Hello out there,

I am new to TROS, maybe the first german member of this forum(?)
and I got a question about Beating.
Is the beat maneuver not too good? Especially there is no activation
cost and no disadvantage if the maneuver fails. Considering the
possible gain of rapidly deploying the opponents combat pool, why
should one not try a Beat after each pause?

One of my players used to be a fencer, and he told me that it is relatively
easy to defend against a beat (provided you see it coming) by just getting
your weapon out of the way.

Moreover it seems funny to me, that you are able to beat away a shield with
a rapier but not with a normal sword (in Sword&Shield-Style).

By roaming through this forum I came to understand that in the first edition
of TROS the beat maneuver was considered too weak and useless and thus
had to be changed, but is it not too strong now?

Hoping that being a newbie made me miss some connection and thanking
you for your time is
Bernd

Brassel wrote: Hello out there,

I am new to TROS, maybe the first german member of this forum(?)
and I got a question about Beating.
Is the beat maneuver not too good? Especially there is no activation
cost and no disadvantage if the maneuver fails. Considering the
possible gain of rapidly deploying the opponents combat pool, why
should one not try a Beat after each pause?

One of my players used to be a fencer, and he told me that it is relatively
easy to defend against a beat (provided you see it coming) by just getting
your weapon out of the way.

Moreover it seems funny to me, that you are able to beat away a shield with a rapier but not with a normal sword (in Sword&Shield-Style).

By roaming through this forum I came to understand that in the first edition of TROS the beat maneuver was considered too weak and useless and thus had to be changed, but is it not too strong now?

Hoping that being a newbie made me miss some connection and thanking
you for your time is
Bernd

First of all, thank you for the detailed answer, Salamander!
Especially your answer about why the beat maneuver is not available for
shield-users was very satisfying.

But I still think it would be advisable to beat after every possible pause.
To this point you said:

If the maneuver fails, well, you are out there and he has the chance to cut you up. He still has his dice, you do not. If you try to beat after each pause, you will be the victim of a counter or feint very quickly. Both of these are terrible things to be caught by.

I actually treat repeated maneuvers the same way as repeated feints, the more you do it the more difficult it is with increasing activation costs or in this case bonus dice to defend instead (makes more sense that way I think.

Brassel wrote: But I still think it would be advisable to beat after every possible pause.

So why not beat if I have the chance?

I use them all the time IRL and in TROS. They don't always work in either, but when they do they're worth it. Salamander did a good job of answering most all of that (I've got such good guys here).

Brassel wrote: The first is true for any offensive maneuver described in TROS:
if it fails the dice are lost.
Hence this cannot be a reason not to use a beat. And I do not see why it
should be any more probable to be caught in a counter, as the counter
would work just as well if I had chosen to attack normally.
And as the feint is an offensive maneuver you cannot use it against the beat or
can you?
So why not beat if I have the chance?

quot;Bob Richter]

So if he sees it coming, he just calls an "Attack defense," throws in enough combat pool to make you regret it, and cuts you some nice new holes.

Are their rules I have missed to "see a beat coming?"
Please Note: I have the 1st edition, not the revised. (Anyone know where to find a money tree?)
It seems by the declaration in the round the defending PLAYER will always know a beat is coming because the attackers declares x number of dice to beat. Defender must parry or dodge no block allowed.

Most all of the changes from 1st to 2nd printing (Revised Ed) are available right here on this forum, including the revised beat maneuver. Um, does someone want to dig that up for me?

Jake

HERE it is... My bad I should of done a search before asking...

I hope my url worked... here it is to cut and paste if I can't use urls

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2283&highlight=revised+beat+maneuver

Thank you all for so many good answers!!!

I am quite astonished how well this forum works both technically
and with so many friendly participants!

Thinking about all your answers, my main question is now thoroughly
solved. My problem turns out to be rather an error of thought. I was
not seeing that normally to get x successes you have to spend 2 times x
dice, which is just what the defender looses. I guess the error comes
from the fact that we only played one TROS evening so far. Of course
we all "suffered" from "beginners luck" and so 2 times the margin of
success seemed to be A LOT.

