The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW
Started by: abzu
Started on: 6/5/2003
Board: Burning Wheel


On 6/5/2003 at 7:47pm, abzu wrote:
Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

I have been working on an alternate, quick resolution system for the melee mechanics. They use basic skill resolution and helping dice to reduce an entire combat to one (or two or three) rolls.

you can check out what i have so far here. (Sorry for not posting them in the forum; i am a formatting junkie and i hate the way html text looks.)

I have been playing around with these rules in my group for a couple months. However, this is the first time they have been formally written out. Therefore I must warn you that they are alpha alpha alpha.

OK?

let me know what you think.

-Luke

Message 6762#70388

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/5/2003




On 6/5/2003 at 9:45pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

Quick note to say I'll get on this as soon as I find a free time slot.

Message 6762#70421

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Valamir
...in which Valamir participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/5/2003




On 6/9/2003 at 7:08pm, taepoong wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

I have just taken a quick look at it and I find that it may be quite useful.

A few questions:

1) Why is the IMS based upon 1, 2, and 4 successes and not 1, 3, and 5?

2) Why is VA not a factor? It's such a simple thing to figure out. If my gang is armed with axes and is fighting men in chain, why should a 4+ roll save them?

3) Shouldn't there be a "Cut Down" option for the victors after a battle? You have Flee and Surrender, but what about those cold-hearted men who would hack at their opponents backs as they fled?

Message 6762#70922

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by taepoong
...in which taepoong participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/9/2003




On 6/9/2003 at 8:05pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

Looked these over...REALLY great stuff here Luke. Couple of discussion points.

1) Can you describe more the differences between "Drive them Off" and "Sharp Clash". The only mechanical difference I saw is that in "Drive them off" success in the vs. roll results in the enemy falling back. In "Sharp Clash" success in the vs roll leads to a Steel Test, and only if the Steel Test is failed does the enemy fall back. I would almost recommend eliminating "Drive them Off" as an option and just go with "Sharp Clash", incorporating the DtO text into the general description of the Clash of Arms system.


2) In the helping rules you describe adding a die for every additional member of the gang. I didn't see an upper limit. Is there a limit as to how many additional members you can get an advantage from at once...a diminishing returns effect. I would think something like each die requiring that many more additional men...1 guy gets +1D, it takes 2 more guys to get another +1D, 3 more guys to get another +1D, etc...something like that perhaps...although there be repurcussions for the knock aside rules that is perhaps not insurmountable.


3) The group rules are really very good, the idea of capturing a mob or small unit in a simple roll complete with captures and such is quite effective. Two questions arose from reading.

a) The section on knocking aside refers to dice being set aside as the result of a clash representing men being knocked aside, but i don't see an indication of how many dice. Is it 1 die is knocked aside for every net success of the winner?

b) The section on multi die gang members (individuals who add more than 1 die to the total) discusses knocking aside whole members. How do you decide. In a group of mixed 2 die members and 1 die members, if 2 dice are knocked aside is this two 1 die members or 1 2 die member. In a group that is entirely 2 die members, what is the effect of 1 die being knocked aside?



4) These rules are VERY VERY Hero Wars-esque (which as a big fan of HW is a good thing IMO). In Hero Wars simple combat comes down to a single d20 roll. But prior to that roll a player examines his sheet and the situation to find other skills that may apply or situational modifiers to claim etc. Rolling for those first feeds advantage into the final d20 roll, so in the end you're final roll is pumped up with all manner of advantages (the narration of which gives color to the fight).

In BW, same thing except BW is a dice pool system and the related skill (called Forks) and other advantages add 1D to the die pool directly without need for a roll. I offer the following section from page 6

It is vital to remember that advantages are not fixed, they can come from anywhere and it is up to the player to negotiate for them with the GM

At the start of the combat, both opponents should declare their skill being used, their weapons, their Forks, special equipment, and any traits, instincts, and beliefs called upon.


The italics above are my emphasis...but if this doesn't sound like exactly what goes on in a typical Hero Wars session (for every roll, not just combat) I'll eat my hat. Very very cool stuff.

There are also rules for prolonged exchanges just as there are in HW. Interestingly, in group combat, the die pool itself is used as the points that attrite away rather than the seperate points that are lost in HW.


5) I like the attriting die pools for gang combat so much, I'd be tempted to adapt them as a variant way of prolonging individual combat...simply by treating the individual's dice pool the same way with "being placed at disadvantage" taking the place of "knock aside" descriptively...but functionally identical.

