Since my original thread seems to have veered towards philosophical discussion, this thread will be dedicated to discourse on concrete design mechanics.  The discussion will have two goals: 1) To subject my system to scrutiny in order to expose logistical flaws that I may miss on my own.  2) To demonstrate that mechanics can be precisely calibrated without being cumbersome, and to encourage others to do the same in order to tailor their own mechanics to perfectly match their game concept.

It is not important to the discussion that you like my designs, or whether or not you feel that they are fun or have some sort of point to them.  Please be objective, and take the mechanics' integrity into consideration as a first priority. 

As it is my method to tackle my favorite part of gameplay first, I will be speaking predominantly on the topic of combat.  However, feel free to inquire upon any other relevant topic (character creation, skills, magic, non-player characters, etc.), as there are many things I haven't fleshed out yet and I could use some ideas.

An Example of One Round of Combat
To help the reader visualize the area, a grid will be superimposed where the Y axis is composed of letters (progressing from the bottom on upwards) and the X axis is composed of numbers (progressing from left to right).  Also, combatants will be identified by what weapon they are using.

Three combatants are attacking Longsword, who is on A2 and is wearing a gambeson.  Halberd is on B1, and wears a breastplate and an open faced helmet.  Pike is on C2, and is not wearing armor.  Cut-and-Thrust (side sword) is on C3 and wears a gambeson and is holding a round shield.

Everyone decides upon their actions to determine combat phase placement.  Halberd, Longsword, and Pike are all using combat actions so they act in phase 3 (combat phase).  Side Sword is moving before he makes a combat action (movement takes place in phase 2; his combat action takes place in phase 4, which is the follow-up phase).

Phase 2
1.  Side Sword moves from C3 to A3.

Phase 3
1.  Longsword has fastest weapon speed.  He moves from A2 to A1 (only very small movements can be made during the combat phase), and prepares to counter halberd (takes a defensive position).

2.  Halberd attacks Longsword.  (Skill comparison: 4 vs. 4 = DR 4 (1d10); the counterattack position increases DR to 1d12 and Longsword‘s maneuverability bonus increases DR to 2d8.  Roll = 7; fail).  Longsword deflects the blows, breaks the distance gap, and counterattacks Halberd. (1d10 = 3; minor success; armor check 1d8 = 4; fail).  The blow strikes Halberd’s helmet, causing him to be temporarily stunned from the concussive force.

3.  Pike moves from C2 to B2, and attacks Longsword.  (Skill comparison: 2 vs. 4 = DR 6 (2d8); Longsword maneuverability bonus increases DR to 2d10; roll = 12; critical failure).  Longsword’s parry causes the pike to break.

Phase 4
1.  Side Sword has fastest weapon speed.  He moves from A3 to A2 in an effort to break the distance.  His shield gives him a significant bonus to break the distance, and he passes with ease.  Unfortunately, the same shield also imposes a +1 DR penalty to his sword’s attack.  Longsword takes a defensive position.  Side Sword expects a counterattack, and attempts a safe opening move, the “covered attack” skilled maneuver.  Side sword’s blows are easily parried, and Longsword reveals a “traverse” skilled maneuver in response (similar to counterattack).  Longsword swiftly moves to the right of Side Sword and flanks him, and then makes a follow-up attack with a flanking bonus.  The attack passes, but the covered attack forces a passing attack to roll again.  The re-roll scores a critical success.  Longsword recovers from Side Sword’s parry and hacks his leg off at the hamstring.  Side sword falls backwards to the ground as blood spurts out profusely.

As a result, Pike and Halberd are forced to make a morale check.  Halberd passes, but Pike has less combat experience (not to mention a broken weapon), and fails.  Pike flees.  Halberd, seeing which way the wind is blowing, follows suit during the second round.

I'm going to break down events in the combat scenario in order to make it easier to follow along. 

Phases
Phases help me to streamline combat by removing actions (or action points) and initiative mechanics, effectively cutting out two sources of book keeping.  Also, by separating action types, I can allow combatants to act en masse, as turn order in certain instances will have no real impact upon the outcome of combat. 
As a natural byproduct of this method of dividing combat time, realism is enhanced because combatants may find it necessary to switch their intended actions (the original action is made clear before the round starts) in order to suit the developing situation.  I've decided that characters who do this may suffer penalties as a result of hesitation or not being fully braced to respond.
Phase order for a single round is as follows: command, movement, combat, follow-up, and the end phase.  Right now I'm leaning towards a round length of 12 seconds.
During the combat phase and follow-up phase, weapon speed determines turn order.  You may move 1 distance increment in order to engage a nearby opponent, break the distance, or give ground.  Combatants who act during the combat phase may also make a combat action during the follow-up phase. 
The end phase is for actions that take a substantial amount of time to complete, such as casting a spell or when a novice shoots a bow. 
I’m still working on tweaking the phase mechanics, as I would prefer the rules to be more concrete, but what you see here will closely resemble the end result.

The Longsword Advantage
The advantage of the longsword is a direct result of the polearm combatants failing to exploit the virtues of their weapons.  Because of its well-balanced distribution of attributes, the longsword is a superior weapon in single combat against mixed opponents (armored and unarmored), and the polearm combatants were acting as individiduals. 
Polearms are best suited for group tactics (as well as against mounted opponents or while riding a mount).  The great reach advantage of a polearm forces an opponent with a much smaller weapon to break distance in order to attack at all (at least one order of magnitude).  Furthermore, if the opponent fails to break distance against a combatant with a significant range advantage, that combatant will receive a free attack, meaning that he may still execute his original intended combat action.  Thus, if multiple combatants threaten the area that an opponent is trying to penetrate, then the opponent must make multiple distance break checks, and therefore is possibly subjected to multiple free attacks.
(Note: After considering all of the range and distance minutiae, I’m seriously considering adding a grid to the combat system.  I know exactly how I’ll go about it too.  This may help me maintain resolution speed by taking human judgment out of the equation.)

Critical Failures and Successes
Any roll of 8 or above is a critical failure.  The particular type of failure is determined by the severity; an 8 would be something minor, whereas a 14 would be severe.  Equipment that is structurally weak is more likely to break upon critical failures, which is why you’ll want things made of wood to be reinforced with metal.
Any roll of 1 is a critical success.  When using a weapon with at least an average lethality score, a roll of 1 means you will inflict a mortal wound (unless if a successful armor check reduces the damage).

Morale
In many cases, whenever you kill a combatant, opponents who witness it must make a morale check.  A morale check is obligatory in the beginning of combat for all participants who are ill-experienced.  Characters who have poor combat experience must also make a morale check when they are badly hurt.

Skilled Maneuvers
A skilled maneuver is a general tactic that is executed by the corresponding weapon type.  All melee weapons have the same maneuvers, although their effectiveness is influenced by the weapon’s attributes.  There are 6 skilled maneuvers to learn for each weapon: follow-up attack (rank 1), counterattack (rank 1), covered attack (rank 2), open guard (3), traverse (4), and the masterstroke (5).
A follow-up attack is performed after moderately successful attacks.
A counterattack allows you to make an attack after forcing your opponent’s attack to fail.
A covered attack is a cautious maneuver.
The open guard technique allows you to penetrate a strong defense and possibly disarm the opponent.
The traverse technique allows you to maneuver around and flank your opponent.
A masterstroke is an attack of flawless form that always scores critical on a success.  Works well as a coup de grace against wounded equals and for quickly dispatching lesser opponents.

