I'm confused by the "multiple opponents rule".

When it sys "split combat pool by opponents", and all parties drop red, does this mean:

a. The PC mayattack both opponents by splitting his pool, thereby giving him multiple attacks in an exchange, or

b. The PC may only attack one opponent, and gets stuck by the second attacker, or

c. the PC may use the combat pool directed to the secondary party(s) for Defensive Maneuvers only.

In my game last night, there were several scenes where the PC's were attacked by a groups of spearmen, at times 2 or 3 to one. We kind of muddled our way through it.

A.

And if he chooses to attack them all he's probably dead, unless his CP is massive.

The best way to handle multiple opponents? Full Evasion and a terrain roll next round.

Brian.

This is an interesting wrinkle then. I'm not challenging you, Brian, i'm just exploring the system a little.

Therefore, good combat PC's with active SA's can handle two opponents or even 3 at a time. They just throw red, and blenderize them. Not that this is really bad, actually. It gives combat characters an extra edge of cool "He killed three men in blink of an eye" action.

Of course, if the PC missed, or if his enemies defended, the PC could be in a world of hurt.

I had a combat beast with lots of sa's take out several Gol captains at a time by dividing the combat pool. I find the best approach is goad the attackers into a red red situation then attack and when that constest of reflex and land both attacks, unopposed on both enemies with a split pool, kill them fast.

Terrain roles work good too if available, also use terrain to your advantage (high ground etc.)
And use all appropriate maneuvers when possible.

Running like a little sissy also works real well.

arxhon wrote: This is an interesting wrinkle then. I'm not challenging you, Brian, i'm just exploring the system a little.

arxhon wrote: Therefore, good combat PC's with active SA's can handle two opponents or even 3 at a time. They just throw red, and blenderize them. Not that this is really bad, actually. It gives combat characters an extra edge of cool "He killed three men in blink of an eye" action.

arxhon wrote: Of course, if the PC missed, or if his enemies defended, the PC could be in a world of hurt.

Perfect. :-) Thanks for clearing this up, Brian.

One of my players had 21 dice (the character's a fairly skilled swordsman, and was firing SA's off with bonus dice for being mounted) in his pool at one point, and we weren't sure what to do. Multiple attacks seemed pretty strange to us.... it felt "too powerful". I gotta keep remembering: "Forget game balance."

Next session, he'll be slicing and dicing like crazy. It's what he wants. It'll be beautiful. :-)

Just remember that you still only get one exchange (meaning one attack) for each opponent. So if you're dividing between 3 guys you get 3 actions, but against one guy you get one. Tops.

Jake

arxhon wrote: One of my players had 21 dice (the character's a fairly skilled swordsman, and was firing SA's off with bonus dice for being mounted) in his pool at one point, and we weren't sure what to do.

Jake Norwood wrote: Just remember that you still only get one exchange (meaning one attack) for each opponent. So if you're dividing between 3 guys you get 3 actions, but against one guy you get one. Tops.

Actually, Mike I think that would be fine...and much better as a general rule. If i can swing once at you and once at him, then I should be able to swing twice at you...

There might be a slight edge to the attacker due to the granularity of the dice...might require the defender to use an extra die to get the same level of defense, but that should be mitigated by the decrease in average damage...two level 3 wounds being inferior to a level 6 wound.

There's a few reasons for not being allowed more than 2 exchanges per opponent per round. One is that it's messy as crap, and will lead to lots of un-defended attacks, meaning that whoever is stingiest with their dice will hack the other up in all kind of ways. It really breaks down the combat model. On the other hand attacking many opponents is possible, because of the different angles possible, etc, that doesn't happen with one guy. Splitting your pool against one guy is allowed in a few maneuvers (block and strike, double strike), where it's a bit more cntrolled. But saying "you get as many exchanges as you want" turns the game into a different animal.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: But saying "you get as many exchanges as you want" turns the game into a different animal.