6) Any thought to allowing gang die pools to be restored during a fray. Instead of knocking aside opponent's dice, to regain some of your own as an option?

Message 6762#70935

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Valamir
...in which Valamir participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/9/2003




On 6/10/2003 at 3:04pm, abzu wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

taepoong wrote:
1) Why is the IMS based upon 1, 2, and 4 successes and not 1, 3, and 5?


An Add 2 weapon needs two successes over obstacle to deliver a Mark wound, Four to deliver a superb. The obstacle in these rules is always your opponent's successes. Thus these are standard rules for Add 2 weapons.

What I did was increased the difficulty of getting an Incidental hit on your opponent. Normally, meeting your obstacle grants an Incidental hit. It didn't seem right in a system based on versus tests that every tie resulted in a wound. Thus I upped the difficulty of scoring an I by one.

2) Why is VA not a factor? It's such a simple thing to figure out. If my gang is armed with axes and is fighting men in chain, why should a 4+ roll save them?

First, to keep it simple. I strove to eliminate anything i could in my quest for quick resolution. I felt that by reducing armor to a single die represented the frailty of protection as much as VA does. (I won't get cdow, but there is some mathematical difference between rolling 4 dice and needing 6s and one die and needing a 4). Second, because you know as well as I do that not every hit in a melee is done with the weapon edge. You have butt strikes, unarmed strikes and occasionally weapon edge strikes. Each of these has a different VA. I felt it was better just to simplify. One die of armor. No VA. Benefit of the doubt to the defender.

When are you going to have a gang full of axe men?

3) Shouldn't there be a "Cut Down" option for the victors after a battle? You have Flee and Surrender, but what about those cold-hearted men who would hack at their opponents backs as they fled?


The defender (he who fails the Steel test) has the option to Surrender or Flee. I didn't feel it was quite in the spirit of the game for the defender to be able to slit his own throat after a battle. I left that up to the victor who may, if he desires, attempt to execute his "captives" on the spot. This is described in the Steel tests section on page 5 of the current pdf.

If he would like to "cut down" fleeing opponents he must pursue them and engage them in a Bloody Clash or Prolonged Exchange.

Message 6762#71017

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/10/2003




On 6/10/2003 at 3:26pm, abzu wrote:
Hero Huh?

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the notes! Let me see if I can answer some of your questions:

First off, I've never seen, played or had explained to me what Hero Wars or any of that Hero Quest Rune Glorantha madness is. I am flattered by the comparison, though. But it just goes to show you how hard it is to do something original with dice these days.

differences between "Drive them Off" and "Sharp Clash".


I imagine DTO to be a quick and wild melee, full of whoops and hollers, smacks on the head and kicks in the pants. No real damage is intended except bruising and fear. A Sharp Clash is meant to be more of the Yojimbo/Sanjuro/Rashomon style of fighting, where both sides are terrified of each other and don't want to get hurt.

The problem is that players would never submit themselves to a SC when they can DTO. Without belaboring the point too much, I think playtesting would smooth this out. Perhaps a GM could call for a Sharp Clash based on certain conditions?

upper limit

Hadn't thought about an upper limit yet either. I'm not going to worry about it just yet, because these rules are going to elide into mass combat and whatnot. But the limit would have more to do with the carry of the leader's voice and the gang's ability to see him. Things to think about...

The section on multi die gang members (individuals who add more than 1 die to the total) discusses knocking aside whole members. How do you decide.


This will require more playtesting to truly answer. But my first instinct is to stick to the letter of the rule: Whole members go first. So if one die is knocked aside, then a "single die ganger" goes. Think of it as the experienced members using their wits to survive. It's also possible to allow the victor of that exchange to choose his targets. Again, only time and testing will tell.

net successes?

Yes, net successes. If I get 5 successes and you get 2, you lose three dice/members.

attriting individual's dice

It's a fair adaptation and it could easily be done. But it doesn't hold to the BW aesthetic that combat is immediately painful and deadly. Having the net successes translate into wounds for the individual drives that point home nicely, i think. And it lends itself to the quick resolution: one roll determines victor and wounds.

recovering knocked aside dice

Ralph! These are supposed to be simple rules! Simple, simple, simple!
In this version, I am going to leave Knocked Aside as it is.