A Note on Complexity
As you can see, the combat system possesses a high level of complexity.  This is a necessary evil, as I have found that tactical systems tend to break down when the mechanical framework is simple.  However, I have taken great pains to remove elements which require calculation or tracking (book keeping).  Thus, once the players and the GM get accustomed to the mechanics, there should be no problems resolving combat in a swift manner.  Hell, combatant NPCs can be generated in less than a minute (eat me, DnD, pwnd). 

Skill comparison: 4 vs. 4 = DR 4 (1d10)

DR stands for Dice Rank.  Sorry for not being clear. 
DR 0 (for special circumstances only) = 1d4-1  DR 1 = 1d4  DR 2 = 1d6  DR 3 = 1d8  DR 4 = 1d10  DR 5 = 1d12  DR 6 = 2d8
And so on...
A lower dice rank is better because the success range is a roll of 1-3 (I can remove a great deal of calculation with this reverse method, and it represents your character being more consistent as his skill improves).  The standard dice rank for combat is DR 4, and rises or falls based on the disparity between opponents' skill (I have 5 skill, you have 4, so I roll 1d8 and you roll 1d12 if you are making an opposing action).  After that, external modifiers alter your base dice rank rather than the roll itself (instead of 1d8 + 1, a slight penalty would raise the DR back to 1d10).

Few questions/concerns

1) The only thing I see as far as potential problems I am not sure you have incorporated into your game yet.
Distance attacks. Arrows or xbow - hurled weapons. magic... would they always go first when it comes to weapon speed?
I know you mentioned an inept archer would go in a later phase, but with a hurled weapon such as a throwing knife I would think they would be fairly quick to attack with. would it just come down to weapons speed for those type of attacks as well?
Not to mention that the longsword form your example would be out of immediate range and would need to close in the movement phase.

2)Say I am fighting with a short sword and a shield (my personal favorite) and on the inside of my shield is a sheath with a throwing knife - what would happen in your system if I wanted to take an attack round to draw the knife and throw it? would I lose my chance to move or command, etc? is there a "switch weapon penalty" for instance in my game.. a player can opt to lose and attack or sacrifice their initiative and go later in the round. 

3) also - I am not sure I understand your armor system.
If its in some kind of working order - can you elaborate a little. Thanks.

4) on an game related topic. Are you trained in any type of real life fighting? Whenever I read over your RPGs I get the feeling you are. Of course if you aren't Kudos on at least seeming like you understand the roles the body, strategy, balance, footwork and all the rest play when in combat. - hats off.

As you say I think it would take getting use to. I had to read the example 3 times just to understand what was happening. But we can get used to all sorts of things. Once we do I think it would be a totally Viable combat system. Makes sense to me.[sub] (i know you specifically asked for opinions to be left out of this thread but Hey - at least its praise right?)[/sub]

Sorry for the difficult combat example.  It's hard to see it from an outside perspective when all of the rules are clear in my head.

1.  I haven't designed the speed values for ranged weapons yet, but considering that it's ready to shoot or fly by the time you get to the appropriate phase, I would say they are much quicker than melee weapons.  I was thinking the pistol is fastest, then bow, then crossbow.  Thrown weapons depend on size.

2.  I'm still contemplating the rules for drawing weapons.  Perhaps a weapon speed penalty for your next immediate attack if you are currently within striking range.  I would also imagine that drawing a weapon also ruins the element of surprise if it's too large.  A dice roll would be required to draw a weapon during a grappling exchange.

3.  Armor will be explained in the following post.

4.  I'm trained in boxing, have had 3 generations of women in my family beat me as a child (in my defense, 7 year old girls deserve to have earthworms thrown at them), and my girlfriend antagonizes random people when she drinks.

Armor
Whenever a damaging attack is successful against you and you are wearing armor, you get to make an armor check.  This check uses the same manner of resolution as everything else, and the better your armor, the lower your dice rank (armor strength goes as far as dice rank 0, which is 1d4-1).  A minor success reduces the attack severity by 1 degree (therefore a critical attack gets reduced to moderate severity), 2 degrees for a moderate success, and a critical success nullifies the attack completely.
Weapons or attacks that have an armor penetration value force an armor check to be made at a higher dice rank.  For every point of armor penetration, an armor check suffers a +1 dice rank penalty.
Armor can completely change the nature of combat.  For example, because the dice rank is so low for a full suit of plate armor, opponents are forced to use attack methods or weapons that penetrate armor or bypass the vulnerable joints.  On the more extreme side, a magically hardened suit of armor can nullify armor penetration, making a character nearly invincible against many types of blows and even withstand close-range harquebus fire. 

Damage
Since the fine details of attacks are smoothed over, the effects of attacks follow suit (defining combat down to individual techniques has proven to be a mechanical nightmare). 
Whenever a damaging attack scores a minor success against you, you are rendered in a temporary state of inhibition.  This may be represented in a number of ways, such as losing balance or suffering a superficial wound (e.g. a bullet that misses bones, organs or major blood vessels).  All attacks made against you receive a -1 DR bonus until you recover, and you may not make any actions until you recover (recoveries can be made during the movement, combat or follow-up phase).
Whenever a damaging attack scores a moderate success against you, you are physically injured and all skills will be temporarily reduced by 1 until you are tended to.  Fractured ribs, a slight concussion, or a gaping wound (but no mortal bleeding) are some ways to represent an injury.
If you happen to suffer a second injury, you must immediately make a check (haven‘t decided what kind yet, probably a neutral roll) or be incapacitated until you are tended to.  If you are not eventually tended to in this state, various effects are possible depending upon the lethality of the weapon that was used (it‘s also possible to receive some sort of permanent or semi-permanent injury even if you are tended to).  At the beginning of each round, roll the check again.  If you critically fail, you will be incapacitated.  All skills are temporarily reduced by 2 while in a state of double-injury.  To be injured a third time (or to sustain a double-injury while in an injured state; a triple injury) will kill you.
If a character suffers a critical success from a damaging attack, he is either killed outright or suffers a double-injury, depending upon the lethality of the weapon used (Zweihander sword has the highest lethality; unarmed is the lowest).  The higher the lethality, the lower the dice rank that is used to determine a kill, in which any success on the die causes such a result.  Weapons of extremely low lethality have no chance of making a kill at all.  Example: I make an attack with a Zweihander and score a critical success.  My opponent fails his armor check.  I make the lethality roll (DR 1; 1d4; 75% chance of kill) and roll a 3, which is in the success range.  I cleave his head off.
 

Aiming an Attack
To aim at a specific medium sized area (like a thigh or arm), add a penalty of +1 to your DR.  For a small area, like an armpit or the neck, add a penalty of +2.  For a tiny area, like an eye, add +3.  Small weapons, like fists or knives, reduce penalties by 1.  Attaining mastery with other weapons reduces the penalty by 1.  Certain body areas (like the eyes) may increase the lethality of your attack.  If you target an unarmored area, the opponent does not roll an armor check.  If you target an armored area, the opponent rolls a base armor check for the armor type that is covering that particular body area (rather than an overall armor value for untargeted attacks).

