What Terrain roll have you given players?
What was the difficulty / activation cost / did they need more than one success?
I am looking for guidelines on what difficulty different situations are.
I want to maneuver him to the edge of the cliff.
I use this tree to avoid getting hit.
I kick this stool at him (I don't want to use toss since toss is so terrible your almost gaurenteed to have been better off just attacking, also I see toss as doing this when your very close at grips, not while running around a room as much)

Scott

I love toss! Its one of my favorite maneuvers! Of course I have been playing so long I forget whether or not I use th original rules or my modified.. either way, with a toss I allow every die in the margin of success remove two dice from the targets CP. Makes this maneuver very popular as it forces the opponent to spend dice to move or to successfully defend and they almost always use more dice than thrown at them.
otherwise I just use the nifty table to pick the values and I use mini's to depict visually what teh battle field looks like.

the problem with toss, is if someone does it, I would just attack with everything. In most situations the tosser will get run through.

There are a couple of ways around this.

1) Allow feints to follow the declaration of a special maneuver. It looks like I'm going to throw something at you, but it's the tip of my sword instead. What this means is that people are going to be more likely to declare a defense against a special maneuver instead of just trying to attack through it. Especially when they don't know how many dice are in their opponents CP.

2) Allow double-strike attacks that combine a toss with something else. ex. Mr. Rapier is in a fight with a street tough. He throws his cloak out in an attempt to blind his opponent and follows at the same time with a lunge.

Of course all activation costs must still be paid, but it will keep players wary.

except that when I use that maneuver the opponent usually has already tossed a white die and is defending. they can try an buy initiative but that is costly and not always successful. And frankly buying initiative is basically the same with toss as with ANY maneuver so toss is no different. There are some people here who play allowing the defender to recieve the blow and elect to attack instead of defend once the blow has landed but I don't play like that. If you opt to just take the hit thats like choosing 0 dice to defend and then next exchange in the round attack with all the dice... perhaps that is why toss works for me?

If they threw a white die, they can still attack; its just their attack comes second.

Meaning, if they have any dice in their die pool when that "second" attack comes....

yeah they can, in my reading of the book though we call that attack "exchange number 2"

so, if red die guy tosses 6 dice at white die and white die takes it up the ass and uses 0 dice to defend then he eats the 4 or so successes and loses 8 dice from the cp, then he attacks with whats left, red die guy still has dice left and has initiative so you do contest of reflex or buy initiative etc or red guy opts to defend... either way I treat it as the second exchange

anyways, thats how I play and I like it since it makes the maneuvers more usefull and what not.

another house rule, tossed items vary in effectiveness, sand in the eyes equals 3 cp lost per die in margin of success, cloak over head 4 dice, random object like a rock or dagger- 2 dice.

This makes the toss maneuver much more exciting.

In my understanding, and the way I run the game, if you throw white, you've chosen to defend, not just act second. The only way you can opt to attack when you've thrown white is to buy initiative, period. In the initial exchange of combat, trying to change your mind midway through a defense is exceedingly difficult, and should be reflected in the rules, hence why white means defense. Once the exchange is begun, attacking or defending is much more of a matter of choice.

Well, if thats a house rule, thats fine but, correct me if i'm wrong Jake et al, but if a defender chooses on the first exchange to attack as his defense, it is an attack oin the FIRST EXCHANGE! In essense, you are saying "sure, I am going to go last this exchange, but i'm betting I can take what you got and take you down."

In other words:

Exchange 0: one person throws red, the other white.

Exchange 1: offense declares he is doing a toss

Exchange 1: Defense declares he is going to attack; because he threw a white die, his offense automatically comes second in the first exchange.

Exchange 1: toss is resolved; then, defender resolves his attack.

Exchange 2: as defender just probably bashed the you know what out of the attacker, he now has initiative....


Now. With that in mind, I COULD be wrong, but that is how it was explained to me from other people on the board; the idea is that a person can attack as his defense, but it comes last and, if he is badly hurt, he is going to really lose out - but against a toss, for instance, or if you are in Full Harness against an unimpressive foe, it might well be functional.

