Both attack - impact on Order of a Round?

[Bill Cook]

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

Brian does not say otherwise.

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.

Because both opponents are out of dice or one or more has fallen, not because the rules concerning the order of a round do not allow the possibility of a second Exchange.  They do.

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.

Assuming that both opponents may attack within the same Exchange.  The limit to this view is that the contest of Reflex to determine whose blow lands first becomes irrelevant.

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

Both interpretations cannot exist simultaineously.  They are too distinct.  I smell a term definition issue . . .

If I attack first, and the pain/shock/death of my attack is enough to cancel all of the dice you used to attack . . .

. . . assuming that the quicker aggressor's damage is resolved prior to the slower aggressor's attack (which suggests that you're back to thinking of one attack per Exchange; which is your position?) . . .

(I personally apply pain/shock to the dice which are declared first, then to undeclared dice, and I think this is fairly common)

(This is a side point, but because pain and shock are aspects of damage, they are resolved post Exchange, at which time declared dice are spent.  Therefore, there is no distinction in applying pain or shock penalties to the wounded's pools.)

. . .  then your attack is negated.

Because there are no CP left to spend on it, not because losing the contest of Reflex precludes the possibility of a slower attack, which is a clarification of the first possibility I posed.

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.

I appreciate your input.  My need is to understand what the rules allow, not how actual play outcomes may cut short the order of a round.

*************************

In red/red there is only a single exchange.

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.

According to the order of a round, resolving damage is a successive step that is seperate of an Exchange.  Your explanation contradicts your assertion.

*************************

Here's the conundrum I see.

p. 72 "Each Round is . . . divided into two Combat Exchanges . . ."

That kind of settles the issue of how many Exchanges there are each Round.  There are two.

In the case of red/red,

p. 74 "A contest of Reflex . . . determines who's strike lands first.  Remember that no defense is possible in the middle of an attack, so the loser of the contest usually ends up dead."

My question, here: what does your strike landing first imply in terms of the order of a round, if anything?  I recognize that red/red precludes defense, but that doesn't answer my question.

p. 76 "During each individual Exchange each party gets one 'action,' meaning that one usually attacks and the other defends (usually...)."

This suggests that sometimes, presumably in the case of red/red, both parties may attack within the same Exchange.  I take this implication to be rather firm.

*************************

I see my second possibility now as being like a double action round.  It adds nothing and is untenable.  Best forgotten.

The first possibility remains viable.  To restate, procedurally, "Both attacks occur within the first Exchange.  The contest of Reflex loser's attack is ruled not to occur.  Proceed as normal therafter."

Brian said, in the first moment of clarity in this thread, "Spread the attacks across the two Exchanges.  Whoever wins the contest is slotted to the first Exchange." (I paraphrase).  I find this to be elegant, though unsupported.

I think Lance (Wolfen) is more aligned to the second possibility I posed (which I now disavow), though I find his position unclear.  I draw one element of it to form a contrast to Brian: "Both parties attack within the same Exchange.  Hold to the order of a round as stated."  This obviates the contest of Reflex and, significantly, allows for falling on each other's swords, where other interpretations do not.

[Thanaeon]

I'm pretty sure that if one attacker in a red/red situation wins the Reflex test, he can attack first and if he delivers damage, then it will affect his opponent's attack. After all, if this wasn't so, then the whole Reflex test would be useless, since it wouldn't matter who attacked first. It may not have been stated explicitly in the rules, but that's how I always read them, because that's the way that makes sense. (If you're striking but haven't landed your blow yet, I'd imagine that someone taking a whack at you would affect your aim, not to mention your bodily integrity.)

We really need Jake to clear this one up here.

[Ingenious]

Bill, if we don't get this cleared up by Saturday it probably wont be much of a difference... so don't sweat the issue too much... although I know your mind wants a resolution to your topic. The battle generator works fine for red/red and everything else, and even in red/red exchanges... it is entirely possible for someone to be hit in a simultaneous attack at the first exchange and survive for the second exchange, and still be a viable opponent. I just did several rounds of solid red/red with a flail and shield and it took 4 level 5 wounds to kill the guy. So you see my point with that.
So as long as you make the reflex throw on a red/red and the winner hits first we're fine. and if the reflex throw ends in a draw... then it's a simultaneous event... and we're still in the clear. I hope.

-Cory
:edited to note that Brian's combat simulator is flawed in that it allows you to have negative health, as was the case when it took me dealing out 4 level 5 wounds to kill the cut n thrust kid.

