Clinton is starting his ROS campaign next week, and we were making characters today. Since he's taking it full hilt as far as mechanics, I had some questions about the Manuevers in ROS.

1) Can you "pull punches"? If so, how? Does it cost extra CP, or not?
2) Just to make sure I understand: You spend 1 CP to activate a Feint, then basically a "2-CP-for-each-die-added" rule correct? That is to say, you throw away 1 die for each extra die you add to your original attack, hence, 2 dice out of your pool for each one added to your attack.

If this is the case, then it seems really inefficient to feint at all. For example, assuming an ATN of 6(50% chance of a success with any die), every 2 dice should yield 1 success on average. Geralt, in the example on page 61, has spent 7 CP to add 3 dice to his attack. Which is about 1.5 successes(if he had an ATN 6, instead of 5), at the cost of 7 CP. Wouldn't it make more sense if he just poured it all into his attack to begin with leading to an average of 3.5 successes at the same cost?

Certainly, an all out offense will likely lead to the opponent going for full evasion, but if you can afford to spill out 7 or more dice in a manuever, then you probably outclass them period.

I know this is nitpicky, but looking at the maneuvers, I see my character only using two or three of them, and I wanted to check on Feint, since it is a useful manuever in real life.

Thanks,

Chris

I know that only Jake can give a conclusive answer to any question, but I might have some insight on the feint.

Lance (Wolfen) put the smackdown on my character with a feint in our last duel. I should have seen it coming, but I didn't. You're right that it does cost an extra die for each die added to the "real" attack, but your opponent is unable to add more dice to his defense. In our case, he made a weak upward slash to my groin with only 3 dice (which is why I should have been suspicious of the move), after I'd declared a defense with 5 dice, he dumped 4 more dice (at a cost of 8) into the real attack - a thrust to the face. So he ended up with a total of 7 dice behind his thrust while I was defending with only 5. I got a short sword stuffed into my face... not pretty... I think this is the real strength of the feint - it forces your opponent to defend with less dice than they normally would have.

It's possible that we were doing it wrong, but I think we had the rules straight on this (for a change). :-)

Hope this is useful!

Brandon

Hey Chris,

I used this maneuver to good effect in my second duel with Brandon. I ran into a bit of misunderstanding about the cost which was only cleared up after I re-read the example, though. For one, I believe you only pay an activation cost if the specific proficiency says so (such as rapier and case of rapiers, whereas cut and thrust does not). As for the actual effectiveness, if used properly, I can see that, as it is currently done, it is very effective. The idea is to lull your opponent into saving his CP for the second exchange (which makes me think that feinting on the second exchange of blows is about worthless, because the opponent is likely to spend all points anyhow) then suddenly using more dice to try to take him down right NOW. It was my feint (very, very risky as it was, but it turned out) that got me the decisive strike which ended up with me winning that duel.

Here's a question: Have you ran any really experimental duels? What I mean is, duels where you used various maneuvers to see their effectiveness. Our first duel was much more cut and dried, (or thrust and dried, as it were) but our second involved a lot of rules checking, which I think left us both with a stronger sense of RoS battle tactics. If you've done this, then disregard this suggestion. If you have not, I recommend you do it. Go crazy, do risky things, repeatedly, just to see how they work out. If you die, start another duel. Do it all until you have a satisfactory grip on how effective various maneuvers are in various circumstances.

As for pulling punches, I'm interested in the answer as well. I think it a viable way for characters to "practice" against one another without having to worry about maiming each other. My own thought would be simply upping the TN by 1 for offense, and lowering it by one for defense if both combatants are agreeing to pull punches, but I'd like to know the official take on it.

Wolfen wrote: I ran into a bit of misunderstanding about the cost which was only cleared up after I re-read the example, though. For one, I believe you only pay an activation cost if the specific proficiency says so (such as rapier and case of rapiers, whereas cut and thrust does not).

Wolfen wrote: Go crazy, do risky things, repeatedly, just to see how they work out. If you die, start another duel. Do it all until you have a satisfactory grip on how effective various maneuvers are in various circumstances.

I agree with your interpretation of feints - the idea is to catch someone who's defending with too few dice.

The only manuevers I can't figure out an advantage to are stop short & beat. I can't figure what situations these translate into a dice-advantage.