Again, if you want to houserule against it, so be it, but I thought it was important to make sure you were fully cognizant of the official rules - and if I'm wrong, someone in the know will correct me. Jake? :)

Ashren Va'Hale wrote: yeah they can, in my reading of the book though we call that attack "exchange number 2"

so, if red die guy tosses 6 dice at white die and white die takes it up the ass and uses 0 dice to defend then he eats the 4 or so successes and loses 8 dice from the cp, then he attacks with whats left, red die guy still has dice left and has initiative so you do contest of reflex or buy initiative etc or red guy opts to defend... either way I treat it as the second exchange

anyways, thats how I play and I like it since it makes the maneuvers more usefull and what not.

another house rule, tossed items vary in effectiveness, sand in the eyes equals 3 cp lost per die in margin of success, cloak over head 4 dice, random object like a rock or dagger- 2 dice.

This makes the toss maneuver much more exciting.

Wolfen wrote: In my understanding, and the way I run the game, if you throw white, you've chosen to defend, not just act second. The only way you can opt to attack when you've thrown white is to buy initiative, period. In the initial exchange of combat, trying to change your mind midway through a defense is exceedingly difficult, and should be reflected in the rules, hence why white means defense. Once the exchange is begun, attacking or defending is much more of a matter of choice.

And so it is. But any dice lost from the second attacker due to the first attacker's action are taken out first, as if it was the next exhange. In other words, CP loss is instant in such cases.

Jake

I thought it was the rule.

Fine then. I think it's nonsensical to allow someone to attack after throwing white. What's the point in even throwing dice for initiative, then? You might as well simply have them do a roll off to see who goes first instead, because that's what it amounts to if you're not bound by your decision to defend.

Consider this: Both throw white.. But I decide to attack instead! It doesn't make sense, and it's not consistent. If you throw white, you defend or buy initiative, period.

If I'm the only one who plays it this way, then so be it.

Wolfen wrote:
Consider this: Both throw white.. But I decide to attack instead! It doesn't make sense, and it's not consistent. If you throw white, you defend or buy initiative, period.

lance, you wont be the only one. Jake, I thank you for making the rules so flexible that lance and I can do one thing and be fine with it and others can do it the other way. Some creators are really uptight on that sort of thing so we players appreciate you creating the game like this.

Wolfen: nothing wrong with your method of handling it, and I wasnt insulting you. I just wanted to make sure you knew what the official ruling is.

Personally, you do have a point. I think the reason I like being able to attack with a white die, though, is for the following:

We were playtesting the combat system when I first picked it up, and we took a different combination of guys. Many times, we made sure their combat pools were even, before things like armor.

The guys in full harness had a heck of a time doing anything. If he threw a white die, he was always on the defensive, because he could never wrest initiative from his non-burdened opponent. Barring his opponent getting a massively bad roll.

If he threw red, the unarmored guy, if he threw white, simply parried and took initiative anyway. And we went back then to the first case.

Full Harness certainly slowed you down a BIT over someone without armor, but the armored guy simply couldnt find a way to attack... if he was forced to perform only defensive manuevers.

And why should he? Lets face it, in real life, there is no physical law that FORCES you to parry and parry and parry until your opponent screws up - you CAN be risky, and you CAN be daring, and attack regardless of your foe's tactical advantange. You just take the risk of getting skewered.

But that is a risk that someone in full harness can far more easily take. He can choose to hope his armor is adequate, and charge in.

And yes, I know, you can both throw red first round, but this doesn't account for later rounds, once combat is going on.

You need a method for a guy to be able to be risky and counter. And again, I know, there are manuevers such as Counter, but again, if your dice pool is lower than your foe's, your chance of really succeeding at anything is difficult, and I find this both burdensome and unrealistic; if I think my armor might absorb the hit, I may well be tempted to take that hit in order to take down my foe if he doesn't have his own protective gear.

Unless you want to make a new manuever: Suck It Up. :)

The point being, yes, a less skilled foe is in a lot of trouble, but there has to be a way for a normally-skilled foe burdened by armor to still be able to attack, otherwise, it seems like the advantage of wearing armor is a disadvantage in any case except huge spinning melees with unknown attacks from unnumbered assailants, and I do not think armor was THAT bad. It was worn for a reason.

Hm.