Topics in my next post: Defending, Free Attack, Breaking Distance and Giving Ground, and Flanking the Opponent.

Firstly I wanted to say bravo for seeking out to build a combat system that closely emulates actual combat. A lot of people want to do it for their games and then essentially say "screw it" when they figure out how difficult it is. I did have a couple of questions though, and I'd love to hear your answers to them.

How does your system handle nonlethal combat, such as most bar fights? It seems as if with the current system that you've displayed that there's no room for more than 3 injured conditions on a person before they die or are knocked unconscious, but in bar fights and similarly non-lethal fights you often find individuals with many more minor injuries than that who are still capable of fighting. Things like cracked ribs, minor concussions, twisted joints, minor fractures-things that hinder individuals but that won't send them to the morgue even if they have a number of them. I don't say this to be critical, but I feel as if It'd be good to address this issue, to prevent every bar brawl and "let's take this outside and settle this like (men, orcs, elves, aliens)" type of situation from turning into a lethal confrontation due to the injury rules you have in place. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding them though.

Another thing that I'm curious about is how you plan to implement magic into combat, or indeed if you're going to have combat magic present at all (most historical magic, as your probably aware wasn't of the sort that one could implement in combat). But if you do indeed include D&Desque combat magic, then you need to confront the same problem I've run into with my own game-if I'm handling weapon damage realistically or semi-realistically then that means that I'll have to deal with magic-based damage realistically and that's where balance concerns pop up. If a single sword swing can easily kill an unarmored man in a single hit (realistic) then it's also realistic to treat a fireball spell as being able to horrifically kill many people at once, since essentially a fireball spell is a magical grenade or magical napalm. But that raises the question of how then to prevent magic from ruling the battlefield? There are a lot of ways to do it, in my opinion (so it's far from an impossible issue to overcome) but I'm curious as to how you've addressed it in your own rule set.

The fact that the vast majority of combat magic would likely ignore the armor available even when that armor in question is articulated plate or a variation of the same is also something to worry about in a game with a combat system that accurately simulates the deadliness of combat. If one of the main defenses for characters is their armor, and magic can not only strike multiple characters at once, and bypass their armor then what reason does one have not to pick up magic?

This also obviously segues into a discussion of how the magic system you've chosen affects the setting and game world, but since you said you wanted to focus on mechanics I'll just stop rambling.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic with these questions, but have struggled with these issues myself and was wondering what you thought about how to address them.

Low lethality attacks don't have kills as critical successes, although a double-injury is possible.  Double-injuries are also based upon the lethality of the attack itself, so in most instances of hand-to-hand combat, a man will only be killed if you stomp him when he's incapacitated or if you're a master who executes a masterstroke.  To put it plainly, death from pugilism is usually very intentional.
Even if someone is double-injured (has had the piss beat out of them), they can still fight if they pass a roll to resist incapacitation.
Furthermore, superficial injuries do not result in your character entering the death spiral.  A broken nose or a twisted this or that is represented by the minor success roll.  You can take blow after blow of superficial damage, although you won't look very pretty.
Finally, take note that a single attack roll is not necessarily an individual attack (it's actually an exchange).  A round is currently 12 seconds, and during the combat and follow-up phase, a lot of things can happen.

On Magic
Magic is not the zappy kind you see in a lot of fantasy games.  Yes, you can create a dangerous thunderstorm ten miles wide and destroy ships and render cavalry and firearms useless, but this stuff takes time.  Combat-time effects are far less powerful, and the energy must be stored.  So in a melee, a sorcerer is likely to use a weapon; his virtue lies in his ability to prepare for events and stack the deck in the party’s favor.  Summoning spirits to do the dirty work, divining the location of opponents and their plans, compromising their morale and terrain, tricking them with illusions, and sowing distrust amongst allies is what the sorcerer does best.
However, when it comes to kicking ass and taking names, nothing beats the man-at-arms.  Sorcerers fail morale checks - often.  Men-at-arms are hardened from combat experience.  Sorcerers may only know one weapon.  Men-at-arms know about a dozen.  A sorcerer may have a powerful staff that can kill you instantly at a distance.  Pistols and crossbows are far more accessible, can be reloaded, and can also kill you instantly from a distance.

Okay, I see now that there are safeguards to prevent non-lethal combat from turning deadly every time.

So what manner of combat-time magic (as opposed to ritual magic) are sorcerers going to have access to? Are you going to keep it limited to subtle stuff (like "the evil eye") or are Sorcerers going to be capable of some sort of straightforward attack magic of comparable deadliness to, say a bow or a crossbow (even if it's not "zappy zappy" stuff)?

The magic system is quite nebulous in concept at this point.  This is because I want magic to feel...like it's magic: mysterious; awe-inspiring; scary.  The aesthetic I'm going for is William Shakespeare's The Tempest, but I may draw upon other sources as well.

And although I don't want the combat stuff zappy like a videogame, I also wouldn't want to take the muscles away from a very experienced practitioner.  The most seasoned warrior should feel extremely cautious whenever the word sorcerer or warlock is uttered.  Especially if it's a warlock (a sorcerer partially or completely bonded with a spirit or demon; the root meaning "oath-breaker" being an accurate description of how they obtained their power).

I always enjoy reading your system work Ar Kayon. Always well thought out stuff.
My question concerns mass trauma, and the surviving of it. If there was a nasty fire ball spell, or perhaps a modern campaign setting, where a character is hit by something that would result in multiple limb loss, internal bleeding, and other nastiness, how would you represent this with your system as well as the possibility for survival if medical treatment is available. I'm loathe to make death a certainty directly linked to the attack roll since you do have instances where someone just does not die even though they really should have. I imagen this is somewhat beyond the scope of combat, as such a degree of damage will most likely take a man out of the fight, but I did feel it should be well established for possibly pulling characters though an engagement that they did poorly in. They might have gone down, but there buddies won they day, and the nearby medic/priest/shaman/"doc" kept them alive minus a leg, and that shield arm will never be the same again kinda thing.

Fantastic! The Tempest is one of my favorite plays (well that and Doctor Faustus, what can I say I'm a sucker for tragic and flawed magician types) and any game which incorporates that sort of feel into it's mechanics definitely has my interest. I'd recommend, if I may reading up on scholarly texts regarding magical beliefs of that time period. Classical hermetic texts might give you some ideas for magical effects and spells, while the discussed beliefs and practices of "cunning folk" might give you some valuable insight as to how to incorporate folk and hedge magic into your game (given that they were the predominate dealers in magical healing/restoration in medieval and early modern Europe). And since you're seeking to include diabolical magic in your game (or something that might be easily perceivable as it) let me recommend that you check out some of the many fine books covering historical beliefs regarding diabolical witchcraft, the methods and terms of a pact, and the capabilities of such witches. It might give you the inspiration to turn your nebulous ideas into something more concrete. 

Mass trauma is indicated by a high lethality attack resulting in a double-injury incapacitation.  As of right now, the GM has some wiggle room as to how he will represent this, although aimed attacks tend to be more specific (hacked off limbs; loss of an eye).  A double-injury condition is survivable, although how your character will be affected is variable.  If I really want to go all out with the simulation, I could add infections as a strong possibility and your character will develop a fever and die two weeks later.  Lol.  Killing players is awesome.