-Jeff

Beat, from Jake's description of what it is IRL, and from my own limited knowledge of the technique, seems like it would be best used if unannounced, like feint is. That is to say, until after defense was declared. I believe it's basically a way to make your opponent waste dice, but this will not happen if they know that you are attempting a beat. If they do not defend, they only run the risk of losing the attacker's successes, which generally means that the attacker spent more than the defender will lose (unless all dice are effective). If the opponent defends, and still loses, they will lose their defense dice PLUS the dice from the beat. If they know the beat is coming, they're not likely to defend, unless they really want the initiative.

The Stop Short... ::mystified expression:: Your guess is at least as good as mine, if not better.

The problem I have with beat is this:

I announce my beat (according to the rules) and spend 4 dice. My opponent spends 4 in a parry. Say I win by 1: that means next round I get an extra die.

Had we done the same sequence, but I had just attacked, that would be a level one wound (subject to str/armor etc...). Why go through the trouble of beating?

-Jeff

You don't get dice from a beat, your opponent loses dice. As for the merit of this, I will say that there are times that it is worthwhile to deplete your opponent's dicepool. For example, when trying to set up for a finishing blow on an already wounded opponent, or when simply trying to get into range of an opponent with longer range. I've done throw away light attacks (a die or two) to deplete their CP so I could attack successfully on the second round and close range. The reason I did not use a beat is that, as it currently stands, an opponent would be best-advised not to defend against a beat if they know it is coming. It's not a maneuver you'd use often or in most situations, but it does have it's uses when you think tactically.

For the record, when I run RoS, I will have the beat be announced as a different sort of attack, then revealed as a beat after defense is called, much the way a feint is declared. It keeps in line with the comment in the book "Surprise is of the utmost importance in a successful offensive beat". When I've had it used against me in the past, I did not know at the immediate moment that he was just attacking my shinai until after I had overreacted to defend. By this time, it was usually too late to realize, because I was rubbing my shin or ribs and cursing like a soldier.

Your resolution of the Beat problem seems very good to me. Go with that. I'm really enjoying this discussion on maneuvers, by the way. They're may absolute favorite part of the combat section, as each one was crafted after real techniques that are actually practiced. It's cool stuff, to be sure.

Jake

First of all, a beat is only declared at the beginning of a melee (or after a pause). The situation you describe, of reducing a wounded opponent's pool, isn't really a factor.

Second, the rules were very specific that a beat was declared. I still want to know what advantage it holds under that situation.

Third, a lvl 1 wound would result in more than one lost die in many circumstances.

Fourth, it finally occured to me at least one situation when a beat is useful. If you're a light-fighter, facing a heavily armored foe who's already down a few dice for armor, helm, and shield, then a 1 margin of success is unlikely to do any damage, but their few dice are very meaningful and you may get some small benifit from attacking that pool instead.

Funny aside - I took a fencing class in college. I remember being all dainty (hold the foil this way, stand that way) when my teacher taught us (=me) what a beat was. I was half a foot taller, at least 50 pounds heavier, and she played the brute and smacked my weapon aside and then ran me through (ok, imagination on the last part). For the little bit I did, I remember a beat being a very nice move to keep your opponent honest - if they moved their weapon too far aside to do something fancy, you could always smack it away and stab long before they could recover.

-Jeff

P.S. She was a cool teacher. Left-handed, too. For once in my life, I actually put a lot of effort into stretching.

I'm probaby devolving the rules by suggesting this, but its worth a discussion: the body language skill.

Several attacks now seem to not be announced according to house rules that people are advancing (beat, feint, and by logical extension stop short). This allows the defender to get drawn in, and spend dice, which is the point of these maneuvers. Obviously, making them be officially announced as some other attack, their effectiveness will be improved. As Valamir and almost everyone else has pointed out, why would someone bother trying to defend a stop short or a beat? You'd just waste more dice.

I think this is a place for body language. A successful roll of somekind could tip off a character that his opponent isn't REALLY doing a cut, but is actually beating or feinting or stopping short. This has some intuition behind it, I think. The down side is its yet another level of rules, and body language already seems to me to be a very powerful skill if used correctly. Making it MORE powerful... well...

Just to make a point - stop short is nothing like beats (or feints, for that matter). I'm going by memory, but once the attacker announces a stop short, the defender does nothing. Instead:

The attacker rolls WP vs Opponent's Perception,
The defender rolls Reflex vs #of dice attacker spends,
Defender loses 1 die per attacker margin of success.