[ZazielsRephaim]

As per my interpretation of the rules (and I will re-read)  Say Alan and Bob are getting into a fight.  They throw dice and it comes up RED/RED.

The contest of reflex comes up with Alan and Bob in a TIE!  (one can "buy initative, but let us say they dont)  They both attack, they both figure out damage, if anyone is still alive with CP left over, they can then attack or defend in the second exchange.  I however would expect that to be unlikely.  

The question arises, who has initiative if both attacked successfully.  Three options are.
1.  Whomever had the most successes has initiative.
2.  If only one person has CP left over... he does.
3.  No one does, so you have to throw dice (hence the only 1 exchange in a red/red round)

Now let us rewind.  Say the contest of Reflex results in ALAN attacking first (once again Bob can buy initiative, but let us say he doesnt).  Alan and Bob declare their attacks and set aside the dice they choose to spend for the attack.  Alan rolls first, hits.  

Here is where we get the delema.  Do we wait to calculate damage?  I say no.  I see this mostly as a time saver, and it helps simplify things for the GM and players.  IF Bob is not going to be able to affect Alan, why bother with rolling his attack and damage rolls.  

As for whether or not he can hurt Alan, my intuition tells me that the only reasons his attack wont land are...
1. INSTANT DEATH.  If Alan kills Bob in the first blow.
2. INSTANT KO.  If Alan knocks out Bob in the first blow.
3. AMPUTATION/DISARM  If Alan cuts off Bob's arm, or knocks his weapon away.

Otherwise, BOB will still land his attack on ALAN.  I do not see reason to take the CP penalty for shock out of the dice ALREADY SPENT for the attack taking place simultaniously.  Do you take CP away from CP you allready spent in a defence?  If I am not mistaken... the shock will come out of your UNSPENT CP.  Sooo now you roll BOB's attack and apply damage.

HERE ENDS THE EXCHANGE!

The question again rises... who has initiative?
If only one attack landed (Alan's, cuz Bob is dead or KO) then obviously Alan would gain intiative.
If only one person still has CP, then he has intiative.
If Both attacks land(and both charaters still alive).  There is no clear intiative.  Roll Red/White dice again, start new round.


I hope I worded things clearly.  Remember YMMV.  This is just my opinion and interpretation of the rules.  I will gladly accept reasons for differing ideas.  

Let me know what you think, and if you see any issues with that.

-Luke

[Bill Cook]

Thought about this a bit more . . .

[list=1]
[*]For red/red, contest of Reflex is only relevant if a step to resolve the quicker attacker's damage precedes the slower attacker's attack.
[*]The Karmic value of a two-Exchange Round is played out in budgeting CP.  This becomes skewed when you double or halve the count of Exchanges.
[/list:o]

Arguing for relevance to the contest of Reflex assumes value in staggering simultaineous action.  The purpose of which seems to be inserting a step for damage resolution.

About that second point, the lack of defense in red/red makes it a non-issue.  i.e.  There's no point in holding back.  This promotes an exaggeration of lethality for this Initiative case, beyond the impossibility of defense.  Considering its relative frequency (i.e. 25%), is this desirable?  If not, what are viable alternatives?

I guess it depends on the design goal.

******************

I think Brian's way is most suitable to my preferences, though I do not advance it as being supported by the rules.  I rather think it is not.  But frankly, I find the rules to be discordant on this point.

Cory (Ingenious):
Yes, yes.  I'll stop obsessing.  TROS people, take my obsessing as a compliment:)

[Bill Cook]

I see my second possibility now as being like a double action round. It adds nothing and is untenable. Best forgotten.

Just thought about this in light of CP budgeting, . . . and I think I grasp its perceived value.  I suspect that because of this misperception (which I will elaborate), it is a leading alternative to spreading attacks across Exchanges.

Essentially, modify the order of a round by breaking down steps 3 and 4 accordingly:

3.1. Quicker aggressor attacks.
3.2. Resolve damage.
3.3. Slower aggressor attacks.
3.4. Resolve damage.

. . .  where steps 3.1. through 3.4. respresent the first Exchange.

Who carries initiative to the second Exchange?  Whoever won the contest of Reflex would be a simple answer.

What made me bring this back up is realizing that with each party having an action per Exchange, there is a call for budgeting.  But it is a false sense of need that is trumped by the key quality of red/red: there's no point in holding back.