However, balance is always a concern of mine when I design systems, and I'm quite aware that players would be seriously pissed off should some peasant with a pitchfork get lucky and instantly kill their Arch Duke armored to the teeth on a battlefield.  So, as a precaution to prevent the high incidence of divine intervention, I made sure that the dice behaved in a very strict manner; high dice ranks don't even have the possibility for a critical success (although one can still manipulate circumstances to get a better dice rank), and low lethality attacks have a low kill percentage upon a critical hit.  If a peasant does manage to kill the Arch Duke, it's because he had it coming (perhaps he was dismounted from his horse and ganged up on while he was on the ground).

I'll be sure to check those things out, John.  Thanks for the advice.  I'll also post more on magic later on when I have a good foundation.

I realize that I was actually a little vague in my recommendation. Here are a couple of specific books that I feel might help you out.

Witchcraft in Europe 400-1700 A documentary history
(Second Edition)
Edited by: Alan Charles Kors and Edward Peters
Revised by: Edward Peters
Notes: This book is a compilation of period writings on diabolical witchcraft, magic, and sorcery from a medieval European perspective. Inside are writings by theologians, magistrates and philosophers of all manner of different opinions on the nature of witchcraft, it's origins, it's possible effects, and it's reality. It's a tremendously well-researched book, with exhaustive commentary on each article.

Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England
a regional and comparative study
By: Alan Macfarlane
Notes: This book is once again a well-researched account of Witchcraft beliefs in European society, although this one focuses on the root causes of witchcraft beliefs as well as the various forms that they've taken throughout England. A little more narrowly focused, but very interesting, informative, and enjoyable.

The Malleus Malificarum
Notes: I shouldn't really have to explain this. It may be a disgusting, bigoted, sensationalist polemic tract against the female sex, but it's also one of the most influential (both in pop culture terms and as far as history goes) books on diabolical witchcraft.

The Lesser Key of Solomon.
Notes: While the writing is rather hard to penetrate, it contains not only a good deal of information on practices relating to the conjuration of spirits and is great inspiration for atmospheric rituals for fantasy games. Excellent, at least in my opinion for providing the sort of feel and "kick" that the dramatic, evocative magic of plays like Faust and The Tempest have.

Murder Magic Madness
Owen Davies
Notes: The account of the murder trial of William Dove, a farm holder in Victorian England who is persuaded through a combination of his own (possible) mental illness and the overtures of a Cunning Man by the name of Harry Harrison to poison his wife. It was a sensational trial at the time, and Owen Davies covers it in beautiful detail. But the most valuable parts of this book (at least in my opinion) are in the descriptions of the role of Cunning Folk and similar other folk-magic practitioners in society, along with a good number of their practices, and a discussion of attitudes and lifestyles common to them.

At the moment, these maneuvering rules are in the rough draft form, as they are quite difficult to conceptualize in a manner that doesn't violate combat time.  It is a delicate balancing act.  If I allow too much in one phase, then combatants in other phases wind up in time molasses.  If I don't allow enough, then the logic of multi-combatant exchanges will break down.  To further compound the difficulty, this all has to be pulled off without resorting to an action-point set up (i.e. book keeping).

Defending
Instead of making an attack or using a skilled combat maneuver, you may opt to take a purely defensive position instead.  This adds a +1 DR penalty to your opponent’s attack.  By increasing the opponent’s DR, you also increase his chances of rolling a critical failure.  For an added benefit, you may use the limited movement you are allowed during the phase to give ground (moving backwards or away while defending). 

Free Attack
Whenever you receive the opportunity to make an attack outside of your regular combat action, it is considered a free attack.  A free attack is unopposed, meaning that the opponent you are attacking cannot make a response action against you. 
* Most attacks, upon scoring a moderate success, will allow a free attack against the same opponent.
* During the movement phase, if you pass by an opponent who is acting during the combat phase (within his melee range), he will receive an immediate free attack against your athletics skill.  If the attack fails, the opponent may finish his movement.  This may only be done once per round.

Flanking the Opponent
If you attack an opponent from the side and he has already used his combat action for the current phase, or if his action does not take place during the current phase, then you will receive a -1 DR bonus to your attack roll.  If the attack is from behind, then you will receive a -2 DR bonus.

Combat Movements
During your turn in the combat and follow-up phases, you have 3 movement options: to move 2(?) distance increments, to break distance, or to give ground.

Breaking Distance
To break distance is to get inside melee range against a weapon with a superior reach.  When attacking, you may move 1 distance increment to break the distance in which you roll the skill of the weapon type you are using (I haven‘t worked out mechanics to breaking distance against significantly longer weapons yet; perhaps a required moderate or critical success).  An opposing roll by an opponent may be made at this time.  Upon successfully breaking distance, you will receive a free attack against the opponent.  (The “Open Guard”, “Counterattack”, and “Traverse” techniques may be used as a means to break distance.  Furthermore, I may change the name of this move to “breaking ground“.)

Giving Ground
To give ground is to move backwards 1 distance increment from attackers while making an active defense.  This further penalizes the attackers’ roll by +1 DR.  The possible disadvantages to this move is winding up in a poor position or having to break distance again.

Topics on my next post:  Weapon Attributes, Shields, Pugilism, and Grappling.

Weapon Attributes
A weapon’s attribute composition gives it a distinct feel in combat.  Attributes affect combat in a profound way, and will determine what situations a weapon is best suited to.

Speed - The balance and quickness of your weapon.  It determines turn order in the combat and follow-up phases.  In a melee exchange, it determines whose attack counts first, potentially negating an opponent’s success.  Speed also influences the success rate of skilled maneuvers.

Maneuverability - The dexterity of your weapon.  The maneuverability attribute influences the success rate of skilled maneuvers and also grants a defense bonus due to effective parrying ability.  The maneuverability of your active weapon can also be transferred to your grappling and pugilism attacks.

Armor Penetration - The ability of your weapon to transfer force through armor.  For every point of armor penetration value, the opponent’s armor check is made at a +1 DR penalty.

Lethality - The capacity of your weapon to cause mortal wounds.  The higher a weapon’s lethality, the more severe the effect is caused from a double-injury.  Furthermore, your weapon’s lethality determines how likely it is to outright kill an opponent upon scoring a critical success.

Range - The effective reach of your weapon, represented by two numbers: the maximum and minimum reach.  Weapons with a greater reach make it impossible for an opponent to attack you unless if the distance gap is successfully closed.  A weapon with a greater reach may be used to attack while the opponent is attempting to close the distance.

(Still working on rate-of-fire, size, etc.)

* War swords have a balanced, moderate distribution.  Lethality is particularly high, however.
* Rapiers/Side-Swords have excellent maneuverability at sacrificed lethality and armor penetration.
* Daggers have excellent speed and good armor penetration, but sacrificed maneuverability (difficult to parry with, with the exception of the parrying dagger) and range.
* Grappling and Pugilism have maximum speed and maneuverability.  Range, lethality, and armor penetration values are minimum, however.
* Polearms have excellent range, but sacrifice speed and maneuverability.
* War Hammers have excellent armor penetration, but sacrifice maneuverability and lethality.
* Axes are relatively balanced, albeit with a low maneuverability score.
* Crossbows have extreme range and good armor penetration at sacrificed lethality; terrible melee values,  however.
* Longbows have maximum range.
* Firearms have extreme range and maximum armor penetration.