So, if we're all 4s, and the attacker uses 4 dice, then both parties roll 4 dice against a TN of 4. Only if the attacker makes all his rolls and the defender misses all his can the attacker even recoup his dice. In otherwords, stop short pretty much can't help if both parties are roughly equivalent.

Hopefully I misread it.

-Jeff

I odn't have the book handy, but that sounds about right.

The sequence of combat is attacker declares then defender declares. The defender gets to do SOME kind of defensive maneuver against pretty much any attack. I can't see stopping short making that go away. This causes a whole bunch of ugly combinations of reacting to a stop short, like grapple or counter. sample for countering a stop short:

"I'm gonna look intimidating and back him back off!"
"You lunge in, stamping, and he sidesteps and chops your head off" (to paraphrase)

There are other things, but I shouldn't post on lists with 2 hours sleep.

The sequence of combat is attacker declares then defender declares. The defender gets to do SOME kind of defensive maneuver against pretty much any attack.

As I happen to have the book handy, I'll toss the rules out there. I still have no conception for what Stop Short would be useful for, by the rules, so if discussion brings it to light, we'll be benefiting all of us.

Ahem.

This maneuver consists of leaping or stomping at an opponent and then halting suddenly to throw your opponent off-guard.
The maneuver cost is variable. Roll a contest of the attackers WP against the defender's Reflex. The attacker's TN is equal to his opponent's Per. The defender's TN is equal to the number of dice that the attacker spent executing the maneuver. This counts as an attack. If the defender wins, then he may take initiative normally. If the attacker wins, then his opponent loses a number of dice from his CP equal to the attacker's margin of success.
If the defender wins by 5 successes, then he may attack you as if you had fumbled an attack.
This maneuver is available at proficiency level 3.

Aw hell...so it sucks...

Something to work on, I guess. I'd love to hear alternate mechanics that are (a) simpler (b) more effective and (c) come from someone that has actually tried this in real life (in any martial art).

Jake

Yeah there are a number of moves that I've across that leave me scratching my head going "what the heck good is that".

Forget for a moment what the real world move is or isn't good for. These are game rules with a game effect. Using them has to have some game effect that involves the user expecting (in the statistical sense) some advantage. If the maneuver does not convey a game effect advantage than it serves no purpose except as descriptive flavor that would better be left to player narration than dice rules.

That said, I think there is probably alot about these moves that isn't immediately obvious as to when they're good and when they're not. In reality there are moves you can perform that at times would be absolutely brilliant and at other times would be absolutely stupid. I suspect that many of these moves we're discussing fall into this category, so I'm willing to concede that just because I can't see a time where beat or stop short has any value what so ever doesn't mean that that time doesn't exist. I also suspect that because these rules were modeled on real moves that Jake and others who are dedicated students of the western martial arts have a much easier time know when the beat is useful and when it isn't than those of use trying to figure it out from reading the text.

All that said, what I'd love to see on the website is a tactical analysis of each of these moves. When is a good time to use a beat, what do you accomplish by useing one, and then an example showing how the move plays out in game terms...e.g. "in a situation where the defender is A, B, C and the attacker is X, Y, Z a beat performed 1, 2, 3 would accomplish 7, 8, 9" If you get my meaning.

Yeah there are a number of moves that I've across that leave me scratching my head going "what the heck good is that".

Forget for a moment what the real world move is or isn't good for. These are game rules with a game effect. Using them has to have some game effect that involves the user expecting (in the statistical sense) some advantage. If the maneuver does not convey a game effect advantage than it serves no purpose except as descriptive flavor that would better be left to player narration than dice rules.

That said, I think there is probably alot about these moves that isn't immediately obvious as to when they're good and when they're not. In reality there are moves you can perform that at times would be absolutely brilliant and at other times would be absolutely stupid. I suspect that many of these moves we're discussing fall into this category, so I'm willing to concede that just because I can't see a time where beat or stop short has any value what so ever doesn't mean that that time doesn't exist. I also suspect that because these rules were modeled on real moves that Jake and others who are dedicated students of the western martial arts have a much easier time know when the beat is useful and when it isn't than those of use trying to figure it out from reading the text.

All that said, what I'd love to see on the website is a tactical analysis of each of these moves. When is a good time to use a beat, what do you accomplish by useing one, and then an example showing how the move plays out in game terms...e.g. "in a situation where the defender is A, B, C and the attacker is X, Y, Z a beat performed 1, 2, 3 would accomplish 7, 8, 9" If you get my meaning.

