you bound in the next exchange.

If he attacks simultaneously, and gets initiative, you're in trouble, but this is always the case with defenders who attack instead of defending and then steal initiative. If he doesn't steal initiative (or doesn't try) and you get so much as one success on your bind, as far as I'm concerned his counter attack constitutes his next exchange, and his attack is lost because he can't use the weapon. He's still lost the dice he committed to the attack though - he started the swing but you then trapped the weapon.

Exactly the same goes for the Beat maneuver too, by the way.

Brian

[Jake Norwood]

I'll spend some time thinking on it...for now I'm really enjoying your discussion!

Jake

[Spartan]

Well, obviously my point of view mirrors the sim, but I'd like to justify it for a second.

Actually, the sim delays it until the next exchange! :o

Bind & Strike gives two advantages. One, it drops the opponents die pool immediately. Two, it prevents him using whatever you bound in the next exchange.  If he doesn't steal initiative (or doesn't try) and you get so much as one success on your bind, as far as I'm concerned his counter attack constitutes his next exchange, and his attack is lost because he can't use the weapon.

My thinking is that since he dumped ALL his dice into the attack in order to BYPASS your bind attempt, and gets a margin on you, then your bind is unsucessful, just like if he got a margin blocking against your bind.  IOW, his strike was so powerful your bind was ineffectual against it.

Also, it does not specify that the bound weapon is unusable in the next exchange.  That is only specified in the "Beat" maneuver.  It's certainly possible to envision a bind that was only partly successful, reducing the opponent's CP.

But I do like that sim... that's what got me to buy TROS in the first place!

-Mark

[Brian Leybourne]

Well, obviously my point of view mirrors the sim, but I'd like to justify it for a second.

Actually, the sim delays it until the next exchange! :o.

Hmm.. just went and checked and it appears you're right. Damn, I hate it when I'm proven wrong :-)

In my defense, I have not played with the sim, or worked on it for quite a while now, having been busy with oBaM. I guess I was thinking about "Beat", which in the case of a simultaneous attack DOES prevent the counter attack if the beater is successful and wins initiative.

Well, in the sim it does anyway, I remember coding it. I hope it's right :-)

Also, it does not specify that the bound weapon is unusable in the next exchange.  That is only specified in the "Beat" maneuver.  It's certainly possible to envision a bind that was only partly successful, reducing the opponent's CP.

You're right, and in fact now that I think about it, the whole point of Bind & Strike is to bind the opponents offhand weapon or shield so you can get an open swing in next, not to bind their main weapon (for that, do a beat instead), but I still stand by my original comment - if the seneschal lets you bind & strike the opponents main weapon, then they should lose a counter attack because of the bound weapon. It just usually doesn't come into play because when you do a successful bind & strike, you have initiative the next exchange so the opponent will usually be defending (poorly, you hope) instead of attacking anyway.

But I do like that sim... that's what got me to buy TROS in the first place!

Sweet, I never get sick of hearing that. Say it again, Jake might not have noticed the first time :-)

Brian.

[Mokkurkalfe]

But I do like that sim... that's what got me to buy TROS in the first place!

True for me too, altough it was the first, DOS-based one.

My thinking is that since he dumped ALL his dice into the attack in order to BYPASS your bind attempt, and gets a margin on you, then your bind is unsucessful, just like if he got a margin blocking against your bind. IOW, his strike was so powerful your bind was ineffectual against it.

Personally, I don't think he dumps all his dice to bypass the bind attempt. That's what buying initiative is for. Instead, he just ignores the bind attempt. The argument of a powerful strike still stands though.

To me, a successful(a MoS of at least 1) bind will disable an attack with the binded weapon. The dice loss, is just for loss of balance and the other stuff. Otherwise, I could just ignore any binding for the same reason I could ignore beat before it was revised, which wouldn't be as much fun.
OTOH, should you have two weapons(or weapon&shield) you may of course attack with the other weapon/shield.

[Thirsty Viking]

Well, that's the thing... If you bind and he attacks, but he still gets a margin, you haven't bound completely, and he gets to take a whack...  at least that's the way I'm interpreting the rules.  The sim does it differently.

Bind & Strike gives two advantages. One, it drops the opponents die pool immediately. Two, it prevents him using whatever you bound in the next exchange.

Exactly the same goes for the Beat maneuver too, by the way.

Brian

A couple things here,  according to the way the book is
written a bind has no effect on the opponents attack this
round....   ouch.  The way I read it you are devoting the
current exchange to bind....  this could be considered
taking the blow,  to trap the weapon....  risky if chosen
on ex 1 of a round. as pointed out in the post that started
this thread.  However ....  if in the 1st exchange  the
opponent used most of his dice  this would be an effective
attack in the 2nd exchange  when beat is no longer an
option.
It would remove the dice from his CP at the begining of
the next ex as written in the book...   I'd implement this
After dice had refreshed for the start of a new two
exchange rd.  If you are unarmored  against a guy
in heavy armor but of modest abilities  you could in
theory shut down his ability to attack you...
If you can get through his armor..  you win..  if not  
you have stalemate while you pray for the arrival of
assisstance,  or look for a way to flee.

If I have misconstrued the intent of the book...  
please let me know,  but i believe that is the way it
is written.

John

[Lance D. Allen]

Bind and Strike is an offensive maneuver. If you attempt to do this on a defense, then you are asking to get hit. The very first round of an exchange after initiative is the best time to do this, because, at least as I play it, you are committed to attack or defense, as per the die you dropped. This is not the case on any other ensuing exchange, unless Initiative is dropped again. Therefore, if I drop red and you drop white, I'm safe from an attack from you for at least this exchange. If I successfully bind you, (meaning I win and get to keep initiative) I'm safe from whatever weapon I have bound the next exchange. If I bound your shield, you can still attack me with your sword.. But you are wide open, and guess what? I have initiative. Unless you've the dice to buy initiative, you're going to lose, and we all know what it means when you lose an exchange in TRoS...

::makes a downward spiral gesture with one finger, overlooked by a cruel smile::

[Spartan]

at least as I play it, you are committed to attack or defense, as per the die you dropped. This is not the case on any other ensuing exchange, unless Initiative is dropped again.

That makes sense, but I don't think it's stated specifically in the rules. *shrug*

I've been testing the Bind and Strike maneuver, and have been applying the bind to the target's CP immediately.  This takes care of someone taking the bind and attacking anyway (without buying initiative) unless  they've commited a large amount of CP to the attack.  This then makes sure the Binder uses enough CP to take his attacker's available CP into account.

That being said, I can see how a successful bind (even with only one success) might pre-empt an incoming attack coming from the would-be defender, but that just doesn't sit right with me.  I don't feel that if I bind with only say 3 dice and yield only one success and my opponent decides to use no defence and whack me anyway with say, all of his CP, that my measly one success can effectively negate his multiple successes.  But YMMV, of course.  My current solution is working for me right now... but I will likely amend it as time goes on.

FWIW, I've introduced a newbie to TROS this week.  His only RPG experience has been Baldur's Gate.  We spent much time on the band's tour bus duelling.  We also rolled up a new character for him to play on the next road trip.  We'll start a proper campaign next time.  Now I have to decide between using Weyrth or Harn for it... I'm thinking Weyrth so I don't have to do any conversions, and don't have to lug my huge Harn collection around.  ;)

-Mark