Hi all

I dont understand the Double Attack manouver, or to say it better, i dont under stand how to react to it.
Your opponent may defend by:

(a) Evading = Now do you roll one evade for both attack, or can you only evade one attack?!?!? or do you split the poll and roll for two evades????

(b) Blocking+parry or double parry, same as normal, but splits the dice poll into two right? one for each attack?.

QUESTION:
MY character with a Greatsword (2H), is attacked but a guy with two weapons who Double Attack, can i parry both with my single weapon (ie. the (b) option), splitting the pool into two?

Generaly i hope to get more info about it.

a:You only need to roll one evade (though the GM can mix it up depending on the situation)

b:right

Generally no, you'd only be parrying one of his weapons. If I were your GM though, and you were using a great sword, particularly if he was making both attacks as thrusts, I may allow you sweep both aside in one parry at a slightly higher TN or a terrain roll.

Caz has it. Generally you need 2 weapons to do a double parry, but you can parry+block if you're using weapon+shield, or you can evade both attacks at once.

Brian.

Can you parry one and evade the other?
Essentially parrying the left, and then evading left? and vice versa? Or does combat happen to quickly for this to happen?

*shrug*
An interesting hypothesis in either case..though.. slightly illogical. Unless you don't try to full evade weapon #2, and if your weapon's DTN is lower than partial evade.. meaning an increased chance of success with a parry...especially half-swording a greatsword(which is possible I think...) That would be logical then..

-Ingenious

Am I correct in assuming that a double attack move is both weapons being used to attack at the exact same moment rather than two seperate attacks occuring in one exchange? If the latter is the case why can't the defender attempt to make a "double parry"?

Example: Fight A has a long sword, fighter B has a longsword and dagger.

B slashes at A's head with his longsword followed immediately by a thrust with his dagger to A's belly. A reacts by parrying the slash and then quickly dropping his blade to deflect the dagger.

OR


B slashes at A's head and thrust at A's belly at the exact same time. With two attack incoming A must either evade or attampt to parry one while hoping the other isn't successful. In essence this is the same as being attacked by two seperate opponents who are coordinating their assult on you.

So is the last example the only one where Double Attack is used? Would the first one be a double attack, or simply be two seperate exchanges?

You are correct in thinking that a double attack is two attacks at once.
An exchange happens too damned fast in order for someone to parry one attack and then the next. Or, if they are one attack followed by another in the same exchange.. and exchange is too small of an amount of time for the difference between attacks to be measureable by the naked eye. You'd have to use some high speed camera's/super slow-motion video for that..

Example: An exhcange is the real world equivallent of 1/2 a second.
Can you parry two attacks that fast? I don't think so, unless you're faster than super-man..

Though, the book does say that a round can be 1 or 2 seconds.. so an exchange can be one second.. but that second would still be devided into proportions of that one second.. and I still doubt you have enough reaction time for that....

To answer your post entirely.. the first example would be not possible.. the second is the correct way of current looking at the picture(unless my view is superceded by the higher authorities..)

-Ingenious

OK, that makes much mroe sense. Instead of trying to tie an exchange to a real world time figure why not just say "An exchange occurs in the time it takes for a character to make a single attack". That could be anywhere from a fraction of a second to a full second or more, but it explicitly denies the ability for two attacks to occur in one exchange unless they happen at the same time.

Now I have another question regarding the use of two weapons: do you get any bonus to your CP for having a weapon in your other hand when you are not making a dual attack? Assuming a character has the coordination and skill to use two weapons effectively shouldn't they have the potential to make more parries/attacks in a given time frame (a round) even when those attacks are part of separate exchanges?

Example (same fighters as above):

Fighter A attacks B with his longsword. Fighter B parries with his own longsword and immediately counter attacks with his dagger.

Now I'm assuming fighter B would have to split his CP between his parry and his attack in the next exchange, but how is this different than if he simply parried with the longsword and then attacked with it in the next exchange? If there is no difference then I think something is missing. I know dual weapon fighting wasn't nearly as common as it is in most fantasy games and books, but I do know people who can do it and they are b*tch to fight against even when they don't try to stick you in two places at once (unless they are like me, when I've tried to fight with two weapons I generally hurt myself more than anyone else, so I stick to two handers now).

I suppose one possibility would be to have a separate proficiency for double weapon fighting which would add dice to the combatant's CP when using a weapon in each hand. This makes sense to me: it takes into account the need for specific training in the use of two weapons yet also provides a reward for doing so. Does anyone use a simillar rule to this one?