Shields
Shields affect your combative effectiveness in six ways.
1.  A shield adds a defense bonus, which can also be applied against missile attacks.
2.  When making weapon attacks, the shield’s defense bonus is applied to your armor check dice instead.
3.  When breaking distance, the shield’s defense bonus is applied.
4.  Medium and large shields penalize your weapon attack because the weapon must be held in a less active position.
5.  Medium and large shields also negate the defense bonus of your weapon.
6.  The shield itself may be used as a melee weapon, having a high speed and good maneuverability, but poor range, lethality and armor penetration.

Defense Bonus
Your defense bonus is added to any active defensive maneuver that you employ (defend, counterattack, and traverse).  For every point of defense bonus, your opponent suffers +1 DR to his opposing roll.  The defense bonus does not apply to unopposed attacks made against you. 

Pugilism and Grappling
Unarmed techniques are always viable options because the mechanics allow them to integrate so well with armed combat.  Furthermore, unarmed techniques can do things that weapon techniques cannot.  Grappling may be used to actively disarm a weapon as opposed to relying on a good dice roll for the open guard technique.  Pugilism gets the maximum speed bonus to the follow-up and counterattack maneuvers, making it an attractive option to stun the opponent before you make a killing blow with your weapon.
Another quirk is that active weapons will add their maneuverability bonus to unarmed modes of combat (renaissance manuals show that weapons were typically used for grappling maneuvers).  This is important because unarmed techniques do not normally receive their maneuverability bonus against lethal weapons (due to the potential for defensive wounds).
Grappling is a particularly attractive option in armored combat because, aside from being protected from defensive wounds, it will be difficult to get a good strike in between the joints of the armor without first restraining the opponent or taking him to the ground.

Can you explain your reasoning for having both a 'speed' and 'maneuverability' stat for your weapons? It would seem that the two stats could be effectively covered by a single stat from your brief description.
Also, why does a knife have poor maneuverability? You mentioned how the weapons maneuver stat is used for grappling and unarmed, and I would think the knife would be most effective in this regard.
Also in 'breaking distance' is this only for pole-arm vs. anything else? Or would a man with a knife have to 'break-distance' against a man with a sword or stick that could be comfortably wielded with one hand?

I thought about converging speed and maneuverability into a single stat, but unfortunately this compromise would make the difference between weapons less realistic, and thus less tactical.  To illustrate, a longsword is very fast due to it's light weight, two-handed style, and excellent counter-balancing.  However, tighter movements are much easier with a thin, single-handed blade such as a rapier, which appears to be roughly equivalent in speed.  These weapons have a completely different feel to them and are effective in completely different situations, so I want the numbers to reflect that.

A knife has poor maneuverability because it can’t catch, parry, or otherwise manipulate weapons very well, with the exception of the parrying dagger.  However, a dagger is still quite effective in conjunction with grappling, as an unarmed opponent trying to grapple with you may not receive a grappling maneuverability bonus due to the risk of defensive wounds.  Also, a dagger can be easily drawn and get into the joints of armor very well once you neutralize the opponent’s weapon with grappling.

Breaking distance is for any significant range disparity in weaponry: longsword vs. dagger,  true two-hander vs. rapier, etc.  Reach is a meaningful attribute for any weapon. 

I see, 'maneuverability' in this context is more of a measure of how able the weapon is to interact with the enemy's guard rather than how quickly the user can change its momentum. Gotcha
Sounds good. I hope you get some play testing with it soon.

I still have a lot of things to work on before the combat mechanics are complete, but so far, the system's logic is near perfect.

My next topic will be on using horses for combat.

Horses
Being on a horse gives the rider a height advantage (+1 to melee weapon skill; does not apply to small weapons) over non-mounted opponents.  A rider's available abilities are based upon the horse's current movement state: standing, moving, or charging. 
While the horse is standing (the horse is not considered moving if you move up to an opponent to attack rather than move past him to attack) you may use all skilled manuevers for weapons except traverse. 
While the horse is moving, opponents receive a +1 DR penalty to attack and the rider receives a +1 lethality (opponents also receive lethality bonus) bonus to his weapon's attack, as well as a +1 bonus to weapon speed.  However, the rider may not use skilled maneuvers.  If an opponent successfully strikes the rider with a critical success (before the armor check is made), the rider will fall off his horse (falling rules to come later).  If the rider is skilled in horsemanship at less than 2 ranks, he will fall off his horse upon suffering at least a moderate success from a strike. 
While the horse is charging, opponents receive a +2 DR penalty to attack and the rider receives a +2 lethality bonus (opponents also receive lethality bonus) to his weapon's attack as well as a +1 bonus to armor penetration and a +2 bonus to weapon speed.  If an opponent successfully strikes the rider with at least a moderate success, the rider will fall off his horse.  If the rider is skilled in horsemanship at less than 3 ranks, he will fall off his horse upon suffering any success from a strike.

Notes
1.  Only polearm melee weapons may reach for an attack directly in front of a horse or directly behind it.  This also applies to opponents who want to attack the rider instead of the horse.  Opponents attacking the rider directly from in front or behind (for ranged attacks only) do not suffer attack penalties from a moving or charging horse.
2.  Riders do not need to make a distance break check, and neither do opponents of the rider.  However, an opposing attack made by an combatant with superior weapon range is always considered first, despite weapon speed.
3.  Horsemanship is a skill, and as such, experienced riders will receive skilled maneuvers that will help them counterbalance the loss of skilled weapon maneuvers while moving.

I’ve never worked on mounted rules before, so let me know if there’s anything I’ve missed.

Skills
In the current model, skills are classified along 3 tiers: category, group, and type.  A skill category is a complete discipline that contains many skill groups of similar nature.  Examples of a skill category would be "Combat" and "Metaphysics".  A skill group is a generalized aspect of a discipline that contains several individual skills.  Examples of a skill group would be "Melee Weapons" and "Strategy".  A skill type is an individual, specialized skill.  Examples of a skill type would be "Longsword" and "Group Tactics".

* Points allocated to a skill type measure technical aptitude; development of form and function.  When you put points into a skill type, you optimize ability in a particular medium.  For example, putting a point into "Longsword" will grant you the "Follow-Up Attack" skilled maneuver.

* Points earned in a skill group measure proficiency in application.  Your skill roll is directly based on the level of your application experience.  In order to earn application experience, you must allocate points to both the skill types of that group and auxiliary skill types from other skill groups (you cannot directly influence the level of a skill).  For example, in order to develop "Melee Weapons", you must allocate points to individual weapons as well as individual skill types within "Physical Fitness".

* Points earned in a skill category measure practical experience; how much you’ve applied your skills in real-world situations.  You may only gain practical experience by role-playing your skills.  To illustrate, Men-at-Arms who have a high amount of practical experience in the combat skill category have participated in actual battles, duels, and/or skirmishes.  Practical experience allows you to maintain your composure while subjected to a large amount of stress.  At the very least, it grants you perspective - characters with high levels of individual skill types but who have very little practical experience are essentially “ivory tower theorists”.
When you earn practical experience, you simultaneously earn a few points in application experience (distributed to all groups within the category).