Well I suppose it could be taken to an extreme...10 1-die attacks against an opponent with 8 dice guarentees 2 free 1 die hits (which with suitably damaging weapons are still potentially nasty).

How about an easy balancer? For each attack after the first, you have to pay a die?

Then you line up your attacks on the table, and allow the defender to line up defenses across.

Mike

That would probably work, and fits well with the CP cost precedent of other moves. Should apply to multiple opponents also. 10, one die attacks against 10 peasants doesn't really fly with me either...

Bet here's the problem:

I have 12 dice, you have 12.
I attack you with 3. You defend with 4. You atack with 8, I defend with 7 and pull it off. Now I get a 2-die freebie attack. you're dead.

OR

I have 12 dice, you have 12.
I attack you with 3. You defend with 4. You atack with 8, I defend with 7 and fail, taking no damage due to armor. You have initiative but I have dice left. Who attacks?

The rules say that after 2 exchanges any leftover dice are lost (unused, rather). This keeps things tidy. On the other hand, what you're describing coult be fun as a mook rule for more "cinematic" TROS.

Jake

Ahhh...I see.

See I wasn't thinking of making it seperate exchanges. It would still be the same exchange. Only instead of rolling a 6 die attack, I'd roll two 3 die attacks. And instead of defending with 8 dice you'd split your dice to match my attacks. Then both attacks would be resolved.

I always thought of dividing the dice pool against multiple opponents as an exploitation of openings and weaknesses since TROS combat timing is an abstraction of reality and not every fighter waits to the count of three to attack all at once, theres fractional openings between strikes and hits that can be used by splitting the pool. Example at .3 seconds I hit bob, then at .6 I hit joe, and at last 1.0 seconds I nail tom. Not that I somehow hit all of them at 1.0 seconds into the fight. If that makes sense.
In the end I side with jake 100% on this one.

I don't follow:

Ashren Va'Hale wrote: . Example at .3 seconds I hit bob, then at .6 I hit joe, and at last 1.0 seconds I nail tom. Not that I somehow hit all of them at 1.0 seconds into the fight. If that makes sense.
In the end I side with jake 100% on this one.

Example (12 CP each):

I divide into a 3 die attack and a 4 die attack. You defend with 2 dice and 3 dice respectively. We roll each, and you pull it off.

Then you attack with 5 dice and 2 dice. I defend with 4 dice and 1 die.

At no point does either player not know how many dice his opponent will have, and so does not have to fear "undefended" attacks. Isn't this the parallel of how it works with multiple opponents?

Mike

Mike,

In the first exchange, lets say you made one successful attack and one unsuccessful (that I defended).

Who gets initiative in the second exchange? :-)

Brian.

in my example if you hit bob at .3 seconds and succeed then bob is dead, why hit him again? if not then bob defended and gets to hit me at .6 seconds... see where I am coming from now? I hope that clarifies.... say if bob ties however, well then .6 seconds is exchange two followed by end of round. Too bad I cant draw out my thought in illustrated format, it would be clearer.

I can see a lot of potential in this, honestly. The only problem I see, personally, is that which Brian brought up with initiative. I would say this:

I attack you twice in the first exchange, with 3 and 2 dice. You defend with 4 and 3. I succeed in the first by 1 die and fail in the second by 2 dice. My net success is at a -1, so you get initiative. If in the second case I'd only failed by 1 die, bringing my net success to an even 0. I'd say that the defender still gets the initiative. Such is the risk of multiple attacks. The only way I'd get initiative in multiple attacks is if my net success on the two is positive.

I'd also impose the rule of an activation cost of 1 for each additional attack. All attacks would happen within such a short span of each other that any shock/pain would not take effect until the next exchange.. So the first attack, if successful, does not negate dice from the second defense on that exchange. Likewise, multiple attacks on one exchange are declared upfront, and rolled simultaneously. If I manage to kill or wound you with the first, the dice from the second are still committed. Another risk you have to accept if you want to make the multiple attacks. It's like something I've been practicing, a 3 hit combo that I continue whether or not the first hit is lethal, or if I manage to open myself up after the second.