Reading back over my post, I see that I was overly critical.. Hell with it, I was harsh. What I was meaning to do when I began the post was put the exact phrasing up so that it's merit could be picked out from where it was hiding.. Instead I picked it apart and declared it worthless..

I apologize.

Valamir says it better.. There is very likely merit, or else they would not have been included. Jake and his crew know their renaissance martial arts much better than most of us. I, however, cannot see merit in that particular maneuver, the way the rules are written. Rather than declaring it without merit, I'd much rather see how it was designed to work.. And if indeed it is flawed, see it fixed.

As for suggestions.. I honestly can't think of any at the moment. I'm not absolutely sure of what the maneuver accomplishes, other than backing an opponent away, or causing them to attempt a full evasion in response to nothing. I have used this technique, though not with any sort of formal training.. Mostly, I messed around with a few friends who were trained in Kendo, and did my best not to get too beat up.

For stop short, I'm thinking of following the same pattern as feint. The idea here, though, is you're trying to get the person to overcommit dice.

You declare a cut/bash/thrust, the other person declares a defense, then you declare a stop short if the other person declared an aggresive defense, e.g. counter, block open and strike, or grapple. Both parties still spend their dice, but roll exactly like described in the book for stop short. The die roll difference is the number of dice lost by the loser (could go either way).

This probably only gets to work once in a fight.

Anyway, I'll keep thinking about it.

-Jeff

P.S. You guys are making me remember my fencing class. I had one glorious move:

My partner was a mediocre fencer simply taking the class for credits (it was a beginner's class). Of course, this means he kicked my butt most times we faced off. One time, in fact, he actually disarmed me - quickly stuck the point of the foil under the guard and yanked.

When we had our final duel (essentially our final exam), I played it very conservatively, and he did the same. I was completely expecting him to try to showoff by disarming me, so I waited and did light manuevers basically leaving my hand still much of the time. At one point, I saw his foil dip down a lot, and realized he was trying it again. I just moved my whole arm wide right (too wide, but we both sucked so it didn't matter), and he completely whiffed and ended up with his foil pointing skyward. I then tapped him and got the point. I went on to win that 3-2, mostly because he had psyched himself out.

Sorry, all this talk about feinting and what-not got me to reminisce. :-)

P.P.S. The final exam wasn't about winning, it was to show how much you learned. Actually, your ability as a judge in other matches was probably just as important.

Well, this is great and all, but I still have my question, specifically addressed to Jake, since I want to know how it was intended to be played originally. Certainly I can come up with house rules if I want to, and not have a problem with that, but I was curious as to how you guys run it.

So again:
1) How do you pull strikes? Is there a chance of messing up and doing full damage?

2) (Modified) If feints are used as listed in the book, are they really useful(in your testing and demos) and how often or when do you use them?

Thanks,

Chris

OK, so lets see if I understand your proposed changes to beat...

Attacker declares an attack (cut, thrust or bash) with X dice

Defender defends with Y dice

Attacker says "ha ha, I'm actually doing a beat). Note that this is probably only a relevant maneuver if the opponent attempts a parry or counter because othereise his weapon wont be extended to be beaten.

Attacker pays an activation cost? Only Case of Rapiers has a beat activation cost in the book, but maybe they should all be cost 1 for this change to the maneuver, because you're changing what you were doing - you had to make it look not like a beat or the opponent wouldn't have bothered defending.

Make the rolls. If defender wins, nothing happens (but they're both down dice) and defender gets initiative. If attacker wins, defender loses additional dice according to the margin of success, and attacker keeps initiative.

I think that sounds like a very good modification of the beat (if I have the suggestion right) and makes it actually useful.

How about the "only available on first engagement after a pause" thing? keep it or dump it? Certainly in my experience as a fencer (which admittedly I only did for a few years at university, but I wasn't bad) I found beating an opponents blade aside to be useful at any stage during a bout.

I think that the beat should stand as it is, for when it is declared. While smacking the opponent's blade is useful in various stages of combat, it's greatest psych effect is after a pause, when the two opponents are feeling each other out (again). Also, I think that a beat should have the same penalty for overuse -vs- a single opponent that feint does.. While I personally may have never learned when I was slingin' shinai with my friends, most swordsmen who have survived a to-the-death battle of two aren't going to fall for the same trick over and over again.