So ultimately, even given consideration to CP budgeting, I find this approach to be inferior.

[Brian Leybourne]

Talk about a lot of hoohaw for something that's otherwise seldom ever even come up :-)

I can't be bothered searching the forum (others may feel free, but frankly, it's too big now), but it was stated pretty early on in the life of the forum by Jake (because I asked, because I needed to know for coding the combat sim) that immediately following a red/red single exchange, it's a new round with a new declaration of initiative (i.e. both parties throw red or white again). I also have it in a private email from Jake. End of story.

My description of how to read the chart was more for simplistic sake, that's probably not how it was intended when written, but it fits (elegantly, I think) with the way it's supposed to work. I was just trying to make things clearer.

Brian.

[Lance D. Allen]

Of course it's seldom come up.. Some people have obviously been assuming that it was settled one way, and others were assuming it's been settled another.

For the record, I'm going to play it as written, because I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be. I've seen situations that mirror exactly that (double attacks where neither person "dies" and which are immediately, without pause, followed by another attack) and while I admit that my experiences are somewhat questionable, as the SCA does not simulate combat as exactly as some other practitioners, I believe it's close enough for approximation.

To address Bill's comment here:

What made me bring this back up is realizing that with each party having an action per Exchange, there is a call for budgeting. But it is a false sense of need that is trumped by the key quality of red/red: there's no point in holding back.

In most cases, you may be right about not holding back. However, it is folly to assume that all cases are identical. I've had double red exchanges happen in game where I've used a simo-block and strike with all dice, and my opponent held back about half of his dice. I was able to parry his strike, and do some small amount of damage to him. However, on the second exchange, he had free rein to follow-up because I'd expended all of my dice. Or even if I hadn't, so had a few dice left, he'd have enough of an advantage to pull a counter or similar maneuver, and give him an advantage on the next round. TRoS combat is all about calculated risks, and what works in some situations doesn't work in others. Don't discount anything until you've tried it.

And to respond to one comment of Luke's, here:

I do not see reason to take the CP penalty for shock out of the dice ALREADY SPENT for the attack taking place simultaniously. Do you take CP away from CP you allready spent in a defence? If I am not mistaken... the shock will come out of your UNSPENT CP.

The reason I advocate applying shock/pain to dice already declared in the attack against the slower attacker is that the attacks (unless the reflex contest were a tie) do not happen at the same moment. My attack (as the winner of the reflex contest) happens before yours. In the split second before your strike lands, your body takes massive (or not so massive) trauma, and shocks your system, which is enough to take some or all the force out of your attack. You cite the ridiculousness of taking dice from a defense attempt as a parallel, but it's really not, because defense really does happen simultaneously. You are waiting to receive the attack, and moving accordingly to be in the right place at the right time. In the case of a double attack, this is not so as the damage is resolved before you even get to complete your attempt.

Put it this way.. If damage is unable to disrupt an already declared attack, why is death able to do so? It could be argued that if the bodily trauma of injury is unable to affect an action already beginning, then whyso death? Total death (meaning all bodily functions cease, rather than simply braindeath or the stopping of the heart) isn't any quicker than the effects of injury... slower in fact, as generally it is the injury which leads to the death.

I'm not sure how coherent that was. I hope it was enough. If, however you choose to continue to do it your way, then that is your choice. I'm no more of a TRoS Nazi than Jake is, so I won't be showing up on your doorstep to take you to a concentration camp for deviant gamers.

The above paragraph is my entirely tongue-in-cheek way of saying YMMV.

[ZazielsRephaim]

I do not see reason to take the CP penalty for shock out of the dice ALREADY SPENT for the attack taking place simultaniously. Do you take CP away from CP you allready spent in a defence? If I am not mistaken... the shock will come out of your UNSPENT CP.

The reason I advocate applying shock/pain to dice already declared in the attack against the slower attacker is that the attacks (unless the reflex contest were a tie) do not happen at the same moment. My attack (as the winner of the reflex contest) happens before yours. In the split second before your strike lands, your body takes massive (or not so massive) trauma, and shocks your system, which is enough to take some or all the force out of your attack. You cite the ridiculousness of taking dice from a defense attempt as a parallel, but it's really not, because defense really does happen simultaneously. You are waiting to receive the attack, and moving accordingly to be in the right place at the right time. In the case of a double attack, this is not so as the damage is resolved before you even get to complete your attempt.