I'd call it a house rule, but a valid one.

I really don't understand why you want to so overcomplicate something that already works perfectly well.

But hey, to each their own.

Brian.

Brian,

It overcomplicates one thing, but simplifies two others that I can think of. First, there has to be no special rule for multiple opponents. The rule becomes in general that you can attack as many targets as you like, as many times as you like.

Secondly, this might alienate the practicing swordsmen, but it also eliminates the rules for the Double Thust (is that the maneuver)? Basically, you can make up any "combo" maneuver by just splitting your pool.

There is also an aesthetic consideration, which is satisfied for me doing this, though I don't expect anyone else to share that with me.

BTW, I'd also like to see this combined in some way with the idea of blind apportioning that we discussed previously. With more rules about trying to interrperet the incoming attacks.

Also, I can see this being used with a simplfied maneuver set. Basically shifting the tactics from maneuver selection to dice apportionment.

Um, just fun thinking aobut it Brian. I'd agree that it's not a great improvement, but then I never came up with any improvement to anything by not thinking about something. :-)

Mike

this discussion reminds me of a bumper sticker on my monitor, it says:

Government philosophy: if it aint broke fix it till it is.






Thats the best summary of my opinion on what you suggested.

That was frankly unnecessary and insulting, Ashren.

I believe you've proposed your fair share of optional rules, even when the system wasn't broken. Options allow people to play as they wish to, and add a little more to the game, for those who want it.

For those who don't, it's simplicity itself to ignore the option.

I've never understood people who say, "If it ain't broke..."

Who's fixing? I'm tinkering, playing, enjoying. Possibly improving for certain small applications. Maybe innovating if it goes far enough, and eventually gets thought out well enough.

Not interested? Well nobody is forced to respond.

With an attitude like this, Jake would never have made TROS. After all most players think D&D doesn't need "fixin'" either.

Mike

How about allowing a certain amount of attacks per exchange, depending on your profiency? If you have a profiency of 4, you can attack two times/exchange (or whatever), no matter if you're facing one, two, three or twelve opponents.

And if the first attack is parried, you go into the next exhange.

damn, my proclivity for insulting without intention has flared again. I was attempting to express an Idea in a somewhat humurous manner, I guess I failed... sorry to offend. I meant only to say that your mods may cause problems to exist in a system that works perfectly fine in my opinion. Franky if anyone should be offended by my statement its the government employees that the insult was aimed at. so anyways, much as I feel that you are trying to fix a problem where one doesnt really exist you may be deriving insult from where one was not intended. I meant no sleight.
Now you can return to your "tinkering" and stop crucifying me. Thanks.

It's not really a matter of time or speed. It's a matter of actio-reaction. No matter how fast you are in OBAM, you're still human and you're not gonna be able to move beyon certain limits.

You're reflex is how you decide how fast you are in the opening of the fight. If you're the fastest guy, it means for you the whole fight actually starts a split second earlier than it does for the other guy. You're Die pool represents you're skill with the weapon and how much effort you put into each strike. It does not mean that if you have a combat pool of sixteen that you can magically make sixteen seperate swings/thrusts in the same time that someone with a combat pool of ten can make the traditional two.

So guy one makes a strike, the other guy reacts to it (successfully or not) and then depending on how well he does it, he can either make a swing at you or you get to follow up with your attack. Now if neither of you spent more than one or two dice on either part of the exchange it doesn't mean that your going really really fast and just being sloppy... it just means that you weren't trying very hard.

Or put in the simplest terms I can think of it's ... Dice = Effort, not Dice = speed/time.

And by association a round isn't a fixed period of time, it's a set of actions and reactions.

and really as a correlary to that, with one weapon you can only strike at one spot at a time. You cannot simultaneously hit your opponent in the leg, hand and head with one sword, you can attack one spot at a time, and after the second set of action reaction the pool refreshes and so ends the standard "round". A round is two sets of action/reaction pairs not a period of defined time.

