Terrain rolls

[HMT]

Since I don't have much combat experience, I'd like to make a sports analogy:

Joe Frazier became the heavyweight champion of the world by constantly aggressively crowding his opponents. As a result, his opponents consistently hit him before he hit them. It seems to me that this sort of approach or the approach of consistently wading in and counterattacking is best represented in the game by throwing the white die and choosing to attack.  Judging by the Frazier/Foreman fight, this doesn't seem to be a good strategy versus heavy hitters.

[Ashton]

The reason why I like the ability to attack after throwing white is somewhat complex and revolves around Italian rapier styles. There is no other way to perform a simultaneous block and strike (offensive move) unless both people throw red. Why do I like this? Agrippa, Capo Ferro, and Fabris did not teach a parry-riposte style. They taught a counterattack style, using either the main blade or an off hand object to deflect the opponents attack. The timing on it is not quite

1st exchange:
1st person attacks
2nd person parries

2nd exchange:
2nd person attacks
1st person parries

but rather:

1st exchange:
1st person blocks and strikes
2nd person blocks and strikes

2nd exchange:
2nd person blocks and strikes
1st person block and strikes.

In TROS terms, the idea very well might be to try and deplete the opponent's combat pool for a successful follow strike on the second exchange, especially useful if you are not completely sure of your opponent's CP. Good reason for both to throw white a couple of turns and make those style analysis and body language checks.

And yes, I realize that this tactic does not apply as much for people in full harness, but I can see it applying to the weaponn and shield crew.

[Lance D. Allen]

I think I'm failing to understand your points, Morf.

I'm FullyArmoredGuy, and I play it safe and throw white. You, UnarmoredGuy, throw red. You attack, I defend. You keep initiative, but I don't get hurt. Next round.

You attack. I attack. You hit me first, but I don't much care because I'm confident my armor can take it. I just put everything I've got into beating you down.

It seems to me that you're "throwing white" every round of an exchange, and that's not the way it works. The only time I restrict someone to defending is during the very first round of a combat, or after a notable pause when initiative is actually thrown. The rest of the time, initiative passes back and forth based on who's winning the exchanges, and there's no restriction on attack or defense.

Jake,

Waiting to recieve. Sure, I can buy that. However, the way I see it red is offense, white is defense, and in both cases you'd best be prepared to "receive". You make this decision without any actual knowledge of your opponent's intent, though you're likely to have a good guess. By throwing red, I'm intending to receive any incoming attack on my armor, my body, or on my secondary weapon (in the case of simo block/strike) but I intend to hurt my opponent too. In the case of white, I intend to receive a little more proactively, with the intent of not getting hurt, and that is my focus, rather than, in this instant, hurting my opponent. If I change my mind in the split second of attack, then I buy initiative, and hope I'm fast enough.

Let's put it this way.. I won't allow an attack on the throw of a white dice without at least an attempt to buy initiative. I'm not so totalitarian that I'd make someone defend if they attempted to buy initiative and failed. This represents the sudden shifting of gears in the mind of the combatant.

[Jake Norwood]

Lance-

I understand what you're doing now, and I think it works great. I may even encourage the same in my games. Looking at page 73 and 74, you'll see that what I'm saying is in there, but I can also see what you're saying in there. SOoooo....

We're both right! Yay!

Seriously, though, Based on your description above, you're doing just what everyone else is doing, but not in the first exchange. That's fine, but the difference is minimal, and in reality hardly worth the discussion we've had here. If a fight lasts 10 exchanges then we agree 90%. Not so bad.

So, then, "why" is the question. As long as a person knows why they're doing something, it's hard to tell them they're wrong (though you can say they're innefective). Why restrict it the first exhange and not others?

Ashton-
Single-time defense is, honestly, something I didn't fully appreciate when I wrote TROS. In all the earlier schools (both longsword, sword, and rapier), single-time is where it's at. So look at any 2 TROS exchanges not as a parry-riposte, but rather as two elements of a single action--the displacement (first exchange) and the kill (second exchange). Nothing has changed mechanically, and we're able to accomplish a "single time" defense without changing the rules. Remember that an exchange (and for that matter, a round) is flexible and elastic, and is not neccessarily defined as either a quantity of time or of action, but of result.

Jake

[Ashton]

Ashton-
Single-time defense is, honestly, something I didn't fully appreciate when I wrote TROS. In all the earlier schools (both longsword, sword, and rapier), single-time is where it's at. So look at any 2 TROS exchanges not as a parry-riposte, but rather as two elements of a single action--the displacement (first exchange) and the kill (second exchange). Nothing has changed mechanically, and we're able to accomplish a "single time" defense without changing the rules. Remember that an exchange (and for that matter, a round) is flexible and elastic, and is not neccessarily defined as either a quantity of time or of action, but of result.

