Luke (ZazielsRephaim) and I were doing some basic playtesting this morning, and a pretty important issue arose.

At the beginning of a bout, we both threw red and made a contest of Reflex, per p. 74, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph. My guy won and rolled up a level five wound.

L: Well, that's it.
B: No, now you roll your attack.
L: There's no point. A level five wound in that location kills.
B: Yeah, but damage doesn't resolve until after the first exchange. (cf. Order of a Round p. 73.)
L: But your blow lands first. If my guy still got to attack, there'd be no advantage to going first.
B: True, but . . . that's not supported, really, the way I read it.

How to handle?

Resolve the damage as it's dealt, it's what makes sense and there's no reason not to. I think that's what they meant anyway.

Yeah, what Caz sez.

Yeah, its only with somthing like with a thrust where both attacks are rolled regardless (if both parties go red and have the same reflex number).

I can see where that chart on p.73 might look confusing at first for red/red, but it still works.

In a combat round, there are two attacks. This is true of red/red or red/white, and is clear if you follow that chart through.

In a red/white, one guy attacks and the other guy defends. Then you resolve damage. Then one guy attacks (the same guy if the first attack succeeded, or the other guy if it didn't and thus initiative swapped) and the other guy defends. Then you resolve damage. Then it's the end of the round. Exactly like the chart says.

With me so far?

OK, the trick is that in a red/red it's exactly the same, except that neither guy gets to defend. One guy attacks (the one who won initiative). Resolve damage. The other guy attacks (if he still can). Resolve damage. End of the round.

It still works, you just keep in mind that the not-attacking guy has no defense to roll. There are just two other wrinkles:

1) One or both guys might be using SImultaneous Block/Strike. In that case, he gets defense against the other guys attack even if he lost initiative. Just follow the chart.

2) They roll identical initiative and both strikes are said to land simultaneously. In this case, just skip step 4 and resolve bothn lots od damage at the end of the round. This usually results in both guys falling onto each othners blades.

Brian.

(edit: Download the Combat Sim from the webpage and have a play with that, it should help clear up any confusion).

Caz wrote: Resolve the damage as it's dealt, it's what makes sense and there's no reason not to.

Bill,

We crossposted. It happens :-)

In case you didn't spot it, I posted an answer to your query just above your latest reply.

Brian.

Brian Leybourne wrote: In a red/white, one guy attacks and the other guy defends. Then you resolve damage. Then one guy attacks (the same guy if the first attack succeeded, or the other guy if it didn't and thus initiative swapped) and the other guy defends. Then you resolve damage. Then it's the end of the round. Exactly like the chart says.

With me so far?

Brian Leybourne wrote: OK, the trick is that in a red/red it's exactly the same, except that neither guy gets to defend. One guy attacks (the one who won initiative). Resolve damage. The other guy attacks (if he still can). Resolve damage. End of the round.

Brian Leybourne wrote: It still works, you just keep in mind that the not-attacking guy has no defense to roll. There are just two other wrinkles:

Brian Leybourne wrote: OK, the trick is that in a red/red it's exactly the same, except that neither guy gets to defend. One guy attacks (the one who won initiative). Resolve damage. The other guy attacks (if he still can). Resolve damage. End of the round.

'bcook1971" wrote: 1. the quicker blow negates the slower one.

OR

2. a modified order is enacted.

3.1. Quicker one rolls his attack.
3.2. Resolve damage for the quicker one.
4.1. Slower one rolls his attack.
4.2. Resolve damage for the slower one.

Wolfen wrote: Actually, Brian has one thing wrong..

Ah.. Unless there's something in the rules that says that and I missed it, I'm going to have to disagree, Brian. I see no reason to deviate from the stated rules in a red/red engagement.

Hmmm I must have missed that too (concerning a RED/RED exchange only having 1 exchange in the round).... Could someone point me to a page number? I'm definately going to re-read through all the combat rules one more time.

-Luke

I'm with Lance here. On a pure red/red start of combat, it's usually just that one exchange, because both combatants know that the other is attacking. But on later rounds' first exchanges. One has the initiative and attacks with half dice. The other attacks as well, but he can use his full pool, where the initial attacker only uses half! What a cheap tactic :) So, if one of them makes it and has dice left, I let them use those in the second exchange.

This same question seems to come around every once in a while..