But with one weapon, I can strike two opponents at the same time? Come now...

I can, however, strike one guy 2-3 times (solidly, even) within 1 second. The strikes won't be as focused or quite so powerful as a single shot, but it's possible.

Basically, the only difference in striking once, and striking twice is that you're rolling two smaller groups at the same time, rather than 1 larger group, whether you're striking one opponent, or two. If I've decided to commit 8 dice to the attack, I can either do it 8 dice in one single attack, or two smaller ones of 4 each (or 4 and 3, if you use the -1 die rule for additional attacks).

You are right; the system works fine as is. But it would also, I'm sure, work fine as described by the proponents of multiple attacks.

Your not striking them at the same time, and once again a round is not a measure of time.

In a Red red red situation if you win the contest of reflexes your just moving faster than BOTH your opponents and landing blows on them in rapid succesion. That's a lot of EFFORT to do successfully, but not impossible... partly becasue they have to eal with not hitting each other as well.

In a Red-red-white you hit the other guy going red first, but the other guy is WAITING for you to go after him, so you can hit both of them before the second exchange happens because once again... a round=two exchanges, not a period of time.

In a Red-white-white situation they're both letiting you go first so you can obviously hit them both in you're first exchange... but doing so without leaving yourself vunerable to any counters is going to take more dice than you can afford, unless you expend enough EFFORT to disable the both of them with those first blows.

Making sense yet?

I think you missed the point. The round is not time based, it is action reaction based. Thats why we measure it interms of exchanges not in seconds or fractions there of. Now in one ROUND for you, you can strike multiple opponents once or one guy once, why? because your round doesn't happen simultaneously with your opponents.

Example.... you and mook A engage at T+.3 seconds, thats when that round starts for mook A, Mook B is slower getting in range but is still going to be in strking range before mook A can counter attack or drop dead, say T+.6 seconds so you smack him and Mook C was a lumbering ox and gets there last but before either Mook A or B can react so you wipe him out with a blow at T+.9 seconds. Now against each badguy you had ONE exchange although you attacked multiple times. Your round began in three phases, the bad guys did not count to three before attacking but attacked in a slightly staggered less than uniform fashion, like in real life. If you attack one guy alone you can only have ONE exchange followed by another since he will react and two sets of action/reaction constitute a round.
So, in effect you are proposing eliminating the exchange and rounds system and replacing it with "pools do not refresh until both parties run out of dice" whenever the hell that happens. It is unwieldly and problem ridden. You arent modifying the system you are changing it. It snot an option when you change the entire game around. You might as well say "lets roll a d20 against the aggregate defensive number and then roll the damage dice of the weapon" because thats how much your "option" changes the original system. Now please, dont get the idea that I am trying to insult you but this is exactly what I mean when I spoke about fixing the system until it was broken, granted it would have read better as "modding" the system until it was broken but I only bought one bumper sticker.

Wolfen wrote: But with one weapon, I can strike two opponents at the same time? Come now...

I can, however, strike one guy 2-3 times (solidly, even) within 1 second. The strikes won't be as focused or quite so powerful as a single shot, but it's possible.

Valamir wrote: Actually, Mike I think that would be fine...and much better as a general rule. If i can swing once at you and once at him, then I should be able to swing twice at you...

There might be a slight edge to the attacker due to the granularity of the dice...might require the defender to use an extra die to get the same level of defense, but that should be mitigated by the decrease in average damage...two level 3 wounds being inferior to a level 6 wound.

Valamir wrote: Well I suppose it could be taken to an extreme...10 1-die attacks against an opponent with 8 dice guarentees 2 free 1 die hits (which with suitably damaging weapons are still potentially nasty).

Jake Norwood wrote: Just remember that you still only get one exchange (meaning one attack) for each opponent. So if you're dividing between 3 guys you get 3 actions, but against one guy you get one. Tops.