So if I understand correctly...:

Points gained in individual skill types give you various options for that skill that less technically inclined individuals do not? So essentially, they measure your specialized experience? Like for example, for a Man-At-Arms "I know 30 different ways to bring a man down using a Rapier".

Points gained in skill groups measure how good you are at the skill, ie. how likely you are to be successful in using it? So for a Man-At-Arms "I may not know what the proper name of my weapon is, or which greybeard thought such-and-such parry up, but I can still gut you just the same."

Points gained in skill categories measure how reliably you can use the skill under pressure? So once again, using the example of a Man At Arms "Take heart! There are only 10 of them! When I served as a bodyguard for a merchant prince of Venice I struck down ruffians like those by the score."

One thing I might recommend, merely as a way of making things easier to understand for new players, is to specify that individual skills represent "Technique", skill groups represent "Proficiency", and skill categories represent "Surety". I'd think that especially for players used to other systems, that it might be odd to think that a character with a high rating in Longswords doesn't have a higher chance of hitting someone with a Longsword than someone else. This isn't a flaw with your game's design, but simply the result of many game's treatment's of specialization.

I personally like how you've done things, where specializing in a certain skill simply gives you more options for using it. Are you planning on including "skilled" maneuvers" for every individual skill? So for example, a Thief can run cons using Con (or whatever analogous skill your system has) that would be far beyond the capability of a Man-At-Arms using maneuvers like "Reel In" and "Deflect Blame". I think that too often, game designers prioritize granting players combat options, without realizing that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Non-combat skills need love too.

"* Grappling and Pugilism have maximum speed and maneuverability.  Range, lethality, and armor penetration values are minimum, however."

Wouldn't wearing armor limit your flexibility when grappling?

I've only superficially examined your rules here, and one thing I have to say is that comparing skills to find the right DR, then determining what affects the DR, then translating the DR into a certain die size or combination of dice appears a little bit cumbersome. Some people, especially when learning the system, might take a while to figure out what the appropriate dice are for a given situation.

What is your reason for not cutting out the middle-man between the DR's value and the actual dice being rolled? Why not have a pooled system... let's say 5 dice of the same value (d6 or whatever) on the table representing "DR 5," and you directly change the value by adding or subtracting dice physically? Then you roll your pool and all 1's are successes or what have you.

Obviously that might be a bad example as far as simplification goes, but as it stands I feel like there might be a few unnecessary steps when it comes to figuring out which dice to roll.

I'm probably overlooking or misunderstanding something.

John,

You have a perfect understanding of the concept I’m trying to represent through the mechanics.  I’ve made these 3 distinctions in skill because I feel that it is an extremely realistic method of portraying this idea.  Furthermore, these distinctions have given me insight on how to represent character development in a very concrete manner.  Also, the mechanics are simply elegant on paper, and the fact that you have such a keen grasp of them makes me optimistic that they will be so in practice as well.

Secondly, your opinion about the labels used for classification is sound.  “Technique” and “proficiency” will most likely be terms that I use when referring to the level of a skill type and group.  For example, “You have level 3 technique in the rapier skill type and level 5 proficiency in the melee weapons skill group”.  However, I probably won’t use “surety” as the word is not aesthetically pleasing to me.  Instead, I might just use “experience” because the label perfectly represents the concept and fits nicely with the other two terms.

The concept behind abilities and maneuvers related to technical aptitude still needs to be fleshed out more, as I’ve discovered some flaws in the mechanics while I was trying to explain the very idea to you!  This is exactly the reason why I post so much of my game’s content on the forums.  So I’ll return to that subject at a later time.

"* Grappling and Pugilism have maximum speed and maneuverability.  Range, lethality, and armor penetration values are minimum, however."

Wouldn't wearing armor limit your flexibility when grappling?

I've only superficially examined your rules here, and one thing I have to say is that comparing skills to find the right DR, then determining what affects the DR, then translating the DR into a certain die size or combination of dice appears a little bit cumbersome. Some people, especially when learning the system, might take a while to figure out what the appropriate dice are for a given situation.

What is your reason for not cutting out the middle-man between the DR's value and the actual dice being rolled?

Since I've developed the combat rules some more, I want to provide a few examples to demonstrate the kinds of encounters the system can handle.  For now, I'll provide three small-scale simulations.

1. Unarmored duel between rapier and two-handed sword (from what I've read and observed, it was an effective weapon for dueling at the time).  This simulation is intended to demonstrate the level of interactivity attainable in the simplest format of the combat system.

2. Full-armored duel between men-at-arms (both combatants with a longsword gripped two-handed style and dagger).  This simulation is intended to demonstrate the historical integrity as well as the scrappiness of armored combat.

3. 7-on-5 fight, mixed combatants.  This simulation is intended to demonstrate how well the system handles a large number of variables, as well as demonstrate the unique feel of various weapon types.

How can you grip a long sword in two-handed style with a dagger?

You mean to say two-weapon style?

The typical convention for referring to fighting styles in fantasy games is that using one weapon with two hands is two-handed style while using two weapons one in each hand is two-weapon style.

(The vocabulary used in a system makes it easier or harder to digest, is my point.)

Sorry for the confusion.  The dagger is sheathed until after the combatants close in with half-sword techniques and start grappling.

Furthermore, "two-weapon style" is not a typical occurrence during Renaissance armed combat except in a few situations, such as the rapier and parrying dagger.  I've never seen any of the manual depictions showing combatants weilding two longswords - in fact, the longsword is predominantly shown weilded in two hands for sweeping cuts.  The thrusting capacity of the long, tapered blade is usually relegated to half-sword exchanges, when the combatants are up close and are attempting to penetrate vulnerable joints in the opponent's armor; they can use one hand to grip the ricasso or blade itself in order to deliver a more powerful blow.

I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but this sort of thinking informs my design decisions for when there are gaps in historical information.  My theory for why the manuals don't depict dual longswords is because the longsword is designed for two-handed use (armor made it necessary for more powerful blows), where both wrists make it easier to perform the cuts and parries.  In one hand, the weapon is probably slower for cuts and parries (thrusting speed might not be affected), not to mention less lethal, which may be why it was used in tandem with a shield instead, especially the smaller shields that allowed you to switch to two-handed techniques.  But without the benefits of two-handed techniques, it would be preferable to use a cut-and-thrust sword instead (similar to a rapier, but more appropriate for mixed opponents), which is more agile in one hand.

For the rapier, I can only imagine that the forward position of one rapier would make the rear position of the auxiliary rapier less agile, negate the benefits of its length, as well as prevent the off hand to be used for parrying and grabbing the opponent's sword.  On the other hand, the parrying dagger is quick, conceivably allowing the combatant the benefit of fighting in double-time.

I never indicated that I believed certain weapons were "supposed" to be used florentine. Just that the terms were unclear. Your explanation makes the situation clearer. In essence the daggers are "holdouts" reserved for situational use.

Mechanics Simulation 1: Rapier vs. Two-Handed Sword Duel
(Actual dice are rolled for the simulation to insure integrity).  Two combatants stand off in a duel.  "A" is wielding a two-handed sword held in a low guard pointed at his opponent and "B" brandishes a rapier with his off hand held low.