This gives me an idea. What about a new defensive manuever (I'm half tempted to call it Suck It Up, but thats almost too irreverant... how about Risky CounterStrike): allow the defender to roll his combat pool UNMODIFIED by is armor, against a TN equal to 13 - the armor value of the armor (the better the armor, the better the protection); each success takes away one success from the attack, and if he has more successes than his foe, he gains initiative at his best range, and one additional die to his next attack for each success he had more than the attacker... but each time this manuever fails at 0 or less, the next time the TN is one harder than before, and he takes +1 to the injury check for sucking it up?

Again, a thought that just now occured to me.....

Since I don't have much combat experience, I'd like to make a sports analogy:

Joe Frazier became the heavyweight champion of the world by constantly aggressively crowding his opponents. As a result, his opponents consistently hit him before he hit them. It seems to me that this sort of approach or the approach of consistently wading in and counterattacking is best represented in the game by throwing the white die and choosing to attack. Judging by the Frazier/Foreman fight, this doesn't seem to be a good strategy versus heavy hitters.

The reason why I like the ability to attack after throwing white is somewhat complex and revolves around Italian rapier styles. There is no other way to perform a simultaneous block and strike (offensive move) unless both people throw red. Why do I like this? Agrippa, Capo Ferro, and Fabris did not teach a parry-riposte style. They taught a counterattack style, using either the main blade or an off hand object to deflect the opponents attack. The timing on it is not quite

1st exchange:
1st person attacks
2nd person parries

2nd exchange:
2nd person attacks
1st person parries

but rather:

1st exchange:
1st person blocks and strikes
2nd person blocks and strikes

2nd exchange:
2nd person blocks and strikes
1st person block and strikes.

In TROS terms, the idea very well might be to try and deplete the opponent's combat pool for a successful follow strike on the second exchange, especially useful if you are not completely sure of your opponent's CP. Good reason for both to throw white a couple of turns and make those style analysis and body language checks.

And yes, I realize that this tactic does not apply as much for people in full harness, but I can see it applying to the weaponn and shield crew.

I think I'm failing to understand your points, Morf.

I'm FullyArmoredGuy, and I play it safe and throw white. You, UnarmoredGuy, throw red. You attack, I defend. You keep initiative, but I don't get hurt. Next round.

You attack. I attack. You hit me first, but I don't much care because I'm confident my armor can take it. I just put everything I've got into beating you down.

It seems to me that you're "throwing white" every round of an exchange, and that's not the way it works. The only time I restrict someone to defending is during the very first round of a combat, or after a notable pause when initiative is actually thrown. The rest of the time, initiative passes back and forth based on who's winning the exchanges, and there's no restriction on attack or defense.

Jake,

Waiting to recieve. Sure, I can buy that. However, the way I see it red is offense, white is defense, and in both cases you'd best be prepared to "receive". You make this decision without any actual knowledge of your opponent's intent, though you're likely to have a good guess. By throwing red, I'm intending to receive any incoming attack on my armor, my body, or on my secondary weapon (in the case of simo block/strike) but I intend to hurt my opponent too. In the case of white, I intend to receive a little more proactively, with the intent of not getting hurt, and that is my focus, rather than, in this instant, hurting my opponent. If I change my mind in the split second of attack, then I buy initiative, and hope I'm fast enough.

Let's put it this way.. I won't allow an attack on the throw of a white dice without at least an attempt to buy initiative. I'm not so totalitarian that I'd make someone defend if they attempted to buy initiative and failed. This represents the sudden shifting of gears in the mind of the combatant.

Lance-

I understand what you're doing now, and I think it works great. I may even encourage the same in my games. Looking at page 73 and 74, you'll see that what I'm saying is in there, but I can also see what you're saying in there. SOoooo....

We're both right! Yay!

Seriously, though, Based on your description above, you're doing just what everyone else is doing, but not in the first exchange. That's fine, but the difference is minimal, and in reality hardly worth the discussion we've had here. If a fight lasts 10 exchanges then we agree 90%. Not so bad.

So, then, "why" is the question. As long as a person knows why they're doing something, it's hard to tell them they're wrong (though you can say they're innefective). Why restrict it the first exhange and not others?

