Question about the Beat Maneuver

[Mike Holmes]

Nay, that would be me - that is, unless someone else steps forward to claim this right.

Sorry, but I believe that has to go to long time Forge regular Jurgen Mayer (AKA The Mad German). :-)

Mike

[Brian Leybourne]

Sometimes the best option on a beat is to ignore it and counterattack, however you must ensure that you hold enough dice back to steal initiative - otherwise even if the beat only succeeds with one die (and thus you lose two) you still lose your attack because you lose "your next attack", i.e. the one you already launched.

Just my 2c.

Brian.

(edit: But only sometimes. If someone throws a largish beat at me in the first round of an exchange, I usually defend. Nothing worse than starting exchange #2 with zero dice in your pool... :-)

[Mike Holmes]

But only sometimes.

We can talk about what the "right" response is forever. But when all is said and done, every response gets a "but only sometimes" tacked on. This is what makes TROS a great system. There are no pat answers for the most part. You have to analyze all the details of each situation to come up with the "right" maneuver.

Is there better terrain you can take nearby? Then respond with Full Evade and get the advantage. But only sometimes...

Mike

[Brian Leybourne]

Mike,

Yeah, I know. I was just covering myself :-)

Brian.

[Mike Holmes]

I know you know, Brian. That was for the benefit of those who seem to be thinking that there are magic answers to situations. Well, there are some general rules. But as you and I are aware, "it all depends", is really the response.

How do you learn, then? Same as with any hard endeavor. Practice, practice, practice. Few RPGs can truely say that people can get good at them over time. For example, I don't want to face Brian unless he's got a character with at least... 4 CP less than I have. :-)

Mike

[Brian Leybourne]

How do you learn, then? Same as with any hard endeavor. Practice, practice, practice. Few RPGs can truely say that people can get good at them over time.

Which is a really interesting facet of TROS which adds a lot of fun to playing it. However, I must admit that at the same time it does make it difficult to start a new campaign with inexperienced characters after you have run a lengthly one, because although the new characters may be inexperienced, the players can do a lot more with those characters because they know the system so well.

For example, I don't want to face Brian unless he's got a character with at least... 4 CP less than I have. :-)

Heh.. we should test that sometime. And then both characters can attack a Character of Jake's with 4 fewer CP again, together, and have their asses kicked :-)

Brian.

[Salamander]

Thanks again for the very detailed answers to my question, salamander!

No problem. As I have said, these are my interpretations of the rules as faithfully as I can do them.

And I should have quoted you correctly in order to spare you the
"Checking Thread".

No problem.

I would like to comment on some of your answers.

uhoh! :)

I see that you think in terms of real fighting rather than TROS' combat system. I wish I had such knowledge as well, because real fighting is what the TROS system tries to simulate. (By the way, referring to one of your first questions: my friend was a modern olympic fencer (modern five-combat or whatever it is called in English) and he was very pleased about you asking, giving him the opportunity to tell me some things about the
huge differences between modern and historical fencing.) But as I do not have the experience, unfortunately in this discussion I have to stick to what the TROS rule-book says.

It is a problem of mine. You see, I was in the army and I was trained for the real thing. My answers stem from that and my training in Fence. I think it is one of the reasons I love TRoS.
I can apply my logic to the system and see results.

Let us have a look at the example in DFW 1001, p 60: Mik performs his beat with 4 dice. Given his TN of 6 (I agree it should be 7 for a short sword, but this would only strengthen the point I'm trying to make) there is a 50% chance for each of his dies to score a success (it would be 40% for TN7).  So the footpad's player could expect that Mik will score 2 successes and that the thug will loose 4 dies accordingly. Defending against this would cost some dies as well (especially as in the example the thug's DTN is 7), reasonably more than 2 for each expected success. Consequently the thug in the example looses 7 dies (3 for defending+4 outcome of beat). Had he not defended at all, he would have lost 6. (And even those 6 just because Mik had considerable luck). Of course the thug would have no chance of winning initiative, but that chance was bad enough anyway to win with 3d-TN7 against 4d-TN6.