Also, I think that the activation cost should stand as it is. Most of the time, if you intend a beat, you know it's going to happen, so you aren't really changing the maneuver mid-step. Unless it specifically states an activation cost, I believe it should remain with no specific cost.

The usual disclaimer: This is how I would run it. I'm not dictating how you should run your game, nor the official stance on it.

Bankuei wrote:
1) How do you pull strikes? Is there a chance of messing up and doing full damage?

2) (Modified) If feints are used as listed in the book, are they really useful(in your testing and demos) and how often or when do you use them?

Well, I think the feint is covered. As for the stop short, let's not forget the roleplaying possibilites of it. Some people have characters that make a lot of use of intimidation, for example. They'd love to jump at an NPC enemy (particularly a novice swordsman who's already edgy) and see him wet himself. This also brings in the issue of morale, which isn't specifically covered in the book.

As for a beat, it seems to me that the purpose is to create an opening while preventing your opponent from attacking or defending effectively. You knock their weapon aside so as to prevent their parry. Rather than simply giving the defender a CP penalty (if he loses) why not do something more specific to hamper their attempts at defence on the next? Maybe state that the next defensive manuever they declare cannot involve the weapon that was struck with the beat? In that case, evasion would be allowed, but not a parry or counter. That is, of course, unless they have 2 weapons. Then again, if someone successfully performed a beat against me under this rule, I'd simply perform full evasion (TN 4). Since I wouldn't have had the initiative anyway, I'd be losing nothing by breaking off and causing a pause in the battle... I don't know of a way to make this work in game mechanics.

Ok, here's another idea: Make the beat similar to a double attack. The attacker spends dice on the activation cost. Then the attacker allocates dice for the beat and for the thrust which follows. Maybe put restrictions on the size of the attack dice, as in simultaneous block and strike. The defender allocates dice for the defense. If the defender is successful, he gains initiative as normal and the attacker has lost the dice from both the beat and the thrust (or maybe just the beat). If the attacker is successful with his beat, then the defender cannot defend against the thrust that follows the beat. If the defender is using a shield or other off-hand item (second weapon, cloak, etc.), then the defender can defend against the thrust, but the DTN for his defense is increased by the margin of success of the attacker. Alternatively, the DTN could be increased by an amount equal to the attacker's Reflex (or maybe Agility) Attribute. Of course, Evasion may or may not be allowed in defense against the beat under these rules. Hard to say, since the beat maneuver is supposed to be performed very quickly. That's what gave me the idea of combining the beat and the following thrust into one attack.

That seems like a pretty good way to do it. I would like to see the next edition of the book have this worked out - though not neccessarily using my way above. Just worked out to where it makes logical sense. I personally don't like to use "house rules", I prefer everything to be "official". That's why I pester you so much about how things are "supposed" to be done, Jake. :-)
I hope this is useful - sometimes I'm just blowing smoke.... ;-)

Later,
Brandon

I've been thinking about Beat a lot (and playing with it as I design the new combat simulator) and it's actually quite useful, even as written.

The time to use beat is when your die pool is bigger than your opponents. For example, in the combat I was just doing, Geralt and Stefan had squared off in red/red initiative. Both missed each other, but Steffan botched and lost 4 dice on the next pass.

Next pass, it's red/white (to Geralt). Stefan has only 6 dice to Geralts 10. Now, Geralt could attack, but 10/6 is not really that much of an advantage and Stefan has a good chance of making a parry against 2 medium attacks (or he'll just full evade and wait until next turn when his die pool is refreshed totally). However, because we just picked initiative, beat is available. Geralt declares an 8 dice beat.

What does this mean? Well, firstly, if Stefan chooses not to defend himself, then Geralt keeps initiative, so even though he only has 2 dice left he's in no danger because Stefan wont be attacking him next exchange. If Stefan wants that initiative, he has to parry, and with only 6 dice vs 8 he doesn't have a great chance, and if he loses, he loses Geralt's margin PLUS the dice he defended with and probably ends up with nothing. Either way, defend or not, he's in a tricky situation. Geralt is relatively safe both ways as well - if Stefan doesn't defend, he'll get to attack with 2 versus (6-successes of 8 dice, expect 4 successes) so 2 vs 2 which is pretty even. If Stefan defends, he's got a good chance of an unopposed attack. And, he's made that gamble with almost no danger to himself. Even if he gets 0 successes, it's still his attack, and it's 2 attack versus 6 defense, which he'll lose but still has not been harmed.