First off I'm ranting here, but let me say that Brian's combat generator works sufficiently for proving his point, as I had tooled around with it for awhile getting my character's combat style and tactics down, minus the horse though.
Now then, from what I understood of the book for the whole 10 minutes I had a hold of it... you determine initiative first, then dice to commit(is commit spelled with one t or two?)((and is the correct grammar usage 'spelled' or 'spelt'??)), but if it's red/red make a roll against reflexes.. and if it still remains tied it will all be simultaneous.(At least it was like that in the combat generator) But to address the previous point about using all of your dice pool... I played around with the combat simulator in those very cases where I didnt split the pool because my character is on horseback and it's hard for someone to throw a red die in a combat round when the rounds starts and I'm 30 or so yards away and charging at the target... and knowing that... I'll use my full combat pool in order to increase the chance of successes and to increase the damage should there be more than a few successes. (with a large dice pool it is entirely possible for one to roll up with 7 or more successes with 7 strength and 3 weapon damage... thus resulting in a 17... minus armor and toughness.. and that usually means a level 5 wound... which also means death. Unless someone can come up with a seriously powerful character capable of absorbing such a blow. Hell, I mean.. even 'fine plate armor' is only worth 6 right? so... 6 on armor plus 7 toughness is 13 right? still leaves you with a level 4 wound. Though that may seem 'game-breaking' or 'min/maxing' or extraordinary... I say it's logical at least for someone to use their full die pool in a given situation. You can and should do it when your opponent is injured and has few dice to defend with, so why not do so when the situation warrants it? It was historically done was it not, the exploitation of opponent's weaknesses???
Likewise with my last post, this all is probably useless info by the time I hit the submit button.
-Ingenious

I'm pretty sure it read somewhere in the rules that if both through red, the round only has one exchange. It's most likely explained in the initiative rules, though I could be wrong.

Also, I think there are only two exchanges in a round, no matter how conservatively you use your dice.

Wolfen wrote: A red/red engagement still has two exchanges, at least technically.

Wolfen wrote: If we both attack, and I throw all of my dice, and you throw all of your dice, which is what I think Brian is assuming, then nothing happens on the second exchange, and the round ends.

Wolfen wrote: However, if you throw half of your dice on the attack, and I throw half my dice on my attack, and neither of us are killed outright, then that second exchange still happens. That means there can be 3, or even 4 attacks in a round.

Wolfen wrote: But Bill, you got it right essentially here, except that both answers are essentially correct

Wolfen wrote: If I attack first, and the pain/shock/death of my attack is enough to cancel all of the dice you used to attack . . .

Wolfen wrote: (I personally apply pain/shock to the dice which are declared first, then to undeclared dice, and I think this is fairly common)

Wolfen wrote: . . . then your attack is negated.

Wolfen wrote: I'm aware that I didn't actually add anything to Brian's explanation, but I clarified a few things, I hope, that I thought were important to note.

Brian Leybourne wrote: In red/red there is only a single exchange.

Brian Leybourne wrote: in a red/red it's exactly the same, except that neither guy gets to defend. One guy attacks (the one who won initiative). Resolve damage. The other guy attacks (if he still can). Resolve damage. End of the round.

I'm pretty sure that if one attacker in a red/red situation wins the Reflex test, he can attack first and if he delivers damage, then it will affect his opponent's attack. After all, if this wasn't so, then the whole Reflex test would be useless, since it wouldn't matter who attacked first. It may not have been stated explicitly in the rules, but that's how I always read them, because that's the way that makes sense. (If you're striking but haven't landed your blow yet, I'd imagine that someone taking a whack at you would affect your aim, not to mention your bodily integrity.)

We really need Jake to clear this one up here.

Bill, if we don't get this cleared up by Saturday it probably wont be much of a difference... so don't sweat the issue too much... although I know your mind wants a resolution to your topic. The battle generator works fine for red/red and everything else, and even in red/red exchanges... it is entirely possible for someone to be hit in a simultaneous attack at the first exchange and survive for the second exchange, and still be a viable opponent. I just did several rounds of solid red/red with a flail and shield and it took 4 level 5 wounds to kill the guy. So you see my point with that.
So as long as you make the reflex throw on a red/red and the winner hits first we're fine. and if the reflex throw ends in a draw... then it's a simultaneous event... and we're still in the clear. I hope.

-Cory
:edited to note that Brian's combat simulator is flawed in that it allows you to have negative health, as was the case when it took me dealing out 4 level 5 wounds to kill the cut n thrust kid.

As per my interpretation of the rules (and I will re-read) Say Alan and Bob are getting into a fight. They throw dice and it comes up RED/RED.

The contest of reflex comes up with Alan and Bob in a TIE! (one can "buy initative, but let us say they dont) They both attack, they both figure out damage, if anyone is still alive with CP left over, they can then attack or defend in the second exchange. I however would expect that to be unlikely.