I am going to release a more detailed, scriptable version in the future. There will be rules for rallying and recovering.

thanks again for your thoughts!
-L

Message 6762#71020

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/10/2003




On 6/10/2003 at 11:29pm, drozdal wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

But the limit would have more to do with the carry of the leader's voice and the gang's ability to see him


Hmm - haven't we talked about it yesterday? ;] (Centurion was such a good game tho)

Drozdal

Message 6762#71123

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by drozdal
...in which drozdal participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/10/2003




On 6/11/2003 at 2:32am, Valamir wrote:
Re: Hero Huh?

abzu wrote: Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the notes! Let me see if I can answer some of your questions:

First off, I've never seen, played or had explained to me what Hero Wars or any of that Hero Quest Rune Glorantha madness is. I am flattered by the comparison, though. But it just goes to show you how hard it is to do something original with dice these days.


I figured as much, which is why I continue to be impressed with your ability to invent such powerful mechanics largely independently. We get you playing some of these other games and theres no telling what kind of cool stuff you'll come up.



I imagine DTO to be a quick and wild melee, full of whoops and hollers, smacks on the head and kicks in the pants. No real damage is intended except bruising and fear. A Sharp Clash is meant to be more of the Yojimbo/Sanjuro/Rashomon style of fighting, where both sides are terrified of each other and don't want to get hurt. The problem is that players would never submit themselves to a SC when they can DTO. Without belaboring the point too much, I think playtesting would smooth this out. Perhaps a GM could call for a Sharp Clash based on certain conditions?


Hmm, but what is causing the fear? Why would the other side break and run away unless they failed a Steel check. You make the Steel check explicit in Sharp Clash, but you more or less presume automatic failure of the Steel check in DtO. I'm not seeing the distinction (note, that's not saying there isn't one, just that I'm not seeing it). It seems to me that either way its fear causing them to run, and that's a Steel check.



upper limit

Hadn't thought about an upper limit yet either. I'm not going to worry about it just yet, because these rules are going to elide into mass combat and whatnot. But the limit would have more to do with the carry of the leader's voice and the gang's ability to see him. Things to think about...

Not to mention terrain...how many people can really fight in a narrow ally...how many people can really gang up on a single individual at the same time...

This will require more playtesting to truly answer. But my first instinct is to stick to the letter of the rule: Whole members go first. So if one die is knocked aside, then a "single die ganger" goes. Think of it as the experienced members using their wits to survive. It's also possible to allow the victor of that exchange to choose his targets. Again, only time and testing will tell.


By that do you mean that if you lose 2 dice at once than the 2 die guy goes first? Or do you mean that single die guys always die before doubles where possible?


It's a fair adaptation and it could easily be done. But it doesn't hold to the BW aesthetic that combat is immediately painful and deadly. Having the net successes translate into wounds for the individual drives that point home nicely, i think. And it lends itself to the quick resolution: one roll determines victor and wounds.


True, but one of your concerns with the system was handing over control to a random roll. More rolls means the result is more likely to go as expected and less likely to result in an unrealistic hose job.



Ralph! These are supposed to be simple rules! Simple, simple, simple!
In this version, I am going to leave Knocked Aside as it is.


Ahhh, but simple is in the eyes of the beholder. You already go up from the very simple DtO to the much more involved, prolonged Bloody Clash. Seems to me you have the basis for a beautiful modular system. Keep adding parts until the group reaches its own comfort level.

Besides...with enough parts you not only have a great "quick" alternative to the scripting system, but a complete replacement for it for those people who prefer such things.

Message 6762#71134

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Valamir
...in which Valamir participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/11/2003




On 6/11/2003 at 3:49am, abzu wrote:
simple is as simple does

Ralph,
I'll tell ya, the main reason for having DTO rules vs Sharp Clash is reducing the entire engagement--combat and steel tests-- to one single roll. Now, in a case like this where you are risking little, you gain little. The only benefit is pushing your opponent back a dozen or so paces. In DTO a player could call on his higher Steel as an Advantage.

Sharp Clash is two rolls, combat then Steel. Also, this has a greater chance of a tie. Both sides could likely make their Steel tests. Especially if these are large gangs. I see this as another level of complexity, beyond the basic Clash roll/rule. Thus it gets a separate entry.

But, as I said, this discrepancy doesn't fit in on paper yet. Only dice and roleplay can determine its fate!

terrain...

In the current, very abstract, rules terrain should be used to gain Advantages. In the more detailed scripting rules I'll be sure to have a section on the terrain of the field of battle.

complete replacement

i don't mind if folks don't want to script (though I recommend you try it a couple of times, it really is a blast) I just want to make sure the combat doesn't lose its threat/weight in this system. It must be injurious if not deadly! Must must must! Thus I move cautiously forward. It is much harder to take away a beneficial rule than it is to add one.

thanks for your comments, i am very glad you like the mechanics. it's a shame you won't get to try them at gencon... I am going to have your butt scripting and in looooovvvvee with it.