So I take back my qualm about the Beat Maneuver and am convinced
of the contrary now: It fits good into this extremely well thought
out combat system and is neither too strong nor too weak.
The hint that the counter is less risky against a beat was very
good as well. This provides a good answer against a continuous
beater.

I have some smaller follow-up questions though:

Is it possible to turn a beat into a feint?

If not, it might even be advisable in some circumstances to not
defend against a beat at all. One more good choice which adds
to the complex tactics possible in TROS.

Is it really physically possible for someone with a rapier fighting
against someone with sword and shield to beat away the shield?

And one last question: Salamander said that there is no beat in sword
and shield style because you can do just as well or better with the shield.
Looking through the sword and shield maneuvers the only similar move
I see is "bind and strike". But bind and strike only subtracts a single
die from the defenders pool instead of the two for beat.

Did I miss something (again) about the bind and strike maneuver?

Brassel wrote: Thank you all for so many good answers!!!

I am quite astonished how well this forum works both technically
and with so many friendly participants!

I have some smaller follow-up questions though:

Is it possible to turn a beat into a feint?

If not, it might even be advisable in some circumstances to not
defend against a beat at all. One more good choice which adds
to the complex tactics possible in TROS.

Is it really physically possible for someone with a rapier fighting
against someone with sword and shield to beat away the shield?

And one last question: Salamander said that there is no beat in sword
and shield style because you can do just as well or better with the shield.
Looking through the sword and shield maneuvers the only similar move
I see is "bind and strike". But bind and strike only subtracts a single
die from the defenders pool instead of the two for beat.

Thanks again for the very detailed answers to my question, salamander!
And I should have quoted you correctly in order to spare you the
"Checking Thread".

I would like to comment on some of your answers. I see that you think
in terms of real fighting rather than TROS' combat system. I wish I
had such knowledge as well, because real fighting is what the TROS
system tries to simulate. (By the way, referring to one of your first
questions: my friend was a modern olympic fencer (modern five-combat
or whatever it is called in English) and he was very pleased about you
asking, giving him the opportunity to tell me some things about the
huge differences between modern and historical fencing.) But as I do
not have the experience, unfortunately in this discussion I have to
stick to what the TROS rule-book says.

if not, it might even be advisable in some circumstances to not
defend against a beat at all. One more good choice which adds
to the complex tactics possible in TROS.

I would recommend that you do something, or else you have no chance of gaining initiative and that just means the other guy will get to take another swing at you, and with you having less points to use against him... Remember the number of dice lost are dependant upon a margin of success in a contested event. You don't contest him and he could strip your whole Combat Pool.

Not neccesarily "beat away the shield", but to beat away the sword. Now I understand fully that a shield can do great amounts of damage, but I can grab the shield with my off hand, I would not try that with a sword in mid flight! If I try to beat away the shield instead of the sword I am asking for the ultimate in body modification.

the defenders weapon (or whatever else was being "beaten") is knocked aside and cannot be used in defense on the following exchange (DFW1001,p60)

And one last question: Salamander said that there is no beat in sword
and shield style because you can do just as well or better with the shield.
Looking through the sword and shield maneuvers the only similar move
I see is "bind and strike". But bind and strike only subtracts a single
die from the defenders pool instead of the two for beat.

Did I say that? [Checking Thread]....[/Checking Thread]

I sure did, by gum. Please allow me to explain. When using a beat it is only usable at the beginning of a fight, or after a pause. If you want to try and beat his sword to start or after a pause, by all means try. But I also said that you could use Beat if you choose to as per the comment about Jake being chock full of common sense. However...

WARNING! INTERPRETATION ALERT!

From what I can see there is some errata in the Beat example. I believe that Mik's TN to beat should be 7 as it is an attack on the other guy's sword and I see no reason for the 1CP activation cost Mik pays in the example. (I may just be stoopid, but bear with me nonetheless). This implies, at least to me, that it is more difficult to get those two - for - one CP deals on the other guy. In the Bind and Strike example the ATN of the Shield is it's DTN, a signifigantly lower TN most of the time, in the Bind & Strike example it is a TN of 5.