Before turn phases take place, both combatants determine what they plan to do.  "B" assumes that "A", having the reach advantage, is going to take the offensive.  Therefore, "B" chooses to actively defend.  He is correct. 
Combat phase:
1.  "A" moves within range for a standard attack.  Since both combatants are masters (level 5 melee), the base dice is d10.  However, the defense position incurs a penalty to the attacker equal to the defender's weapon maneuverability (2 DR).  So "A" rolls 2d8.  He rolls a 7.  "A deflects the rapier to the side and follows up with a thrust, but B deftly parries the blow with his gloved off-hand."

Follow-up phase:
“A” observes in defense while “B” prepares to counter.  Since both combatants are waiting, the next round starts.

Round 2
“B” remains cautious, and prepares to counter.  “A” expects a defensive position, so he determines to use the “open guard” maneuver.
Combat phase:
1.  “A” rolls 1d10 for his attack as his weapon‘s maneuverability balances out the penalty incurred by the opponent‘s counterattack maneuver.  He rolls a 4.  “A feints with a thrust and twists his sword overhead for a downward cutting blow followed by an upward cut by twisting his sword around again, but B manages to recover in time to parry the blows.  He didn’t expect the second blow coming, so he wasn’t able to properly time a counter.”

Follow-up phase:
“B” is getting more cautious as the last attack almost hit, and he takes a defensive position (backing up for a defensive bonus).  “A” expects his opponent to back up, so he gets aggressive in his assault (a charge) and presses forward by breaking range and then attacks.  “A” rolls 2d8 (+2 DR for the opponent’s maneuverability, but the bonus from backing up is negated by the charge).  He rolls a 5.  “A bursts in with sweeping cuts as B barely evades.”

Round 3
Fortunately for “B”, he’s now inside attack range, so he can finally go on the offensive.  He makes a standard attack.  “A” makes the mistake of assuming that his opponent is scared, and decides to charge in again.
Combat phase:
1.  Both combatants roll attack.  Since “A” has moved within 1 range away from his opponent - too close for a his weapon without half-sword techniques - his charge attack bonus is negated.  Therefore, it’s an equal challenge of 1d10 vs. 1d10.  (4 vs. 9; a critical failure) “B pushes A’s sword away as he charges in and attempts to thrust, but quickly decides to block the oncoming overhead cut instead.  Their weapons lock, forcing A to lose his balance”

Follow-up phase:
“B” attacks with unarmed techniques.  “A” needs to use his action to recover his balance.
1.  Small weapons, such as fists and daggers, receive a speed bonus to attack against a much larger weapon while inside.  Since “A” did not declare to be using unarmed techniques to defend himself, it is assumed he is still relying on his weapon skills.  “B” has a 4 skill in hand-to-hand combat against 5 melee weapons skill for “A”, therefore the base DR is 1d12 for the unarmed attack.  However, the speed bonus and the fact that “A” is off balance brings it down by 3 ranks to 1d6.  He rolls a 2.  “B attacks with a swift kick to the groin, causing A to buckle from the pain.”
2.  “B” receives a follow-up attack.  He makes a standard attack against his hurt opponent (-2 bonus) and rolls 1d6.  He rolls a 1.  Now he must roll for the weapon’s lethality to determine if the blow is an outright kill (1d8 for rapier).  He rolls a 5, causing a double-injury, resulting in a triple injury from the last attack, so the blow is mortal anyway.  “A drops his guard from the lock after the kick to his groin while B hacks his own blade downward as hard as he can into A’s neck, causing a nasty gash a few inches deep.  A drops to the ground from the sheer shock of the hit, and bleeds out until he dies.”

That example is nice and gritty. I approve.

Are these table lookups to any extent?  Or do you just rely on narration to provide combat detail?

I ask because to be honest in my opinion when in actual play many people will not do much more than say "hit, parried, missed" and move on, unless they are somehow encouraged/rewarded.

Narrative table lookups work to an extent but slow resolution the more complex you make them. (See RoleMaster for the epitome, of course.)

The system relies on narration for combat detail.  I understand that some players have had a hemispherectomy and therefore cannot do any more than the bare minimum, but the framework exists so that even if the player doesn't have a creative inclination, you'll still have a good grasp of what's really happening during combat. 

Ultimately, the game system takes off the training wheels and fully expects that the type of people who will be interested in playing have higher standards than "hit, miss, parry".  Think about it: who actually gives a shit about history?  From what I understand of the modern roleplaying audience, if it doesn't involve huge shoulderpads, swords one foot wide, inordinate thresholds for otherwise mortal injury, rampant anachronisms, and zappy fireballs or instant healing spells, then it isn't worth playing.  Though I could be wrong.  I hope I'm wrong.

Back to the subject: the manual will explain the general idea of how weapons are used (e.g. "the longsword relies on quick, sweeping cuts generated from tight wrist motions rather than wide slashes generated from gross arm movements..." etc.), as well as what maneuvers such as "standard attack" or "open guard" actually entail.

There's also a very practical reason for why I kept the combat details (individual movements and specific effects) down to non-mechanical narration, and that was for the sole purpose of preventing combat slow-down, as weapon attributes and maneuvers require a good amount of the GM's attention - in fact I hacked away a great deal of nagging, yet ultimately unimportant details in order to free up the bandwidth necessary for creating a believable simulation of Renaissance combat.  So far, this method has demonstrated to be optimum for appeasing both my requirements for realism and a smooth combat pace.

Strongly suggest you give a good write-up (potentially in multiple places) to those thoughts as it's possible that the "big shoulderpads" folks might buy your game and if they like it suggest it to others. :)

Mechanics Simulation 2: Armored Duel
(Actual dice are used for the simulation to ensure integrity.)  During the fray of battle on Bosworth Field,  Sir William Brandon spots Richard III amongst a group of knights.  Posturing on his horse and yelling at the top of his lungs, William challenges Richard to single combat.  No stranger to a good fight, Richard takes a lance from a nearby knight and trots to an open area.  William lowers his standard and charges towards him.

Round 1
The charges and resultant clash take place during the movement phase.  Richard has a level 4 skill in the lance and so does Sir William (the standard falls into the same skill type).  The base dice is 1d10, but since defensive movement is limited, they each subtract 2 dice ranks from their attack, so they both roll 1d6.  Richard rolls a 2 and William rolls 3.  Both rolls are successful so now an armor check must be made.  They are both wearing full gothic harnesses, so the armor check is made at DR 0 base, modified to DR 2 from a charging lance’s armor penetration value.  Richard rolls a 3 (negates the minor success against him) and William rolls a 5 (fail).
“William’s lance glances off Richard’s pauldron while Richard’s lance slams into William’s bevor, knocking him off his horse.”
Falling from the horse acts as a d8 attack. A 7 is rolled.
“William falls cleanly behind his horse, and his arms manage to brace him for the fall.”

(Dramatized for the simulation.  William was killed by the lance strike, and the exchange was a mounted charge by many knights rather than a duel.)

