After reading the rulebook and toying a bit with the combat simulator (very nice piece of work, by the way), I have a few questions:

(1) an armored guy on defense decides to attack after his opponent declares an attack - he declines to buy initative and shrugs off the attack (he has an armour, after all), then he gets a free, undefended attack on his own. Is that correct ? And is there any way of countering that ? (assuming the attacker has no anti-plate weapon but an arming sword, for instance)

(2) swings from the left or right side are treated identically, correct ? Shouldn't it be more difficult to swing from the opposite side of the sword-hand ?

(3) armor again, is there a way to represent the tactic of thrusting a dagger through the chinks of an armor or the slit of a helm ? (assuming a successful grapple or wrestling first).

Apologies if they have already been answered, just point me to the relevant thread(s) in that case.

Regarding #1, surely you don't have to shrug off the blow if you succeed in buying initiative. It means you now have the initiative, and can attack first, and he doesn't get to defend. If you have armor, maybe you don't have to buy initiative, just take the blow and attack after it. But beware of feints! :)

Is there any defence if someone decides to buy your initiative and impale you? Sure there is. Buy the initiative back! (This isn't implemented in the sim, BTW.) "Passive" defences like high stats, luck dice in the contest roll, psychological effects and such may help too. And I let people do sim block/strike and evasive attack if they suspect they might be too vulnerable during their attack.

I'd too like to get an answer on the #3 question :)

#1: What Overdrive said.

#2: No. In real life stikes from your off-hand side may have a bit shorter reach due to crossed hands (on two-handed weapons) or be a little weaker. In fact, the Fechtbücher (fighting treatises from back then) do advise you to make your first attack from your "strong" side for more power. But the difference is not nearly enough to assign a numerical value to it. You might even say that normal training includes extra time to counter this.

#3: Sure there is. You just have to recognise it as such. If I grapple a knight and do a thrusting attack with my rondel to say, the head, I roll 1D6. If the roll comes up 3-4 it's "face". If the guy is wearing a pothelm, that's a hit without armor right there. If he's wearing a full helm, I'd probably rule that only a throw of 3 will hit the slits of the visor. Once you have him pinned, you'l have to do some work to hit, but that's the way it is. *g*

Overdrive wrote: If you have armor, maybe you don't have to buy initiative, just take the blow and attack after it.

Richard_Strey wrote: #2 ... But the difference is not nearly enough to assign a numerical value to it.

Richard_Strey wrote: #3 ... Once you have him pinned, you'l have to do some work to hit, but that's the way it is.

Thierry Michel wrote:

Overdrive wrote: If you have armor, maybe you don't have to buy initiative, just take the blow and attack after it.

Well, that's precisely my point. If I am the unarmored guy, and I don't have an armor-piercing weapon, there's no way I can attack because it leaves me open to a devastating attack from armour guy, who doesn't have to put any point in defense and can simply choose to attack second.

So what are my options, short of running away ?

I would allow a succesful grapple that rendered the armour wearer inactive to also allow someone - if a second party - to automatically strike at the weakpoints without roll or penalty, frankly. If the person doing the grapple is trying this, then a roll would be required as there is a serious risk of losing the hold.

Lastly, I point out once again that a deep enough hole in the ground will kill anyone, armour or no.

actually, I think something's been missed.

in TROS, if the knight (aka armoured guy) doesn't defend AND defend successfully, he'll never get to attack -- it's whoever WON the exchange that attacks on the next. Winning the exchange does not equal dealing damage -- it means landing your hit (if you're the attacker) or successfully defending (parry, evade, etc.) if you're on defence.

therefore, he'll have to use SOME dice out of his CP to thwart your attack.

mind you, I'd still run away, if only because his armour is more than a match for your weapon.

Darcy,

Actually, he's right - it is possible to attack when you're the defender, but if you don't buy initiative then you face the grim outcome of attacking *second*.

Yes, this can be nasty, and yes, on the other hand, if he's heavily armored and you're not that makes it risky attacking him. What are your options?

Seen The Life of Brian by Monty Python? Remember what the unarmored guy in the arena did to the armored guy in the arena? Do that... that's exactly what the fatigue rules are for :-)

Chinks in armor? That's a bit of a misnomer. There wasn't much point in wearing full plate armor if there were lots of nice gaps your opponent could just atack you through. Plates were rivited together, and the gaps were protected by heavy chain and padding. I say that the AV affects everywhere (more on this in TFOB actually).

Unarmored vs. armored is a fight that the unarmored guy is likely to lose unless he's much much better than his opponent. That's pretty much how it should be, IMO. But as others have said, grappling is your friend, and fatigue too.

Brian.

Brian Leybourne wrote:
Unarmored vs. armored is a fight that the unarmored guy is likely to lose unless he's much much better than his opponent. That's pretty much how it should be, IMO. But as others have said, grappling is your friend, and fatigue too.

This might be a post for another thread, but have any of you martial artists trained armoured vs not? grappling when you're not is very scary, if the guy knows how to use his armour as it was intended, even without striking he can crunch a person up severely in grappling, and cause a lot of pain. How would you do this in the game?

Thierry Michel wrote: As for the chinks, I didn't mean aiming for them in a duel, but just the kind of situation where the knight is defenseless, possibly pinned down by one of your buddies. More like cold-blooded murder, but isn't it what happened to knights in battle when there was no mercy ?

Caz wrote: This might be a post for another thread, but have any of you martial artists trained armoured vs not? grappling when you're not is very scary, if the guy knows how to use his armour as it was intended, even without striking he can crunch a person up severely in grappling, and cause a lot of pain. How would you do this in the game?

Brian,

Actually, he's right - it is possible to attack when you're the defender, but if you don't buy initiative then you face the grim outcome of attacking *second*.

Dan,

Yup and either. Let me clear it up with an example:

A attacks B with 7 dice (he has 4 left in his pool for the next exchange). B says "Ha! I'm a-swinging too!" and attacks with 6 dice, stealing initiative as well (the mechanics for which I wont go into here).

Because B successfully stole initiative, his attack goes first. Lets say that he hits and causes 5 points of shock (BL and Pain don't matter until the end of the round).

A now has a choice. Whatever he does, he has to lose 5 dice for shock. He could lose all 5 from the 7 he has allocated to the attack, leaving a 2-point attack. A 2-point attack is unlikely to do much, but at least he still has his 4 remaining dice for the next exchange if there is one. Instead, he can lose the 4 unallocated dice, plus one of the attack dice (making 5 total) and still have a 6-die attack. This is still probably a good attack, but he's out of dice and if B has some dice left over for a second exchange, A could be in trouble.

Or, he could lose some from each. It depends on how confident he is that the 6-die attack will smunt B enough to take away any dice B may have saved up his sleeve.

Brian.

Addendum:

If B had used a beat maneuver and it worked, I rule that A's attack doesn't happen at all because the weapon has been knocked out of line right as the attack was coming.

YMMV of course, that's not official, but I find it useful, if nothing else it's a useful way to avoid simultaneous death in a red/red situation :-)

Brian.

Thanks Brian,

That seems fair to me.

Dan.