Ashton-
Single-time defense is, honestly, something I didn't fully appreciate when I wrote TROS. In all the earlier schools (both longsword, sword, and rapier), single-time is where it's at. So look at any 2 TROS exchanges not as a parry-riposte, but rather as two elements of a single action--the displacement (first exchange) and the kill (second exchange). Nothing has changed mechanically, and we're able to accomplish a "single time" defense without changing the rules. Remember that an exchange (and for that matter, a round) is flexible and elastic, and is not neccessarily defined as either a quantity of time or of action, but of result.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote:
Ashton-
Single-time defense is, honestly, something I didn't fully appreciate when I wrote TROS. In all the earlier schools (both longsword, sword, and rapier), single-time is where it's at. So look at any 2 TROS exchanges not as a parry-riposte, but rather as two elements of a single action--the displacement (first exchange) and the kill (second exchange). Nothing has changed mechanically, and we're able to accomplish a "single time" defense without changing the rules. Remember that an exchange (and for that matter, a round) is flexible and elastic, and is not neccessarily defined as either a quantity of time or of action, but of result.

Jake

Wolfen: The way you are doing it is wrong. You do that with EVERY SINGLE exchange, including the first one!

Red die represents claiming the initiative, white die represents waiting for the other. And it STAYS that way until the one without the init ACTIVELY takes the initiative somehow. Now, with that in mind, thats one reason that attacking as a defense is allowed... in order to somehow try and take the initiative when no other defense will succeed... BUT you run the risk of getting run through in the meantime.

Again, though, if you house rule it differently, thats all up to you! :)

Wolfen wrote: I think I'm failing to understand your points, Morf.

I'm FullyArmoredGuy, and I play it safe and throw white. You, UnarmoredGuy, throw red. You attack, I defend. You keep initiative, but I don't get hurt. Next round.

You attack. I attack. You hit me first, but I don't much care because I'm confident my armor can take it. I just put everything I've got into beating you down.

It seems to me that you're "throwing white" every round of an exchange, and that's not the way it works. The only time I restrict someone to defending is during the very first round of a combat, or after a notable pause when initiative is actually thrown. The rest of the time, initiative passes back and forth based on who's winning the exchanges, and there's no restriction on attack or defense.

Jake,

Waiting to recieve. Sure, I can buy that. However, the way I see it red is offense, white is defense, and in both cases you'd best be prepared to "receive". You make this decision without any actual knowledge of your opponent's intent, though you're likely to have a good guess. By throwing red, I'm intending to receive any incoming attack on my armor, my body, or on my secondary weapon (in the case of simo block/strike) but I intend to hurt my opponent too. In the case of white, I intend to receive a little more proactively, with the intent of not getting hurt, and that is my focus, rather than, in this instant, hurting my opponent. If I change my mind in the split second of attack, then I buy initiative, and hope I'm fast enough.

Let's put it this way.. I won't allow an attack on the throw of a white dice without at least an attempt to buy initiative. I'm not so totalitarian that I'd make someone defend if they attempted to buy initiative and failed. This represents the sudden shifting of gears in the mind of the combatant.

James, I'm not sure which of you is saying what. But the initiative dice are only chosen at the beginning of combat, or after a break in the action. Not every exchange.

Mike

I never said it was chosen at the beginning of each exchange.

I said initiative is determined after the first exchange based on how the flow of combat occurs.

Sorry, no. The only thing I'm possibly doing "wrong" is not allowing an attack on white.

If you win a defense, you have initiative. It's in the rules, page 77, first paragraph. If you are not disagreeing with this, then I fail to see what you mean by "ACTIVELY" taking the initiative.

Simply put, it is possible to have guy with armor and toughness combo that is, frankly, very hard to penetrate.

the defender can fail over and over in a defense, tne offender wails on the armor and fails to penetrate, and the attacker, if not allowed to attack on a defense, would never be able to attack.

We did a combat where one person was in full harness, and precisely this happened. the guy who kept the advantage just couldnt get through the armor.

But the guy in armor, if restrained from attacking when he is, in effect, set as defender, the attacker can NEVER gain an attack because he has no hope of generating a defense high enough to stop the attacker, who when not in full harness has a higher dice pool; all this barring extremes of luck.

By being able to attack AS your defense, you sacrifice your ability to make an active defense, hope you survive the attack, and immediately follow up with a counter attack. If you have a high toughness and full harness, and your foe isnt a musclebound conan, then this could work.