I'm rambling, and probably hard to follow. I'm just excited that I found a situation where beat was really useful. And in this particular example, Geralt got 6 successes, and so followed up with a 2 die attack against a defenseless Stefan, nicely puncturing his face.

Now I just have to find a way to make Stop Short useful :-)

I'm not sure how you think this is better.

Your way:

- Beat with 8, defender ignores (no dice).
- Next exchange, expected is 2 dice v 2 dice.
- Expected damage? None for the round.

My Way:

- Attack w/8. If defender ignores he's dead, so he defends w/6. I've got 2 dice on him, and can probably expect a slight hit.
- Next exchange, if I missed last time I still have 2 dice versus 0. Another shot at a slight hit.
- Expected damage? A slight hit for the round.

This is assuming that attack/defense TNs are comparable, and that no armor is involved. Armor just makes everything take longer. :-)

The bottom line is that beats, while they can be effective, never seem to be as effective as attacking.

-Jeff

Jaif wrote: The bottom line is that beats, while they can be effective, never seem to be as effective as attacking.

Jake Norwood wrote: As much as I hate to, I have to agree here. The beat certainly isn't a ground-shattering maneuver IRL, but it is more useful than presently TROS rules suggest--at least in certain places.

I'm looking at something derived from the difference in your Proficiency and your opponent's perhaps, and/or something more akin to the feint, where you surprise you opponent with it.

Hmmm...

Jake

Brian Leybourne wrote:
Attacker declares an attack (cut, thrust or bash) with X dice

Defender defends with Y dice

Attacker says "ha ha, I'm actually doing a beat). Note that this is probably only a relevant maneuver if the opponent attempts a parry or counter because othereise his weapon wont be extended to be beaten.

Attacker pays an activation cost? Only Case of Rapiers has a beat activation cost in the book, but maybe they should all be cost 1 for this change to the maneuver, because you're changing what you were doing - you had to make it look not like a beat or the opponent wouldn't have bothered defending.

Make the rolls. If defender wins, nothing happens (but they're both down dice) and defender gets initiative. If attacker wins, defender loses additional dice according to the margin of success, and attacker keeps initiative.

I just had a thought. I really haven't worked it through, but I'll write it down so I don't forget.

When you do a beat, you attack your opponent's weapon from the ready position hoping your opponent will over or underreact. So, I propose this.

Mechanic: Once per match, only after a pause (or the start of combat), an attacker can declare a "beat" after the defender declares a parry or block. This causes the attacker and the defender to use the dice remaining in their pool instead of the declared dice.

Again, I really haven't thought this through, but I thought I'd toss that out there. The reason I said block, btw, is because it's possible to use the same concept to get someone's shield out of place.

-jeff

Opinion:
I think the activation cost of the feint should depend on the opponents profency level.

Suggestion:
If the attacker uses a beat, then the defender has to roll over TN 5+attackers margin of success with a Reflex roll, or he will be penalized in some way. He could lose half or all his CP, it could work like a botch or perhaps he will be disarmed.

Yet another suggestion:
The attacker cuts at zone IV with 10(out of 13 dice). The defender is now forced to assign a lot of dice to defend. However, the attacker declares a stop-short, as you do with a feint. If he then succeds with an Attackers WP vs. Defenders Reflex contest, he only uses up half the dice he assigned to the attack(5 out of 10 in this case). The defender loses a lot of dice and cannot gain initiative, as he is thrown of guard. Note that no exchange actually take place. Both opponents just throw away some dice.

If the attacker fails the contest however, he uses all the dice he declared, and the defender can now gain initiative.
If the defender wins the exchange, he gains initiative.
If the attacker wins the exchange, he keeps initiative, but does no harm since he stopped in mid-attack.

This makes the stop-short the opposite of the feint. Instead of using a few dice to lure the opponent into a trap, one forces the opponent to use a lot of dice to defend.

This just came out of my head and will probably need heavy modification, so I'm open to suggestions.

Mokkurkalfe,

I really liked your idea about the attacker keeping some dice if he succeeds. Actually, though, I think it's very appropriate for a beat, and works much better than the half-assed stuff I wrote down just before.

So beats work the same as in the book, but not only does the defender lose a die for each die of success, but the attacker keeps one as well. Beats may need a die or two cost to activate for balance, but that wouldn't be hard.