Jake

Chris,

The 10 1-die attacks are admittedly totally out there. Which is why I suggested a progressive activation cost. -1 CP for the second attack, -2 for the 3rd, and so on.

But the point given is that the attacks are essentially simultaneous. It's all one fluid (or perhaps not so fluid, depending on the attacker) combination of strikes. So it's rolled at the same time, and defense against the multiple attacks, if the defender chooses to defend against them all, is also rolled simultaneously.

And Anthony, yes I can. 3 is pushing it, but I can do it on a good day with my bastard, two handed. If I can do it, I've no doubt that a trained swordsman can do as well or better.

Sneaky git is right on.

Isn't it a visualsation thing here?

I mean, if you split 9 dice over three guys, yeah, it looks like three attacks.

And when you use 9 dice on one guy, when you just look at the dice, it looks like one attack.

But is it? Why can't it be hacking at the one guy three times, or more/less? Just because all the dice are added together for one roll, doesn't mean it can't represent several strikes itself.

After that, the only problem is why can't you call several locations to hit if this is what your doing, since when you attack multiple foes you can aim for different spots.

I'd attribute that to having a bit of sword menouvouring (bad spelling!) space between foes, so you can get it where you want. On one guy, you go for just one point multiple times, otherwise your basically feinting.

fi think the problem is that people here have Dand d - ized the combat of TROS in this discussion. In D and D the attacker attacks then the defender counter attacks and in this each guy takes his turn attacking the ideas presented would make sense but in TROS the attacker and th defender act simultaneously. You cant do what you guys have suggested as an attacker because the defender is going to defend at the exact same time so you will make your second strike different than you might have planned depending on your opponents reaction.

The current system already represents perfectly well the ability to land many well placed blows rapidly since the round is not time based but is simply constituted of a pair of exchanges.

I think that those who want to do multiple attacks against the same guy dont seem to grasp that yet.

I'd edit my message, but can't, and I realise I wasn't clear

'But is it? Why can't it be just imagined as hacking at the one guy three times, or more/less? Just because all the dice are added together for one roll, doesn't mean it can't represent several strikes itself. '

The bold bit is what I would have editted in.

if you want to I guess you could but it wouldnt make sense.... I swing with 9 dice to zone four and bozo executes a counter.... thats swing and counter, not several attacks at once inveloped into a nine die summary for me... but hey, each his own etc etc....

No offence intended and not directed at you in particular, but I don't believe anyone can strike the same person with a weapon larger than a dagger more than once in a second. Let me clarify first that I am talking about a blow with a weapon that is a) meant to wound or kill and b) of realistic weight. I'm not talking about just trying to touch someone with the weapon, but actually trying to strike to harm.

The thing here is basically you can't strike three times against a single opponent simultaneously, like you sprouted extra arms also wielding weapons. You swing, he reacts, you attack again if he doesn't throw you off balance enough to get his own in, etc.

This is already simulated in the exchange system, and quite well, i may add.

I suppose that attacks against multiple opponents could be considered some kind of flowing maneuver thingie that strikes at each opponent in turn, but to be honest, i ain't no swordsman, as they say up here in Canada (well, they would, if the subject came up, and they weren't swordsmen), so i can't really attest to the validity of my suggestion.


When i brought up the "interesting wrinkle", i hadn't expected discussion like this, but i'm glad it cropped up. It certainly highlights an interesting issue with the multiple opponents rule.

I'm going to play the sysem as is, since i really don't see why making multiple attacks against a single opponent is going to change anything as it currently stands. You make the same exchange rolls, except with smaller pools. It's like chopping up a chunk of salt. You will probably get ever smaller and smaller cubes, but they're still cubes (ok, poor analogy, but i'll leave it there).

How about multiple attacks against a single foe actually being a Maneuver - seems fairly obvious to me...

Wolfen wrote: But with one weapon, I can strike two opponents at the same time? Come now...

I can, however, strike one guy 2-3 times (solidly, even) within 1 second. The strikes won't be as focused or quite so powerful as a single shot, but it's possible.