!
-L

Message 6762#71139

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/11/2003




On 6/11/2003 at 3:52am, abzu wrote:
Alexander

drozdal wrote:
Hmm - haven't we talked about it yesterday? ;]


Though we did talk about this, my reference really comes from experience and my current reading material: The chapter on Alexander the Great in John Keegan's Mask of Command

-L

Message 6762#71140

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/11/2003




On 6/11/2003 at 1:23pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

it's a shame you won't get to try them at gencon... I am going to have your butt scripting and in looooovvvvee with it.


Looking forward to it.

Message 6762#71164

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Valamir
...in which Valamir participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/11/2003




On 6/13/2003 at 6:19pm, inthisstyle wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

Luke,

I just had a chance to look over your new quick combat rules and I very much like.

Interestingly, my players have been complaining about scripting and asking for quicker rules, and these should fit the bill. I think some of the complaints come from a 4-player party with only one strong fighter, but they will be thrilled with the new rules to speed up combat.

Message 6762#71646

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by inthisstyle
...in which inthisstyle participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/13/2003




On 6/13/2003 at 6:27pm, abzu wrote:
great!

hi brennan,

glad to see you are back. I was getting worried.

the rules are meant to be used in conjunction with scripting. That manticore battle you mentioned on BW.org would definitely be script-worthy.

Sandy, I think, will be dissappointed that his White Fire only counts as an Advantage in melee. No death-inducing feats of sorcerous electricty in these rules. However, if used judiciously, I think they'll work quite nicely. Honestly, I use them nearly every session.

-L

Message 6762#71652

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/13/2003




On 6/13/2003 at 6:54pm, inthisstyle wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

Luke,

I'm not saying I will completely abandon the scripting method, but scripting will definitely be reserved for combats of the most serious sort. I think part of my groups' frustration was rising from the fact that we have an archer, a sorcerer, a knight, and a blacksmith as our characters. The smith is quite slow, and also has the Lame trait, and the knight was essentially the only character fully participating in scripted combat (everyone else spends most of their actions waiting).

Message 6762#71663

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by inthisstyle
...in which inthisstyle participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/13/2003




On 6/13/2003 at 9:55pm, nebulous menace wrote:
Actually. . .

Having seen how combat works when you DO have a character get up close and personal, I'm kinda happy to be sitting back and casting spells.

My first active experience with BW was a "Brawler" type character. Strong, tough, good, but without a lot of armor. The combination of the Steel rules as written and the TN penalties mean that, one-on-one, first one to get a hit past the armor wins the fight.

Message 6762#71707

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by nebulous menace
...in which nebulous menace participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/13/2003




On 6/14/2003 at 12:08am, abzu wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

neb,
i've got to disagree. you did one combat where you got your ass kicked because you didn't know what you were doing. It had little to do with numbers. You were out-scripted. And this was largely because you chose to make a slow, lumbering bruiser with very low Reflexes. AND because you happened to be the victim of a concerted aftack from 4 Orc spearmen. I think these factors had as much to do with your character's performance as the superficial wound DN penalty.

I'll be interested to see what you think of these new variants. Because in this system, wounds are more of an after thought. You can be captured or run off without taking any wounds at all.

-L

Message 6762#71723

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/14/2003




On 6/14/2003 at 7:46am, rafial wrote:
RE: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

abzu wrote: I think these factors had as much to do with your character's performance as the superficial wound DN penalty.


I know nothing about the particular combat referred to, but I find it interesting that the issue of DN penalties for superficial and light wounds have been brought up. I'm still trying to get my head around the BW combat system, and I find it interesting that at least for a statistical standpoint, the +1DN for a superficial wound is more severe, and the +2DN for a light wound is significantly more severe in most cases than the -1D from a medium wound.

Of course the main penalty from a medium wound appears to be the chance of a failed Steel test causing the character to hesitate and be open to an unopposed strike...

Which leads to the following question. If you accumulate 3 superficial wounds, when you get the third one and go from a +2DN penalty to a -1D penalty, do you make a Steel test at that point? Or is Steel test only if you take a -1D penalty all in one blow?

Message 6762#71752

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by rafial
...in which rafial participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/14/2003




On 6/15/2003 at 3:11pm, abzu wrote:
yes

Which leads to the following question. If you accumulate 3 superficial wounds, when you get the third one and go from a +2DN penalty to a -1D penalty, do you make a Steel test at that point? Or is Steel test only if you take a -1D penalty all in one blow?