[bold]INTERPRETATION ALERT OVER! [/bold]

Also the Bind and Strike can be used at any time during the fight to tie up whatever you want tied up. The beat can only be used at the beginning or after a pause.

And now I followed Jake's link for the revision of the beat maneuver:

HERE it is... My bad I should of done a search before asking...

I hope my url worked... here it is to cut and paste if I can't use urls

Brassel wrote: Hello out there,

I am new to TROS, maybe the first german member of this forum(?)

Bomilkar wrote:

Brassel wrote: Hello out there,

I am new to TROS, maybe the first german member of this forum(?)

Nay, that would be me - that is, unless someone else steps forward to claim this right.

Bomilkar wrote: Nay, that would be me - that is, unless someone else steps forward to claim this right.

Sometimes the best option on a beat is to ignore it and counterattack, however you must ensure that you hold enough dice back to steal initiative - otherwise even if the beat only succeeds with one die (and thus you lose two) you still lose your attack because you lose "your next attack", i.e. the one you already launched.

Just my 2c.

Brian.

(edit: But only sometimes. If someone throws a largish beat at me in the first round of an exchange, I usually defend. Nothing worse than starting exchange #2 with zero dice in your pool... :-)

Brian Leybourne wrote: But only sometimes.

We can talk about what the "right" response is forever. But when all is said and done, every response gets a "but only sometimes" tacked on. This is what makes TROS a great system. There are no pat answers for the most part. You have to analyze all the details of each situation to come up with the "right" maneuver.

Is there better terrain you can take nearby? Then respond with Full Evade and get the advantage. But only sometimes...

Mike

Mike,

Yeah, I know. I was just covering myself :-)

Brian.

I know you know, Brian. That was for the benefit of those who seem to be thinking that there are magic answers to situations. Well, there are some general rules. But as you and I are aware, "it all depends", is really the response.

How do you learn, then? Same as with any hard endeavor. Practice, practice, practice. Few RPGs can truely say that people can get good at them over time. For example, I don't want to face Brian unless he's got a character with at least... 4 CP less than I have. :-)

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: How do you learn, then? Same as with any hard endeavor. Practice, practice, practice. Few RPGs can truely say that people can get good at them over time.

Mike Holmes wrote: For example, I don't want to face Brian unless he's got a character with at least... 4 CP less than I have. :-)

Brassel wrote: Thanks again for the very detailed answers to my question, salamander!

And I should have quoted you correctly in order to spare you the
"Checking Thread".

I would like to comment on some of your answers.

I see that you think in terms of real fighting rather than TROS' combat system. I wish I had such knowledge as well, because real fighting is what the TROS system tries to simulate. (By the way, referring to one of your first questions: my friend was a modern olympic fencer (modern five-combat or whatever it is called in English) and he was very pleased about you asking, giving him the opportunity to tell me some things about the
huge differences between modern and historical fencing.) But as I do not have the experience, unfortunately in this discussion I have to stick to what the TROS rule-book says.

Let us have a look at the example in DFW 1001, p 60: Mik performs his beat with 4 dice. Given his TN of 6 (I agree it should be 7 for a short sword, but this would only strengthen the point I'm trying to make) there is a 50% chance for each of his dies to score a success (it would be 40% for TN7). So the footpad's player could expect that Mik will score 2 successes and that the thug will loose 4 dies accordingly. Defending against this would cost some dies as well (especially as in the example the thug's DTN is 7), reasonably more than 2 for each expected success. Consequently the thug in the example looses 7 dies (3 for defending+4 outcome of beat). Had he not defended at all, he would have lost 6. (And even those 6 just because Mik had considerable luck). Of course the thug would have no chance of winning initiative, but that chance was bad enough anyway to win with 3d-TN7 against 4d-TN6.

It is of course quite a different story, if Mik could have turned the
beat into a feint. Not defending against a beat would then be just
another way to say good-bye to this world.