Which leads me to another question: lets say the character has a sword in one hand and dagger in the other. Which proficiency is used to determine his CP? Sword, Dagger, or both?

Apologies if this is addressed elsewhere in the forums or in the actual rules, my book hasn't arrived yet.

Thanks.

Tash wrote: Now I have another question regarding the use of two weapons: do you get any bonus to your CP for having a weapon in your other hand when you are not making a dual attack?

Assuming a character has the coordination and skill to use two weapons effectively shouldn't they have the potential to make more parries/attacks in a given time frame (a round) even when those attacks are part of separate exchanges?

Example (same fighters as above):

Fighter A attacks B with his longsword. Fighter B parries with his own longsword and immediately counter attacks with his dagger.

Now I'm assuming fighter B would have to split his CP between his parry and his attack in the next exchange, but how is this different than if he simply parried with the longsword and then attacked with it in the next exchange?

If there is no difference then I think something is missing. I know dual weapon fighting wasn't nearly as common as it is in most fantasy games and books,

Which leads me to another question: lets say the character has a sword in one hand and dagger in the other. Which proficiency is used to determine his CP? Sword, Dagger, or both?

nsruf wrote:
Now I have a question of my own, since I am still learning the rules myself: is there a penalty for off-hand weapon use? The ambidexterity gift seems to assume as much, but I haven't found anything else in the book.

Tash wrote: Instead of trying to tie an exchange to a real world time figure why not just say "An exchange occurs in the time it takes for a character to make a single attack".

That clarifies a whole lot Nsruf. I'd assumed that proficiencies worked like they do in "that other game"TM, i.e. to fight with a sword and shield you need to be proficient with the particular kind of sword, and the particular kind of shield. I assumed "Cut and Thrust" was referring to cut and thrust style swords, not a complete style that included both a long cutting weapon and a shorter thrusting weapon in the opposite hand.

As for the frequency of multi weapon fighting, I wasn't trying to imply that the system depicted here is inaccurate. I was referring to the fact that many games seem to make two weapon fighting a virtual requirement for a swordsman, in effect implying that all swordsman used two blades, usually of the same type (I think we have a certain well known fantasy writer with a penchant for Zs to thank for this.). I'm sure we can all agree that this is an inaccurate depiction.
From my understanding two weapon use in WMA centers mostly around long weapon/dagger combinations and didn't become very prevalent until the renaissance when the parrying dagger and rapier became became the most common form of personal defense.
My understanding is pretty much limited to watching the History Channel though, so I may well be wrong. I'd welcome input from anyone with more knowledge on the subject.

Cut and thrust is a style making use of a fairly equal amount of cutting and thrusting with the same weapon. Hence the reason that cut-and-thrust swords are generally equal in both, with a bit more effectiveness on the thrust. However, it does indeed assume a secondary weapon, be it a dagger, a buckler, or (my personal favorite) an arming glove. Obviously a buckler is not a thrusting weapon, and neither is a glove, but they are included in the cut-and-thrust style.

I believe it might even be possible for a shortsword to be paired with a cut-and-thrust sword, but that might mean a small penalty, as a short sword is a bit less wieldy than a dagger.

Personally, my first character (who appears in OBaM; Tiberius Damarisk) is a C&T character who uses a shortsword and an arming glove. He is not designed as a duelist, but is instead more the sort to chase his quarry (he's a bounty hunter, after all) into an alleyway, or in some other way force them into a situation where longer weapons are a problem rather than a boon.

I definitely consider bucklers and gauntlets thrusting weapons. Their primary attacks are thrusting motions. A buckler is usually thrust in defense as well. Blunt damage of course, unless the buckler has a spike on it as most seem to have had.

Point conceded.

I was thinking more of "piercing" than "thrusting". A punch, be it with an armored or unarmored fist or a buckler is indeed a thrust.

Ingenious wrote: Can you parry one and evade the other?

Brian Leybourne wrote: When I said you could evade both, I didn't mean you had to make two evasion rolls, just one that works against both attacks (you're not trying to stay in the fight but avoid the weapons, you're just getting the hell out of Dodge).

nsruf,

I would say that yes, you could. It wouldn't be a good idea in all circumstances, but it's possible.

Remember though that a Full Evade isn't always possible, or desired.

Yep, I agree with Lance; no reason why you couldn't do that if you wanted to. Conceptually, you're leaping backwards while you parry just one of the attacks. In fact, against the parried attack, I would probably still let you use the evade successes if they were higher than the parry successes.

Brian.