The question arises, who has initiative if both attacked successfully. Three options are.
1. Whomever had the most successes has initiative.
2. If only one person has CP left over... he does.
3. No one does, so you have to throw dice (hence the only 1 exchange in a red/red round)

Now let us rewind. Say the contest of Reflex results in ALAN attacking first (once again Bob can buy initiative, but let us say he doesnt). Alan and Bob declare their attacks and set aside the dice they choose to spend for the attack. Alan rolls first, hits.

Here is where we get the delema. Do we wait to calculate damage? I say no. I see this mostly as a time saver, and it helps simplify things for the GM and players. IF Bob is not going to be able to affect Alan, why bother with rolling his attack and damage rolls.

As for whether or not he can hurt Alan, my intuition tells me that the only reasons his attack wont land are...
1. INSTANT DEATH. If Alan kills Bob in the first blow.
2. INSTANT KO. If Alan knocks out Bob in the first blow.
3. AMPUTATION/DISARM If Alan cuts off Bob's arm, or knocks his weapon away.

Otherwise, BOB will still land his attack on ALAN. I do not see reason to take the CP penalty for shock out of the dice ALREADY SPENT for the attack taking place simultaniously. Do you take CP away from CP you allready spent in a defence? If I am not mistaken... the shock will come out of your UNSPENT CP. Sooo now you roll BOB's attack and apply damage.

HERE ENDS THE EXCHANGE!

The question again rises... who has initiative?
If only one attack landed (Alan's, cuz Bob is dead or KO) then obviously Alan would gain intiative.
If only one person still has CP, then he has intiative.
If Both attacks land(and both charaters still alive). There is no clear intiative. Roll Red/White dice again, start new round.


I hope I worded things clearly. Remember YMMV. This is just my opinion and interpretation of the rules. I will gladly accept reasons for differing ideas.

Let me know what you think, and if you see any issues with that.

-Luke

Thought about this a bit more . . .



• For red/red, contest of Reflex is only relevant if a step to resolve the quicker attacker's damage precedes the slower attacker's attack.
• The Karmic value of a two-Exchange Round is played out in budgeting CP. This becomes skewed when you double or halve the count of Exchanges.



Arguing for relevance to the contest of Reflex assumes value in staggering simultaineous action. The purpose of which seems to be inserting a step for damage resolution.

About that second point, the lack of defense in red/red makes it a non-issue. i.e. There's no point in holding back. This promotes an exaggeration of lethality for this Initiative case, beyond the impossibility of defense. Considering its relative frequency (i.e. 25%), is this desirable? If not, what are viable alternatives?

I guess it depends on the design goal.

******************

I think Brian's way is most suitable to my preferences, though I do not advance it as being supported by the rules. I rather think it is not. But frankly, I find the rules to be discordant on this point.

Cory (Ingenious):
Yes, yes. I'll stop obsessing. TROS people, take my obsessing as a compliment:)

bcook1971 wrote: I see my second possibility now as being like a double action round. It adds nothing and is untenable. Best forgotten.

Talk about a lot of hoohaw for something that's otherwise seldom ever even come up :-)

I can't be bothered searching the forum (others may feel free, but frankly, it's too big now), but it was stated pretty early on in the life of the forum by Jake (because I asked, because I needed to know for coding the combat sim) that immediately following a red/red single exchange, it's a new round with a new declaration of initiative (i.e. both parties throw red or white again). I also have it in a private email from Jake. End of story.

My description of how to read the chart was more for simplistic sake, that's probably not how it was intended when written, but it fits (elegantly, I think) with the way it's supposed to work. I was just trying to make things clearer.

Brian.

Of course it's seldom come up.. Some people have obviously been assuming that it was settled one way, and others were assuming it's been settled another.

For the record, I'm going to play it as written, because I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be. I've seen situations that mirror exactly that (double attacks where neither person "dies" and which are immediately, without pause, followed by another attack) and while I admit that my experiences are somewhat questionable, as the SCA does not simulate combat as exactly as some other practitioners, I believe it's close enough for approximation.

To address Bill's comment here:

What made me bring this back up is realizing that with each party having an action per Exchange, there is a call for budgeting. But it is a false sense of need that is trumped by the key quality of red/red: there's no point in holding back.

I do not see reason to take the CP penalty for shock out of the dice ALREADY SPENT for the attack taking place simultaniously. Do you take CP away from CP you allready spent in a defence? If I am not mistaken... the shock will come out of your UNSPENT CP.

Wolfen wrote:

I do not see reason to take the CP penalty for shock out of the dice ALREADY SPENT for the attack taking place simultaniously. Do you take CP away from CP you allready spent in a defence? If I am not mistaken... the shock will come out of your UNSPENT CP.