-Jeff

Quick thing on feints: Can you declare an attack, thinking only to do a cut or whatever, and after seeing that your opponent only defends with a small amount, suddenly think "hmm...maybe I'll do a feint...", so declare "ya, I'm feinting...20 dice to the noggin"?

On the other hand, could you declare an attack expecting to do a feint, but after seeing your opponent dump a huge amount of defence into it think "hmm...lets not actually declare a feint...tis a silly idea...", and keep quiet and get parried?

On beats, they'd be brilliant if the system included details on defending areas (doesn't have to be specific, can be general like "defending high" or "defending low"). You would use your weapon to defend vital areas, using armour to naturally defend other bits. The whole point of a beat could then be to knock your opponents sword away from the vital areas its defending, so that your next attack can strike at them unopposed. I always thought that the point of a beat was to put the opponent's weapon in a location that he doesn't want. I don't think I'd want that extra level of detail in the system though.
However, as the system stands right now shields give massive passive armour bonuses to great locations (including my favourite target: belly). Even a passive buckler gives +4 armour bonus. Can you use a beat to knock a buckler away so that he no longer gets the armour to that location for your next strike? If he defends against the beat you force him to use dice, if he doesn't then you keep initiative for a follow up attack for which he isn't getting the armour bonus where he wants it. If you can do that, I'd beat his shield away, follow up with a stab to the belly, then go evasive till he bleeds to death.

BTW, where does it tell you which locations the different shield types give their armour bonus too? On page 85 it mentions areas III, XI, and IV, but I assumed that was just for bucklers. The same question really goes for all armour types too. I know somebody mentioned that they couldn't give a straight answer in the book because it depends on the timezone (I think they gave the example of plate mail defending the neck or not depending on the era), but some of us really haven't got a clue and need a couple of hints.

Ta :).

Your talking about shields reminded me of a question I have.

The book says that shields protect area III, IV, XI and maybe more as a passive instrument. When you say passive instrument, does that include small movements of the shield, like raising it just a little?

Is a "heater" shield really harder to penetrate than a round shield?

Regarding the feint, no one can prove you didn't plan that feint all along, so I let my players(and myself) declare feints on the fly.

I think the defending thing could be an optional rule, giving you bonuses to protect that area. It would be very useful with shields if you could defend your sword-hand side, while the shield took care of the of-hand side.
One just declares: I defend my right(or legs, head or whatnot) side, thus gaining +2 CP dice, while getting an activation cost of two dice should the left side be attacked(Guess what other rule I based this upon!)

ScarletJester wrote:
On beats, they'd be brilliant if the system included details on defending areas (doesn't have to be specific, can be general like "defending high" or "defending low"). You would use your weapon to defend vital areas, using armour to naturally defend other bits. The whole point of a beat
could then be to knock your opponents sword away from the vital areas its defending, so that your next attack can strike at them unopposed. I

contracycle wrote: Incidentally, this raises a question - does the system cover combinations of blows like a beat-strike or something that you could drill for, and more or less execute as one manouver?

A couple of real-world notes on shields..


A buckler does not cover all the same regions as other shields. A notation next to the weapon name in it's stats (hand) shows that it only covers a small section. It covers the hand, and at the Seneschal's discretion, may cover the upper portions of the wrist.

The higher AV of the heater as opposed to the round shield is due to the points. Though I am not experienced with "sword and board" style combat, those I know who are say that the points are immensely useful. They allow you to catch an attack on the edge and stop it, rather than having it glance of a round edge and just hit somewhere else. They also have added coverage for thrusts because the lower point allows a small adjustment to protect the legs, and the upper corners protect the shoulders with a slight lift.

On the other hand, the weight of the shield has others speaking fondly of the round shield. (This would be represented in game rules, methinks, by the CP penalty of the shield.)

Also, as passive armor, a shield will only protect the shield hand side. It will not offer passive defense to the weapon side, but it can be used in an active block to that side.

This raises a question in my mind, though... If you semi-successfully block (ie, you get at least one success, lessening the number of successes rolled by the attacker) do you get to apply the armor rating of the shield to the location blocked?

Wolfen wrote: This raises a question in my mind, though... If you semi-successfully block (ie, you get at least one success, lessening the number of successes rolled by the attacker) do you get to apply the armor rating of the shield to the location blocked?