Basically, the only difference in striking once, and striking twice is that you're rolling two smaller groups at the same time, rather than 1 larger group, whether you're striking one opponent, or two. If I've decided to commit 8 dice to the attack, I can either do it 8 dice in one single attack, or two smaller ones of 4 each (or 4 and 3, if you use the -1 die rule for additional attacks).

You are right; the system works fine as is. But it would also, I'm sure, work fine as described by the proponents of multiple attacks.

Wolfen wrote: But with one weapon, I can strike two opponents at the same time? Come now...

I can, however, strike one guy 2-3 times (solidly, even) within 1 second. The strikes won't be as focused or quite so powerful as a single shot, but it's possible.

Basically, the only difference in striking once, and striking twice is that you're rolling two smaller groups at the same time, rather than 1 larger group, whether you're striking one opponent, or two. If I've decided to commit 8 dice to the attack, I can either do it 8 dice in one single attack, or two smaller ones of 4 each (or 4 and 3, if you use the -1 die rule for additional attacks).

You are right; the system works fine as is. But it would also, I'm sure, work fine as described by the proponents of multiple attacks.

PAD the MAD wrote: This makes sense, but having had some degree of practice with a variety of weapons, and being reasonably skilled, I found that using 'combinations' on opponents usually did the trick e.g. an easy to learn 3 hit combo with a mace - each blow is not massively strong but will hurt if not parried. 1st blow aims at a shoulder. if parried, you have impetus for a quick whirl to the other shoulder. if this is also parried whirl back round agian, adding a twist to out the blow into the opponents guts. Usually works as their weapon(s) are usually raised to parry the first 2 attacs leaving the third blow an easy hit.

2 ways of looking at it in terms of RoS...

1) this is simply a blow aimed at the abdomen with quite a few dice behind it - doesn't matter that there are actually 3 blows being attempted
2) it is a maneuver designed to confuse your opponent. you make the attack and declare x dice. defender declares dice. you then reveal you are doing a funky maneuver that lets you attack location x and y (and maybe z if you are good) by splitting your declared dice amongst the attacks (as evenly as possible). defender then gets to split his declared defence dice against each attack (possibly with each successive parry/dodge having fewer dice than the previous one?)

I'd suggest that a person only be allowed to learn one maneuver per increase in proficiency / period of time spent learning one and that the locations attacked must be specific e.g. Upper left swing, Upper right swing, Abdominal swing.

Also, I like the idea of new maneuvers - especially when I can base them on something I can personally achieve.

BFN

Paul

Well, without being rude, I would have to say that the folks are underestimating how fast a second is and overestimating how fast a person can move in a second.

I think TROS' combat system really does a great job simulating multiple attacks as is- if you succeed in your attack, but don't wound, you keep the initiative, which allows to you to keep attacking. Of course, if you wound you still keep initiative, but a wounded opponent is at such a disadvantage that the combat is probably almost over anyways.

Anthony I wrote: Of course, if you wound you still keep initiative, but a wounded opponent is at such a disadvantage that the combat is probably almost over anyways.

Wolfen wrote: And the simulator has no concept for taking the helmet off of your incapacitated opponent, and then hitting him in the head.

Ah, an Easter Egg hunt just in time for Easter.

:-)

Mike

The way i see it working is like this:

You have a CP of 12, with which you want to declare 3 attacks against me. I also have a CP of 12, with which i will defend, for purposes of this example.

You declare a Cut with 4 dice. I decide to defend with 4 dice. Or perhaps 5 dice, doesn't matter. Actually, it could.

How is this different from a regular exchange?

So, let's assume you succeeded in hitting me with the attack. You attack again, and i must defend.

Again, how is this different from a regular exchange?

If i successfully defend your first attack, and take the initiative away from you, what happens next?

Do you lose all your dice that you had dedicated to attacking?

Or is it equivalent to both of us striking at the same time now?

Or do you get to defend?

Again, how is this different from a standard exchange?