Granted, but to paraphrase Chaucer, "Beware fortune for she is fickle and will take away what she has given at the worst of times". I contend that if the guy had not contested, he could have lost 8 CP. In my spot, I would have waited untill Mik was past me and turned the fellow into Mik-kabob... or when he went to beat, I would have used a counter, or full evasion, or... But to do nothing is basically freezing. I still hold he would have stripped even more than the seven from this footpad.

It is of course quite a different story, if Mik could have turned the
beat into a feint. Not defending against a beat would then be just
another way to say good-bye to this world.

Ah, yes that is the thing. He could have. That is the beauty of the system! You have options upon possibilities within opportunities...

Within the TROS system it would make good sense to beat away the shield (as long as there is not a great difference in weapon ranges) because

the defenders weapon (or whatever else was being "beaten") is knocked aside and cannot be used in defense on the following exchange (DFW1001,p60)

And I can see that beating away a shield should be possible with a mass weapon or a sword. But I do not see how this is possible with a rapier. I have even trouble to imagine beating away a big sword with such a weapon, but maybe I just do not know enough about what a rapier really is. (I keep thinking about what Musketiers use in Hollywood films.)

I believe that the phrase beat may need to be demonstrated for you to really see what is happening. A beat does not mean you smash the shield away and it is behind the fellows back with his shield arm askew behind him. It means that you are pushing it out of position, away from a line that could lead to contact with you, it does not have to be a lot. We recently did some work with this in Longsword. I was beating my opponent's sword just far enough away so that the tip of my sword was able to be thrust into the face of my opponent with a minimum (20cm) movement of the blade. So I think that a rapier could be used to displace a shield enough to reduce the fellows CP. I am finding out quick that it is not as much the weapon as it is the user.

So there seem to be considerable differences between what you can do with a shield and the beat maneuver. Hence it would make sense to add Beat (0) to the list of maneuvers for Sword&Shield and Mass Weapon&Shield would it not?

Bernd

Err, that was what I was trying to imply in my statements. I am sorry, I should have been more clear. My bad... :(

[Brassel]

First of all a big hello to all german members of this forum,
which - judging from first polls - are at least
Bomilka, Irmo and The Mad German J"urgen Mayer!!!  

BTW: Where do you come from? I live in Bonn and I'm just preparing my first TROS-Campaign set in the world of Westeros from GRR Martin's Song of Ice and
Fire.

What a shame! I just moved out of that area and now I live in Kiel.
But I was down a week ago and showed TRoS to some friends of mine
which live in Aachen and M"onchengladbach. Do you seek more players?
Shall I give them your email address?

And hello to Salamander!

Granted, but to paraphrase Chaucer, "Beware fortune for she is fickle and will take away what she has given at the worst of times". I contend that if the guy had not contested, he could have lost 8 CP. In my spot, I would have waited untill Mik was past me and turned the fellow into Mik-kabob... or when he went to beat, I would have used a counter, or full evasion, or... But to do nothing is basically freezing. I still hold he would have stripped even more than the seven from this footpad.

I guess this is just what this Chaucer-guy deserved, calling a fine
dame like Fortuna "fickle"...  And speaking about what the footpad
might have lost if things run badly - defending with three dice could
have made him loose 11. Actually I can imagine it rather dandy, if an
experienced fighter just knows a certain move in a certain situation
cannot harm him seriously and just waits until his over-excited
opponent has calmed down with a look on his face saying "I can still
turn him to Mik-kabob when he is out of breath."
But maybe this imagination is just too "cinematic" and couldn't
really happen?

It is of course quite a different story, if Mik could have turned the
beat into a feint. Not defending against a beat would then be just
another way to say good-bye to this world.