Jake

No worries, it's not necessarily an easy thing to grasp, especially those of us whose first and most impressive memories of swordfighting come from Hollywood films. I was actually looking at it both in terms of time and in terms of movement if that makes any sense, though there is obviously nothing wrong in the one-two approach.
An Agrippa block and strike means that a combatant parries and strikes simultaneously (in one motion). I spent enough time with my coach telling us to block and strike simultaneously instead or trying to just block that I read it as a block-and-strike instead of block then strike, if that makes any sense.
I don't think I was advocating for any major rule change in my earlier post, just defending why I thought the "I attack even though I threw white" might make sense. It also doesn't require buying initiative- just a bit of prayer that the block works because there might not be anything left for the strike.

As an aside, I am still having trouble with my smallsword technique due to the fact that my reflexes are still keyed for single time defense, which doesn't work so well.

[Morfedel]

Wolfen: The way you are doing it is wrong. You do that with EVERY SINGLE exchange, including the first one!

Red die represents claiming the initiative, white die represents waiting for the other. And it STAYS that way until the one without the init ACTIVELY takes the initiative somehow. Now, with that in mind, thats one reason that attacking as a defense is allowed... in order to somehow try and take the initiative when no other defense will succeed... BUT you run the risk of getting run through in the meantime.

Again, though, if you house rule it differently, thats all up to you! :)

I think I'm failing to understand your points, Morf.

I'm FullyArmoredGuy, and I play it safe and throw white. You, UnarmoredGuy, throw red. You attack, I defend. You keep initiative, but I don't get hurt. Next round.

You attack. I attack. You hit me first, but I don't much care because I'm confident my armor can take it. I just put everything I've got into beating you down.

It seems to me that you're "throwing white" every round of an exchange, and that's not the way it works. The only time I restrict someone to defending is during the very first round of a combat, or after a notable pause when initiative is actually thrown. The rest of the time, initiative passes back and forth based on who's winning the exchanges, and there's no restriction on attack or defense.

Jake,

Waiting to recieve. Sure, I can buy that. However, the way I see it red is offense, white is defense, and in both cases you'd best be prepared to "receive". You make this decision without any actual knowledge of your opponent's intent, though you're likely to have a good guess. By throwing red, I'm intending to receive any incoming attack on my armor, my body, or on my secondary weapon (in the case of simo block/strike) but I intend to hurt my opponent too. In the case of white, I intend to receive a little more proactively, with the intent of not getting hurt, and that is my focus, rather than, in this instant, hurting my opponent. If I change my mind in the split second of attack, then I buy initiative, and hope I'm fast enough.

Let's put it this way.. I won't allow an attack on the throw of a white dice without at least an attempt to buy initiative. I'm not so totalitarian that I'd make someone defend if they attempted to buy initiative and failed. This represents the sudden shifting of gears in the mind of the combatant.

[Mike Holmes]

James, I'm not sure which of you is saying what. But the initiative dice are only chosen at the beginning of combat, or after a break in the action. Not every exchange.

Mike

[Morfedel]

I never said it was chosen at the beginning of each exchange.

I said initiative is determined after the first exchange based on how the flow of combat occurs.

[Lance D. Allen]

Sorry, no. The only thing I'm possibly doing "wrong" is not allowing an attack on white.

If you win a defense, you have initiative. It's in the rules, page 77, first paragraph. If you are not disagreeing with this, then I fail to see what you mean by "ACTIVELY" taking the initiative.

[Morfedel]

Simply put, it is possible to have guy with armor and toughness combo that is, frankly, very hard to penetrate.

the defender can fail over and over in a defense, tne offender wails on the armor and fails to penetrate, and the attacker, if not allowed to attack on a defense, would never be able to attack.

We did a combat where one person was in full harness, and precisely this happened. the guy who kept the advantage just couldnt get through the armor.

But the guy in armor, if restrained from attacking when he is, in effect, set as defender, the attacker can NEVER gain an attack because he has no hope of generating a defense high enough to stop the attacker, who when not in full harness has a higher dice pool; all this barring extremes of luck.

By being able to attack AS your defense, you sacrifice your ability to make an active defense, hope you survive the attack, and immediately follow up with a counter attack. If you have a high toughness and full harness, and your foe isnt a musclebound conan, then this could work.