Fear, adrenaline and shock all kick in the moment your character loses -1D, whether it be from one midi, three superficials, two lights, a light and a superficial or what ever! This moment is when the real adrenaline kicks in and it is time to decide fight or flight. Unfortunately, one never knows how one will react to such fear and pain.

-L

Message 6762#71857

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/15/2003




On 6/16/2003 at 4:52am, nebulous menace wrote:
Hmm.

One of the things I hadn't really realized - and I'm not sure I consider it a feature:

You deliberately created a combat system that requires players to learn it in detail and use those details to their advantage. The combat system is a separate wargame in the middle of the roleplaying experience. Something on the level of Squad Leader.

I've been playing it like every other combat system in every other game out there: I am not the combat expert. My character is. I say, "go over to that guy and hit him. " And it happens. Not in BW. . .

While there is a difference between "standing your ground while parrying" and "moving a step back while parrying"- and a combat expert should know to do the latter- I'm not sure it's a difference that the player should be keeping track of.

I'm glad you're working up an alternative combat system for people who don't want the microfine details.

Message 6762#71920

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by nebulous menace
...in which nebulous menace participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/16/2003




On 6/16/2003 at 5:11am, abzu wrote:
Bloody Clash

Did some playtesting of the Simplified Melee rules.

Used the Bloody Clash mechanic, 4-LP characters.

• Spider vs Orc.

Orc wounded badly, injected with poison and driven off.

• Troll Ironshield, Spider Hunter-Seeker, Wolf Black Destroyer, and Orc Black Hunter vs Elven Prince (4-LP but with Cloak, Mail and Sword.)

Elven prince killed HORRIBLY.

• Troll and Spider vs Wolf and Prince.

Wolf and Prince killed horribly (one incidental, mark and superb hit for each of them).

Tons of advantage dice tossed back and forth in all clashes.

What we found was that choosing the leader for the exchange was crucial. A leader with diverse skills--a lot FoRKs--is utterly necessary. FoRKs can't be knocked off with the Lowest Common Denominator or with Knocked Aside rules.

Spider and Troll traits make for sick Advantages.
Certain advantages trigger other advantages (P1: "I want to use my Stealthy as an advantage. P2: "Since he is using Stealthy, I call on my Keen Sight trait.") Which is how it should be.

The longest process was anteing up advantages, which only took a few minutes. After that the combat was over shockingly quickly. I highly recommend the Brutal Fight aftermath rules. Wild Fight is fun, Ugly fight is so-so (but very very quick to resolve).

Using Bloody Clash these rules were no less nasty than typical BW combat. Admittedly, all of the thinking aspect of BW combat is eliminated and a lot of the dramatic details with it. But all of the players blanched at how quickly the opposition wilted, and could definitely see many uses for such rules.

-L

Message 6762#71922

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/16/2003




On 6/16/2003 at 8:11am, rafial wrote:
Re: Hmm.

nebulous menace wrote: You deliberately created a combat system that requires players to learn it in detail and use those details to their advantage. The combat system is a separate wargame in the middle of the roleplaying experience.


Other games with similar "gamist challenge" combat systems include Riddle of Steel, or Jolly Roger's Swashbuckler. There was even an RPG built around the Lost World fighting books at one point.

Just as some players want the results of their verbal cleverness to reflect on in-character outcomes of social situations, and would be upset if it was all "reduced to a die roll," there are other folk who want the results of their tactical cleverness to have an in-character effect on combat. So in those cases, the BW combat system would be a feature.

That said, having a quick and dirty option for those who are not interested in the tactical challenge, or for those times when one simply doesn't feel like going for the blow by blow is a great idea.

Message 6762#71928

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by rafial
...in which rafial participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/16/2003




On 9/29/2006 at 2:36pm, epweissengruber wrote:
Re: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

where are these mechanics currently posted ... I cannot find them

Message 6762#221979

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by epweissengruber
...in which epweissengruber participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/29/2006




On 9/29/2006 at 2:40pm, abzu wrote:
RE: Re: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

epweissengruber wrote:
where are these mechanics currently posted ... I cannot find them



Ep,

1) This thread is three years old.

2) The mechanics are in Burning Wheel Revised.

Message 6762#221980

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by abzu
...in which abzu participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/29/2006




On 10/1/2006 at 5:16pm, epweissengruber wrote:
RE: Re: Alternate Melee Mechanics for BW

Have found them.

Thnx

Message 6762#222174

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by epweissengruber
...in which epweissengruber participated
...in Burning Wheel
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 10/1/2006