Put it this way.. If damage is unable to disrupt an already declared attack, why is death able to do so? It could be argued that if the bodily trauma of injury is unable to affect an action already beginning, then whyso death? Total death (meaning all bodily functions cease, rather than simply braindeath or the stopping of the heart) isn't any quicker than the effects of injury... slower in fact, as generally it is the injury which leads to the death.

Thank you for bringing that up.  I wasn't totaly sure on it, and after think on it for a few hours I'm thinking that its quite relative to the wound applied.  I thought about how to model that and noticed HEY that's allready in there.  The varying degree of shock from wound to wound.  Forgive me for being half asleep last night.  So I'll be changing how I deal with this issue.

Shock will apply to the CP spent, starting with the failed rolls, then the successful rolls, then the unspent dice, then the dice from next round. so forth....   Until the shock debt is fully paid.  Of course that only takes place for the second attacker in the RED/RED scenerio.  This will automatically cancle the attack in the case of total death (a dead man has no CP correct?)  and KO.

As for starting a new round with a die roll after a RED/RED... I still will stand by allowing a second exchange to occur, with initiative by whomever has CP left only one person does.  If both do, someone can buy initiative if they want... If no one does, then roll a red and white die for starting a new round.  Note, this would not imply a break in the action here.... It's just to determine attacker/defender, when there is not a good basis for initiative.

Bill, Cory, (and Nick if he's lurking here) is that ok with you guys?  And once again, if anyone has any thoughts or suggestions, just let me know.  Also, YMMV, and objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

-Luke

[Jake Norwood]

Well, I read everything, but I mostly confused myself in the process. I'm going to answer one post here, and see if that clears up "my way." YMMV.

Essentially, modify the order of a round by breaking down steps 3 and 4 accordingly:

3.1. Quicker aggressor attacks.
3.2. Resolve damage.
3.3. Slower aggressor attacks.
3.4. Resolve damage.

. . . where steps 3.1. through 3.4. respresent the first Exchange.

That's how I run it.

Who carries initiative to the second Exchange? Whoever won the contest of Reflex would be a simple answer.

What made me bring this back up is realizing that with each party having an action per Exchange, there is a call for budgeting. But it is a false sense of need that is trumped by the key quality of red/red: there's no point in holding back.

And that's where I think Brian's coming from, or where I was coming from when I explained that to Brian. Who carries initiative on the next exchange? I'd say the guy with any dice left. If nobody has dice due to shock (but they will when that wears off), then I say consider it a "pause" and go to red/white. If both have dice left over you can either give it to whoever won the first time, to whomever took the least damage, or to whomever wins a new contest of reflex/buys initiative.

So ultimately, even given consideration to CP budgeting, I find this approach to be inferior.

What, specifically, is inferior (for clarification's sake...I'm confused).

Also, I--like everybody--am open to new ideas on resolving this.

Jake

[Bill Cook]

I've had double red exchanges happen in game where I've used a simo-block and strike with all dice, and my opponent held back about half of his dice. I was able to parry his strike, and do some small amount of damage to him. However, on the second exchange, he had free rein to follow-up because I'd expended all of my dice. Or even if I hadn't, so had a few dice left, he'd have enough of an advantage to pull a counter or similar maneuver, and give him an advantage on the next round. TRoS combat is all about calculated risks, and what works in some situations doesn't work in others.

Cool.  The value to this more per-game-text approach emerges.  I admit ignorance of these more advanced maneuvers, but its sounds like your working some element of defense back into the Exchange or holding back to gain subsequent round advantage.

. . . it is folly to assume that all cases are identical. . . .  Don't discount anything until you've tried it.

Point taken.

**********************

The reason I advocate applying shock/pain to dice already declared in the attack against the slower attacker is that the attacks (unless the reflex contest were a tie) do not happen at the same moment. My attack (as the winner of the reflex contest) happens before yours. In the split second before your strike lands, your body takes massive (or not so massive) trauma, and shocks your system, which is enough to take some or all the force out of your attack.

Apart from my first possibility,

Both attacks occur within the first Exchange. The contest of Reflex loser's attack is ruled not to occur. Proceed as normal therafter.

I read uniform support of the notion

For red/red, contest of Reflex is only relevant if a step to resolve the quicker attacker's damage precedes the slower attacker's attack.

