Both attack - impact on Order of a Round?

[Bill Cook]

Luke (ZazielsRephaim) and I were doing some basic playtesting this morning, and a pretty important issue arose.

At the beginning of a bout, we both threw red and made a contest of Reflex, per p. 74, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph.  My guy won and rolled up a level five wound.

L: Well, that's it.
B: No, now you roll your attack.
L: There's no point.  A level five wound in that location kills.
B: Yeah, but damage doesn't resolve until after the first exchange. (cf. Order of a Round p. 73.)
L: But your blow lands first.  If my guy still got to attack, there'd be no advantage to going first.
B: True, but . . . that's not supported, really, the way I read it.

How to handle?

[Caz]

Resolve the damage as it's dealt, it's what makes sense and there's no reason not to.  I think that's what they meant anyway.

[Salamander]

Yeah, what Caz sez.

[Callan S.]

Yeah, its only with somthing like with a thrust where both attacks are rolled regardless (if both parties go red and have the same reflex number).

[Brian Leybourne]

I can see where that chart on p.73 might look confusing at first for red/red, but it still works.

In a combat round, there are two attacks. This is true of red/red or red/white, and is clear if you follow that chart through.

In a red/white, one guy attacks and the other guy defends. Then you resolve damage. Then one guy attacks (the same guy if the first attack succeeded, or the other guy if it didn't and thus initiative swapped) and the other guy defends. Then you resolve damage. Then it's the end of the round. Exactly like the chart says.

With me so far?

OK, the trick is that in a red/red it's exactly the same, except that neither guy gets to defend. One guy attacks (the one who won initiative). Resolve damage. The other guy attacks (if he still can). Resolve damage. End of the round.

It still works, you just keep in mind that the not-attacking guy has no defense to roll. There are just two other wrinkles:

1) One or both guys might be using SImultaneous Block/Strike. In that case, he gets defense against the other guys attack even if he lost initiative. Just follow the chart.

2) They roll identical initiative and both strikes are said to land simultaneously. In this case, just skip step 4 and resolve bothn lots od damage at the end of the round. This usually results in both guys falling onto each othners blades.

Brian.

(edit: Download the Combat Sim from the webpage and have a play with that, it should help clear up any confusion).

[Bill Cook]

Resolve the damage as it's dealt, it's what makes sense and there's no reason not to.

I can think of one reason: they could both land blows in the same exchange.

The contest of Reflexes seems to determine whose blow lands first.  It's not clear how that's relevant to resolution.

I see two possibilities.  In the case of both attacking,
[list=1]
[*]the quicker blow negates the slower one.

    OR

[*]a modified order is enacted.

[*]3.1. Quicker one rolls his attack.
[*]3.2. Resolve damage for the quicker one.
[*]4.1. Slower one rolls his attack.
[*]4.2. Resolve damage for the slower one.
[/list:u]
[/list:o]

So my question is, more specifically, does the contest of Reflex negate the slower attack, modify the order of a round or something else?

[Brian Leybourne]

Bill,

We crossposted. It happens :-)

In case you didn't spot it, I posted an answer to your query just above your latest reply.

Brian.

[Bill Cook]

In a red/white, one guy attacks and the other guy defends. Then you resolve damage. Then one guy attacks (the same guy if the first attack succeeded, or the other guy if it didn't and thus initiative swapped) and the other guy defends. Then you resolve damage. Then it's the end of the round. Exactly like the chart says.

With me so far?

Yes.

OK, the trick is that in a red/red it's exactly the same, except that neither guy gets to defend. One guy attacks (the one who won initiative). Resolve damage. The other guy attacks (if he still can). Resolve damage. End of the round.

This is so cool to me.  This was my first reaction in explaining my quandry to Luke (ZazielsRephaim).  It is elegant.

It still works, you just keep in mind that the not-attacking guy has no defense to roll. There are just two other wrinkles:

First I must let my salad digest:)  Thx for your help.

P.S.  Was watching Luke breeze through your Windows-based character generator.  It looks to be an asset to the game.

[Lance D. Allen]

OK, the trick is that in a red/red it's exactly the same, except that neither guy gets to defend. One guy attacks (the one who won initiative). Resolve damage. The other guy attacks (if he still can). Resolve damage. End of the round.