Ah, yes that is the thing. He could have. That is the beauty of the system! You have options upon possibilities within opportunities...

I fully agree with you.

But the question is still open: Can you really feint a Beat - or for
that matter - any maneuver? Because the rules say:

This is the first "trick" that most
swordsmen know, consisting of slashing at one region of the
body, then changing direction mid-swing...

and also

Like the feint-and-slash it begins
with a false slash...

Your next one let me really laugh!

I believe that the phrase beat may need to be demonstrated for you to really see what is happening. A beat does not mean you smash the shield away and it is behind the fellows back with his shield arm askew behind him.

Maybe I really thought too much in that direction.

It means that you are pushing it out of position, away from a line that could lead to contact with you, it does not have to be a lot. We recently did some work with this in Longsword. I was beating my opponent's sword just far enough away so that the tip of my sword was able to be thrust into the face of my opponent with a minimum (20cm) movement of the blade. So I think that a rapier could be used to displace a shield enough to reduce the fellows CP. I am finding out quick that it is not as much the weapon as it is the user.

Thanks for the good example, the whole affair makes much more sense to me now.

But I seem to be not alone with this thought, in the discussion about
the Beat, which Jake hinted too, I found:

Maybe there should be some limits - a rapier beating a doppleganger is a bit silly (IMO).

Bernd

[Salamander]

And hello to Salamander!

Hello Brassel!

I guess this is just what this Chaucer-guy deserved, calling a fine
dame like Fortuna "fickle"...  

He kinda died wealthy...

And speaking about what the footpad might have lost if things run badly - defending with three dice could have made him loose 11. Actually I can imagine it rather dandy, if an experienced fighter just knows a certain move in a certain situation cannot harm him seriously and just waits until his over-excited opponent has calmed down with a look on his face saying "I can still turn him to Mik-kabob when he is out of breath."
But maybe this imagination is just too "cinematic" and couldn't
really happen?

Ah yes, if things had run badly, Mik could have screwed it up and our footpad friend would be running our dear halfling through. That's the thing, steel was drawn, it is going badly now! I recognize that the footpad could loose all of his CP, but to just stand there and do nothing about it means he didn't actually want to rob our dear Mik, he wanted to die on his sword.

But the question is still open: Can you really feint a Beat - or for
that matter - any maneuver? Because the rules say:

This is the first "trick" that most
swordsmen know, consisting of slashing at one region of the
body, then changing direction mid-swing...

and also

Like the feint-and-slash it begins
with a false slash...

I still think that the feint could be opened with a beat, but why?

Your next one let me really laugh!

I believe that the phrase beat may need to be demonstrated for you to really see what is happening. A beat does not mean you smash the shield away and it is behind the fellows back with his shield arm askew behind him.

Er.... Good? :)

Maybe I really thought too much in that direction.

It is really easy to do that. When I first learnt how to beat a sword I was trying to use the other guy's sword as a plow! I mean I was really trying to plant the damn thing.

Thanks for the good example, the whole affair makes much more sense to me now.

I am happy to help.

But I seem to be not alone with this thought, in the discussion about
the Beat, which Jake hinted too, I found:

Maybe there should be some limits - a rapier beating a doppleganger is a bit silly (IMO).

That one may be a bit dicey, to say the least. I mean, how do you beat a spirit that foretells the death or harm of the person it portrays? Especially with something mundane like a rapier...? I'd suggest maybe a healthy dose of Banishment...

Okay, Kidding!!!

I believe that this example would be apples and oranges, what person in his right mind is going to take a rapier into a situation where folk are swingin' around doppelhanders? If it ever did come up through some freak occurence the guy with the rapier just might be able to beat the doppelhander (personally, I would beat the doppelhander by using the most ancient and secret tradition of Monty Python... "run away! run away!"...). Some force does go into a beat, but it is more the re-alignment of the sword. I personally would flee the scene and wonder why I brought a rapier to battle.