The reason I advocate applying shock/pain to dice already declared in the attack against the slower attacker is that the attacks (unless the reflex contest were a tie) do not happen at the same moment. My attack (as the winner of the reflex contest) happens before yours. In the split second before your strike lands, your body takes massive (or not so massive) trauma, and shocks your system, which is enough to take some or all the force out of your attack. You cite the ridiculousness of taking dice from a defense attempt as a parallel, but it's really not, because defense really does happen simultaneously. You are waiting to receive the attack, and moving accordingly to be in the right place at the right time. In the case of a double attack, this is not so as the damage is resolved before you even get to complete your attempt.

Put it this way.. If damage is unable to disrupt an already declared attack, why is death able to do so? It could be argued that if the bodily trauma of injury is unable to affect an action already beginning, then whyso death? Total death (meaning all bodily functions cease, rather than simply braindeath or the stopping of the heart) isn't any quicker than the effects of injury... slower in fact, as generally it is the injury which leads to the death.

Well, I read everything, but I mostly confused myself in the process. I'm going to answer one post here, and see if that clears up "my way." YMMV.

bcook1971 wrote: Essentially, modify the order of a round by breaking down steps 3 and 4 accordingly:

3.1. Quicker aggressor attacks.
3.2. Resolve damage.
3.3. Slower aggressor attacks.
3.4. Resolve damage.

. . . where steps 3.1. through 3.4. respresent the first Exchange.

Who carries initiative to the second Exchange? Whoever won the contest of Reflex would be a simple answer.

What made me bring this back up is realizing that with each party having an action per Exchange, there is a call for budgeting. But it is a false sense of need that is trumped by the key quality of red/red: there's no point in holding back.

So ultimately, even given consideration to CP budgeting, I find this approach to be inferior.

Wolfen wrote: I've had double red exchanges happen in game where I've used a simo-block and strike with all dice, and my opponent held back about half of his dice. I was able to parry his strike, and do some small amount of damage to him. However, on the second exchange, he had free rein to follow-up because I'd expended all of my dice. Or even if I hadn't, so had a few dice left, he'd have enough of an advantage to pull a counter or similar maneuver, and give him an advantage on the next round. TRoS combat is all about calculated risks, and what works in some situations doesn't work in others.

Wolfen wrote: . . . it is folly to assume that all cases are identical. . . . Don't discount anything until you've tried it.

Wolfen wrote: The reason I advocate applying shock/pain to dice already declared in the attack against the slower attacker is that the attacks (unless the reflex contest were a tie) do not happen at the same moment. My attack (as the winner of the reflex contest) happens before yours. In the split second before your strike lands, your body takes massive (or not so massive) trauma, and shocks your system, which is enough to take some or all the force out of your attack.

bcook1971 wrote: Both attacks occur within the first Exchange. The contest of Reflex loser's attack is ruled not to occur. Proceed as normal therafter.

bcook1971 wrote: For red/red, contest of Reflex is only relevant if a step to resolve the quicker attacker's damage precedes the slower attacker's attack.

ZazielsRephaim wrote: Bill, Cory, (and Nick if he's lurking here) is that ok with you guys?

Jake Norwood wrote:

bcook1971 wrote: So ultimately, even given consideration to CP budgeting, I find this approach to be inferior.

What, specifically, is inferior (for clarification's sake...I'm confused).

I defer to Luke also for the answer to this pandora's box.
But I do like the part about applying damage right after the first blow in a red/red exchange in order to take some of the force out of the second person's attack... this seems logical and realistic to me. So maybe if we were to come up with a solution that involved both the reflex part and the INCLUSION of the shock and such..
like this:
red/red
first exchange..
Person1 rolls reflex higher than person 2
Person 1 attacks, resolves damage
Person 2 makes his attack but the attack is negated or weakened by shock/pain/dismemberment etc.
That works for when the reflex throws are different.
Now then...
red/red
first exchange.
Players 1 and 2 roll reflex and tie.
Simtaneous attack.
Players roll their dice, resolve damage(if any) but the blows are not weakened because the blows impact at the same split second.

Seem fair and realistic enough for approval??
-Cory

Heh.

Bill, you're kind of right in what I was saying. Actually, I was saying that your #1 was right but I treat it like your #2 so that it "fits" into that chart.

Hell, it's really not that big a deal, it doesn't come up all *that* often really (or, not in my games at least). However you choose to resolve it in your game is fine and dandy.

Brian.

It is amusing. My group seems to be leaning towards Lance's model, while I prefer yours.

I'm quite finished. It's been fun looking into this. Thx all.