Actually, Brian has one thing wrong..

A red/red engagement still has two exchanges, at least technically.

If we both attack, and I throw all of my dice, and you throw all of your dice, which is what I think Brian is assuming, then nothing happens on the second exchange, and the round ends.

However, if you throw half of your dice on the attack, and I throw half my dice on my attack, and neither of us are killed outright, then that second exchange still happens. That means there can be 3, or even 4 attacks in a round.

But Bill, you got it right essentially here, except that both answers are essentially correct:

1. the quicker blow negates the slower one.

OR

2. a modified order is enacted.

3.1. Quicker one rolls his attack.
3.2. Resolve damage for the quicker one.
4.1. Slower one rolls his attack.
4.2. Resolve damage for the slower one.

If I attack first, and the pain/shock/death of my attack is enough to cancel all of the dice you used to attack (I personally apply pain/shock to the dice which are declared first, then to undeclared dice, and I think this is fairly common) then your attack is negated. If the pain/shock/death is not enough, then you get to attack, albeit with lesser power than you would have before you got nailed, assuming the attack got through armor and TO.

Edit: I'm aware that I didn't actually add anything to Brian's explanation, but I clarified a few things, I hope, that I thought were important to note.

[Brian Leybourne]

Actually, Brian has one thing wrong..

No he doesn't.

In red/red there is only a single exchange. This has been long established around here, and I'm surprised you missed it, Lance.

Brian.

[Lance D. Allen]

Ah.. Unless there's something in the rules that says that and I missed it, I'm going to have to disagree, Brian. I see no reason to deviate from the stated rules in a red/red engagement.

[ZazielsRephaim]

Hmmm I must have missed that too (concerning a RED/RED exchange only having 1 exchange in the round)....  Could someone point me to a page number?  I'm definately going to re-read through all the combat rules one more time.

-Luke

[Overdrive]

I'm with Lance here. On a pure red/red start of combat, it's usually just that one exchange, because both combatants know that the other is attacking. But on later rounds' first exchanges. One has the initiative and attacks with half dice. The other attacks as well, but he can use his full pool, where the initial attacker only uses half! What a cheap tactic :) So, if one of them makes it and has dice left, I let them use those in the second exchange.

This same question seems to come around every once in a while..

[Ingenious]

First off I'm ranting here, but let me say that Brian's combat generator works sufficiently for proving his point, as I had tooled around with it for awhile getting my character's combat style and tactics down, minus the horse though.
Now then, from what I understood of the book for the whole 10 minutes I had a hold of it... you determine initiative first, then dice to commit(is commit spelled with one t or two?)((and is the correct grammar usage 'spelled' or 'spelt'??)), but if it's red/red make a roll against reflexes.. and if it still remains tied it will all be simultaneous.(At least it was like that in the combat generator) But to address the previous point about using all of your dice pool... I played around with the combat simulator in those very cases where I didnt split the pool because my character is on horseback and it's hard for someone to throw a red die in a combat round when the rounds starts and I'm 30 or so yards away and charging at the target... and knowing that... I'll use my full combat pool in order to increase the chance of successes and to increase the damage should there be more than a few successes. (with a large dice pool it is entirely possible for one to roll up with 7 or more successes with 7 strength and 3 weapon damage... thus resulting in a 17... minus armor and toughness.. and that usually means a level 5 wound... which also means death. Unless someone can come up with a seriously powerful character capable of absorbing such a blow. Hell, I mean.. even 'fine plate armor' is only worth 6 right? so... 6 on armor plus 7 toughness is 13 right? still leaves you with a level 4 wound. Though that may seem 'game-breaking' or 'min/maxing' or extraordinary... I say it's logical at least for someone to use their full die pool in a given situation. You can and should do it when your opponent is injured and has few dice to defend with, so why not do so when the situation warrants it? It was historically done was it not, the exploitation of opponent's weaknesses???
Likewise with my last post, this all is probably useless info by the time I hit the submit button.
-Ingenious

[Thanaeon]

I'm pretty sure it read somewhere in the rules that if both through red, the round only has one exchange. It's most likely explained in the initiative rules, though I could be wrong.

Also, I think there are only two exchanges in a round, no matter how conservatively you use your dice.