If you have a longer reach weapon, and your opponent closes the distance (putting you at disadvantage), is it advantageous to favor a full evade at that point to regain your reach advantage without the cp penalty of trying to do it while fighting? I guess the disadvantage is that it puts you back in the delicate red/white situation again, though? On the balance, would this be a good strategy?

How do the TROS mechanics compare to real world sparring in this regard?

Generally, yes, a full evade is considered to be the best option at that point.

How it compares with reality, I can't say particularly, as the only time I've ever gone against spears is in the press of melee, where a full evade is rarely an option.

I'd be tempted (if it isn't part of the rules already) to charge the reach disadvantage cost to the longer weapon trying to full evade.

Game reason, because otherwise full evade is too easy a way to restore the reach advantage. Trying to restore the reach advantage is a "good thing", but Full Evade is a too easy way to do it.

Justification reason, I would presume the longer reach weapon would negatively impact your ability to maneuver relative to a shorter reach weapon who was already inside on you. Its not enough to simply back away out of reach of your opponent's weapon, but you have to back out of reach of your own as well.

That's not a bad idea, Ralph. Maybe Full evade should suffer the range penalty (because you have to get from inside the optimal killing range to outside it) but Duck & Weave (which restores you to your own range) still shouldn't.

Brian.

Valamir wrote: I'd be tempted (if it isn't part of the rules already) to charge the reach disadvantage cost to the longer weapon trying to full evade.

Heh, nicely done, Val. I was actually trying to think of something similar, because, really, it's much harder to get out of someone else's range than this maneuver makes it, because all they have to do is step forward with you, even if you did manage to dodge the strike itself.

Here's what I was thinking, for comparison..

The longer reach weapon has to beat his opponent's attack by a margin equal to the reach difference to get back to his optimal range. So for instance, if it's the classic spearman -vs- a guy with a dagger example, the spearman rolls full evade as normal, but he's got to get 5 more successes than his opponent to get back to v. long range. If he succeeds in evading the strike, but fails to have a sufficient MoS, then the next round begins at the shorter weapon's range. I can see this being played out as a spearman furiously backpedaling while the guy with the dagger is chasing after him, repeatedly trying to strike him.

Though of course the spearman has the option of sliding the butt of the spear through his hands and hitting the knife man with it! 8')

Hmmm,

on the one hand, I like the mechanical effect of your idea better Lance.
on the other, it introduces a new idea to a combat system which is nearing the limits of complexity if it is to remain quick and intense with a minimal of look up required.

Charging a CP cost isn't nearly as elegant, but it does have the advantage of simply applying an existing rule.

Though of course the spearman has the option of sliding the butt of the spear through his hands and hitting the knife man with it! 8')

Valamir wrote: I'd be tempted (if it isn't part of the rules already) to charge the reach disadvantage cost to the longer weapon trying to full evade.

It affects defenses, which are different from evades, so no, it doesn't effect evades (since your weapon length doesn't really enter into it).

Having said that, if you're inside the reach of a long weapon and trying to full evade out, I might well apply the range penalty to your evade, sure.

Brian.

Defenses aren't different from evades. They're in the same section, aren't they?

The penalty most certainly applies.

Jake

Well then.. that puts a whole new spin on things. I always assumed that evades were not effected by defensive penalties from range, as well.

Basically, I assumed that the penalty only applied to defenses made with the weapon in question.

So, here's a thing.. I'm fighting cut-and-thrust, and my opponent just has a dagger.. He manages to get inside my C&T sword's range. If I want to evade, do I use the range of the sword, or the dagger to determine range penalties? I would assume that a parry or a strike with my dagger wouldn't accrue any range penalties at all, since we are both at hand range in that scenario.

Jake Norwood wrote: Defenses aren't different from evades. They're in the same section, aren't they?

The penalty most certainly applies.

I have a short question about evading to you Brian.

Evading and double strike.
if i make a double strike and get 3 succeces on each of the strikes, and my opponent evades, he does only roll once right? and if he gets 3 succeces he has evaded both strikes right?

That's how I play it, yes.

Brian.

Really? Man...I'm starting to loose it or something...

I think they should apply right now, that's my figuring. But hey, I *could* change my mind later...

Jake

øheheh? what do you mean Jake?

I mean apply range penalties wherever it makes sense, as in my post-before-the-last-one.

Jake