Differing views center around implementation of this imperative.  I had noticed a semantic difference between what Brian was saying and what I was understanding, but I thought, as long as we're staring at the same animal and describing it in different ways, who cares.  However, Lance's (Wolfen's) argument with Luke (ZazielsRephaim) about application of shock/pain effects brings to light a qualitative difference and makes it valuable to dilineate.

Consider the following models for order of a round in the case of red/red:

[list=1]
[*]This is what Brian's saying.

   [Begin round]
   [Begin first Exchange]

[*]Quicker aggressor attacks.
[*]Resolve damage.
[*]Slower aggressor attacks.
[*]Resolve damage.
[/list:u]
   [End first Exchange]
   [End round]

[*]This is what I took him to mean.

   [Begin round]
   [Begin first Exchange]

[*]Quicker aggressor attacks.
[/list:u]
   [End first Exchange]

[*]Resolve damage.
[/list:u]
   [Begin second Exchange]

[*]Slower aggressor attacks.
[/list:u]
   [End second Exchange]

[*]Resolve damage.
[/list:u]
   [End round]

   Notice how this is practically copied from the game text; all that it's missing is the proviso, "Defender defends," within the Exchange.  As you can see, I'm a bit fixated on damage resolution being excluded from the exchange (betraying my M:TG leanings).  But I thought, why quibble?  It legitimizes the contest of Reflex, and that was the goal.

[*]This is what Lance is saying.

   [Begin round]
   [Begin first Exchange]

[*]Quicker aggressor attacks.
[*]Resolve damage.
[*]Slower aggressor attacks.
[*]Resolve damage.
[/list:u]
   [End first Exchange]
   [Begin second Exchange]

[*]Quicker aggressor attacks.
[*]Resolve damage.
[*]Slower aggressor attacks.
[*]Resolve damage.
[/list:u]
   [End second Exchange]
   [End round]
[/list:o]

Brian's model is not supported for count of Exchange while Lance's is, and neither Brain nor Lance's model is supported with concern to excluding damage resolution from the Exchange step.

Come to think of it, my model loses term distinction in favor of holding form (i.e. I try to follow the written order so much that the concept of a combat exchange becomes inaccurate.)  The advantage of my model is that it prevents issues of shock/pain application by resolving prior to CP allocation.

To directly address the argument over shock/pain application, I think we shouldn't have to choose, and I advocate my model as a means of addressing pools prior to announcement of action.  But if other models are employed, Lance's case for spent-then-unspent based on staggering a simultaineous pair of blows makes good sense to me.

(Edited to distinguish between issues of models for order of a round and shock/pain application.)

[Bill Cook]

Bill, Cory, (and Nick if he's lurking here) is that ok with you guys?

I defer to the Seneschal:)

So ultimately, even given consideration to CP budgeting, I find this approach to be inferior.

What, specifically, is inferior (for clarification's sake...I'm confused).

The lack of incentive to budget CP for a second Exchange.  However, Lance (Wolfen) has since cited some examples to the contrary.

Also, if you're using Brian's model, the lack of a second Exchange makes my point a non-issue.

************************

Hey, thx for taking a look at this.  Your game is very compelling.  It's gotten my group excited about trying new things.

[Ingenious]

I defer to Luke also for the answer to this pandora's box.
But I do like the part about applying damage right after the first blow in a red/red exchange in order to take some of the force out of the second person's attack... this seems logical and realistic to me. So maybe if we were to come up with a solution that involved both the reflex part and the INCLUSION of the shock and such..
like this:
red/red
first exchange..
Person1 rolls reflex higher than person 2
Person 1 attacks, resolves damage
Person 2 makes his attack but the attack is negated or weakened by shock/pain/dismemberment etc.
That works for when the reflex throws are different.
Now then...
red/red
first exchange.
Players 1 and 2 roll reflex and tie.
Simtaneous attack.
Players roll their dice, resolve damage(if any) but the blows are not weakened because the blows impact at the same split second.

Seem fair and realistic enough for approval??
-Cory

[Brian Leybourne]

Heh.

Bill, you're kind of right in what I was saying. Actually, I was saying that your #1 was right but I treat it like your #2 so that it "fits" into that chart.

Hell, it's really not that big a deal, it doesn't come up all *that* often really (or, not in my games at least). However you choose to resolve it in your game is fine and dandy.

Brian.

[Bill Cook]

It is amusing.  My group seems to be leaning towards Lance's model, while I prefer yours.

I'm quite finished.  It's been fun looking into this.  Thx all.