Within the TROS system it would make good sense to beat away the shield (as long as there is not a great difference in weapon ranges) because

the defenders weapon (or whatever else was being "beaten") is knocked aside and cannot be used in defense on the following exchange (DFW1001,p60)

And I can see that beating away a shield should be possible with a mass weapon or a sword. But I do not see how this is possible with a rapier. I have even trouble to imagine beating away a big sword with such a weapon, but maybe I just do not know enough about what a rapier really is. (I keep thinking about what Musketiers use in Hollywood films.)

So there seem to be considerable differences between what you can do with a shield and the beat maneuver. Hence it would make sense to add Beat (0) to the list of maneuvers for Sword&Shield and Mass Weapon&Shield would it not?

Bernd

First of all a big hello to all german members of this forum,
which - judging from first polls - are at least
Bomilka, Irmo and The Mad German J"urgen Mayer!!!

Bomlika wrote: BTW: Where do you come from? I live in Bonn and I'm just preparing my first TROS-Campaign set in the world of Westeros from GRR Martin's Song of Ice and
Fire.

Salamander wrote: Granted, but to paraphrase Chaucer, "Beware fortune for she is fickle and will take away what she has given at the worst of times". I contend that if the guy had not contested, he could have lost 8 CP. In my spot, I would have waited untill Mik was past me and turned the fellow into Mik-kabob... or when he went to beat, I would have used a counter, or full evasion, or... But to do nothing is basically freezing. I still hold he would have stripped even more than the seven from this footpad.

Salamander wrote:

It is of course quite a different story, if Mik could have turned the
beat into a feint. Not defending against a beat would then be just
another way to say good-bye to this world.

Ah, yes that is the thing. He could have. That is the beauty of the system! You have options upon possibilities within opportunities...

p 61, Feint-and-Cut wrote: This is the first "trick" that most
swordsmen know, consisting of slashing at one region of the
body, then changing direction mid-swing...

p 61, Feint-and-thrust wrote: Like the feint-and-slash it begins
with a false slash...

Salamander wrote: I believe that the phrase beat may need to be demonstrated for you to really see what is happening. A beat does not mean you smash the shield away and it is behind the fellows back with his shield arm askew behind him.

Salamander wrote:
It means that you are pushing it out of position, away from a line that could lead to contact with you, it does not have to be a lot. We recently did some work with this in Longsword. I was beating my opponent's sword just far enough away so that the tip of my sword was able to be thrust into the face of my opponent with a minimum (20cm) movement of the blade. So I think that a rapier could be used to displace a shield enough to reduce the fellows CP. I am finding out quick that it is not as much the weapon as it is the user.

Brian Leybourne wrote:
Maybe there should be some limits - a rapier beating a doppleganger is a bit silly (IMO).

Brassel wrote:
And hello to Salamander!

I guess this is just what this Chaucer-guy deserved, calling a fine
dame like Fortuna "fickle"...

And speaking about what the footpad might have lost if things run badly - defending with three dice could have made him loose 11. Actually I can imagine it rather dandy, if an experienced fighter just knows a certain move in a certain situation cannot harm him seriously and just waits until his over-excited opponent has calmed down with a look on his face saying "I can still turn him to Mik-kabob when he is out of breath."
But maybe this imagination is just too "cinematic" and couldn't
really happen?

But the question is still open: Can you really feint a Beat - or for
that matter - any maneuver? Because the rules say:

p 61, Feint-and-Cut wrote: This is the first "trick" that most
swordsmen know, consisting of slashing at one region of the
body, then changing direction mid-swing...

and also

p 61, Feint-and-thrust wrote: Like the feint-and-slash it begins
with a false slash...

Your next one let me really laugh!

Salamander wrote: I believe that the phrase beat may need to be demonstrated for you to really see what is happening. A beat does not mean you smash the shield away and it is behind the fellows back with his shield arm askew behind him.

Maybe I really thought too much in that direction.

Thanks for the good example, the whole affair makes much more sense to me now.

But I seem to be not alone with this thought, in the discussion about
the Beat, which Jake hinted too, I found:

Brian Leybourne wrote:
Maybe there should be some limits - a rapier beating a doppleganger is a bit silly (IMO).