Round 2
Because these two are fighting an honorable duel, combat time is ended while Richard slows his horse to a stop and William recovers to his feet.  Richard drops his lance, dismounts, and draws his longsword.  William does the same, and makes a strength check to resist the pain from his injury so he can continue fighting uninhibited.  As a young, yet seasoned warrior, he’s in excellent shape (conditioning level 4, strength level 4) and rolls 1d6 against the injury.  He fails, rolling a 6, as the pain in his face and neck are too great to ignore.

Round 3
They both move close to each other, waiting for a good opportunity to strike.

Round 4
Combat Phase
Richard is confident that William’s abilities are compromised by his injury, so he moves in for a standard attack during the combat phase.  William prepares to counter.  William’s skill in the longsword is modified by the injury to 3 while Richard’s skill is 4, so Richard’s base attack roll is 1d8, modified to 1d10 from the counter.  Richard rolls a 4.
“Richard knocks William’s sword out of the way and aims a thrust underneath his sallet, but William manages to parry the blow at the last instant.  He cannot time the counter, however.”
Follow-up Phase
William decides to open Richard’s guard while Richard continues with his aggressive attack.  The maneuverability of William’s longsword (+1) improves his base skill to 4 against Richard’s 4, so they both roll 1d10.  William rolls a 2 and Richard rolls a 6.
“William parries Richard’s cuts and then deflects his sword away in a circular movement.  He quickly moves in close while grabbing the blade of his sword with both hands and swings down on Richard’s sallet, the hilt acting like a war hammer.”
William is allowed to freely break distance upon success.  This allows him the range he needs to utilize his sword in a different manner; naturally, Richard is going to defend with similar techniques (although he cannot make any opposing rolls).  Also, since he passed by a moderate amount, William receives a follow-up attack.  A follow-up attack adds the speed of your weapon to your skill roll.  Normally, a longsword has a 0 speed (which is actually a fairly quick number; bonuses represent combat in double-time), but the weapon is quicker when half-sword techniques are used.  So, for this attack, William’s skill is 3 + 1 for the speed bonus + 1 for Richard’s opened guard (5 total) against Richard’s 4.  So William rolls 1d8 base.  However, the aimed attack to the head increases William’s dice to 1d10.  William rolls a 3.  Richard makes an armor check at +1 DR (armor penetration from special longsword techniques) and rolls a 1. 
“The blow glances harmlessly off Richard’s helmet.”

Round 5
Combat Phase
Richard switches to half-swording techniques and both he and William try to open each other’s guard.  They both add the maneuverability bonus of their weapons, which cancels each other out for skill comparison anyway, so the base dice for Richard is 1d8 and 1d12 for William.  Richard rolls a 1 and William rolls a 4.  The critical success from an open guard technique results in William being disarmed.
“Richard deflects William’s manipulative movements and hooks his opponent’s blade with the hilt of his sword, forcefully pulling back, and wrenching the weapon from William’s hands.”
Richard also receives a follow up attack at -1 DR bonus.  He uses his weapon for the follow-up, adding the speed bonus of half-swording to the attack, which is also -1, so he rolls 1d4.  The result is 2.  Now William must make an armor check at +1 penalty from half-swording techniques.  He rolls 1d4, getting a 4.
“Richard follows up with a jab from the pommel, hitting straight underneath William’s sallet, breaking his nose.  He then grabs his sword by the end of the blade and swings the hilt hard into the sallet, immediately knocking William to the ground.”
William is now in a state of double-injury, and must roll a conditioning check to resist incapacitation.  He rolls 1d6 and gets a result of 2.  He remains conscious to keep fighting.

Follow-up Phase
William uses his action to try to recover to his feet while Richard attempts to pin him to the ground.  Richard has a 3 skill in grappling (+1 against a grounded opponent, so 4) against William’s applied athletics skill of 3, reduced to 2 from the injury.  Richard rolls 1d6 and gets a 3, a minor success not good enough to pin William but at least keep him on the ground in a weak position.
“Richard quickly jumps on William, using his sword to help restrain William’s upper body movements.”

Round 6
Combat Phase
Richard is able to draw his dagger freely because he has William in a restrained state.  He attempts to stab William in the thigh area not protected while William tries desperately to throw Richard off him.  William has a 4 grappling skill -1 for injury, whereas Richard has 3 + grounded opponent advantage + restraint, so Richard rolls 1d6 (modified to 1d8 for aimed attack; daggers suffer small aimed attack penalties in comparison to other weapons) vs. William’s 2d8.  Richard rolls a 2 and William rolls an 11.  Richard’s success is unimpeded by an armor check as the dagger was specifically aimed to an exposed area, which results in a triple injury - death.
“Richard grunts as he jams his dagger into William’s thigh, severing his femoral artery.  William screams in agony and quickly goes limp as he bleeds out.”

(Note: 2d8 is too penalizing of a roll for a 2 skill disparity.  I’m probably going to change it to 2d6 instead.)

I've made a big error when presenting the combat examples.  Individual skill types, like grappling or longsword, are not used for skill rolls.  Instead, skill groups are supposed to be used: melee weapons and hand-to-hand combat (daggers fall into this category) in this case. 

Also, I've decided that the third combat example will be placed in my other thread, as it will be an entire play example instead.  This example will demonstrate the roleplaying aspects of all four playable professions, as well as the compatibility of all the types to form a cohesive party of knights-errant.  The thief will demonstrate the capacity to circumvent direct conflict to attain the party's goals, as well as to confuse, deceive, and divide those block the path towards those goals.  The metaphysician will demonstrate the capacity to stack the odds in the party's favor before an encounter occurs as well as level the playing field in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles.  The scholar will demonstrate the capacity to adroitly handle social situations (intended to be their main function, despite a large skill set) as well as control the consequences of the party's actions.  Finally, the man-at-arms will demonstrate the capacity to keep the party alive during direct conflict.

Finally, I want to take the time to break down the last combat example to make it easier to follow:
* "Base dice" is the starting dice rank before skill comparisons are made, despite the fact that I've used it rather ambiguously in the combat example.  As of right now, the base dice for most combat situations is 1d10, but that will probably change to 1d8 for better combat balance in relation to skill disparity (probability of the 2d6 rank greatly disfavors a disparity of -2, whereas it would certainly be appropriate for a combatant with 3 skill ranks below his opponent as it is meant to be acknowledged that he will fail if he does not change weapons or tactics) .  Also, the success rate of the base dice is less than 50% to represent the fact that opposing combatants are indeed utilizing defensive measures at all times, even when they attack (parries, positioning and such).  I should probably mention that in the manual so people don't think it's an error on my part and tweak the dice.
* “Half-swording” is the skill of using the sword by gripping the blade and / or ricasso with one or both hands in order to circumvent tough armor, via spear-like thrusts into vulnerable joints or swinging the hilt upon the opponent like a war hammer (thus, the weapon gains armor penetration value - speed too, as the movements are generally shorter - but loses lethality because you‘re not making sweeping cuts with the weapon).  By utilizing the hilt, you may also hook and disarm the opponent’s weapon or loop around his body or legs to take him to the ground. 
Currently, I am conflicted as how to classify this method, as it will either be complex in execution or simple depending upon how it is represented.  I believe that it may do well  as a separate skill type in the “hand-to-hand” group, considering its reliance on grappling techniques and divergence from standard sword techniques, but I am not sure yet.