Or do you not lose initiative, thus negating the defender's taking of initiative to begin with? (In which case, just keep throwing multiple attacks at your oponent. He'll never get the chance to take initiative, unless, maybe, he manages to successfully defend the last attack).

The point i'm trying to make is that there is no difference between splitting your combat pool between 2 exchanges for the round, or splitting it three or four times that round.

Each is treated exactly like a regular exchange would be.

The point is, you're missing the point. But I've already tried to explain it a few times, so I'm going to let it go. You play the game the way you want to, and I'll play it the way I want to.

Arxhon

For all practical purposes, do you simply want to split up the round into more than two exchanges?

Hey Mokkurkalfe,

Actually, that isn't quite what i'm suggesting, but it is a logical extension of my analysis of the situation.

This is where i'm coming from:

An exchange is simply this: the attacker takes his action, the defender reacts. Whether this happens once in a given round, or 10 times in a given round is not important in terms of how an exchange is defined ("During each Exchange each party gets one 'action'" p76).

All i'm saying is that making "multiple strikes on a single opponent" is exactly the same as an exchange is currently presented in the book, for each strike. There could be two exchanges before pools refresh, there could be 6, depending on how you split your dice.

Unless you are trying to create some kind of situation where you expend your remaining dice in additional attacks at the end of the round after the defender has exhausted his pool, there is no real functional difference.

I prefer the 2 exchange/round system to keep things simple and tight, but others may prefer a more free form system that involves splitting pools however many ways they wish until pools are exhausted, and then ending the round.

Wolfen, i'm pretty sure i'm not missing your point.

Wolfen wrote: I can, however, strike one guy 2-3 times (solidly, even) within 1 second. The strikes won't be as focused or quite so powerful as a single shot, but it's possible. /snip/But the point given is that the attacks are essentially simultaneous. It's all one fluid (or perhaps not so fluid, depending on the attacker) combination of strikes.

Arxon, you said it better than I ever could have
and I back up your interpretation, I see things like you do....

Forgive me for jumping in at the last moment. I am new to this game (in fact I have yet to receive the book in the mail and have never played or read the rules). :-) With that said, I'm wondering how you would describe a situation such as in any samurai movie, where a skilled swordsman is able to make 2 or 3 quick and decisive cuts on a single person (all in less than 1-2 seconds).

If I swing a light sword upward across your chest, then swing it around my head coming down on your shoulder, that would all take place in less than a second. I can see why some would like to add more attacks into the round. It certainly seems valid.

But perhaps you could simply break that down into 2 rounds. First round, I slice at the chest, and you fail to parry. Having wounded you, I keep initiative and swing at your shoulder. (Are those the rules? If not, then it seems reasonable to say that you can ONLY get more than one attack in the round if you roll red and the first attack is not successfully blocked.)

I must say, though, if you do allow more than one attack on a single opponent, the -1 penalty would make sense. And thank you, it has been fun reading the opinions here, although it seems many have given up.

Malchiah wrote: But perhaps you could simply break that down into 2 rounds. First round, I slice at the chest, and you fail to parry. Having wounded you, I keep initiative and swing at your shoulder.

Welcome to the Forge, Malchiah.

It's not too late to hop into this discussion. I think the limit is a month after a post has been made before the thread is considered "closed". You'd have to check the forum rules though.

Anyway, Wolfen is correct. Cool description, by the way, Wolfen, i like it.

You'll find that the 'round' is broken into two 'exchanges' which will create the very situation you desire quite nicely.

I second Wolfen's suggestion to check out the combat simulator. It's a great piece of software, and extremely helpful in gaining a better understanding of how combat works.

10 1-die attacks against 10 peasents actually couldn't happen under the rules. Only 3 of them would be in melee range.

Hmm.. One question just popped into my mind.

When fighting against multiple opponents, how is the initiative decided? Does the lonely fighter throw red/white for each opponent, or just throw once, which applies to all opponents? If the latter is correct, how about during the subsequent exchanges?

Thanks