combat time *again*

combat time *again*
From http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=713110#713110 another "when does combat start" discussion bound to spring up from the 'ronin' topic Sneak. Enter initiative. Focus. Keep going for awhile. Attack with bazillion dice. Combat begins when you have an opponent with which the situation can only be settled with violence. The logic here is : if your sneaking then you can just sneak away, thus settling the situation without violence thus you may not enter combat rounds. (for pageref see 'combat rounds' in the book of fire in 3E) 'cos you don't need your opponent's consent or knowledge to be in a skirmish with them. but you must be in a situation where you are forced into combat and cannot resolve the situation peacfully. Thus sneaking while in combat only occurs after you have already attacked AND if you cannot sneak away. If you ninja vanish combat ends If you are viewing an unaware potential target combat cannot begin.

with which the situation can only be settled with violence. The logic here is : if your sneaking then you can just sneak away, thus settling the situation without violence thus you may not enter combat rounds. (for pageref see 'combat rounds' in the book of fire in 3E) So I can never sneak up on an enemy and attack them because I can just sneak away?

Re: combat time *again*
but you must be in a situation where you are forced into combat and cannot resolve the situation peacfully. So I guess you can never attack someone period as there is no situation ever that cannot be resolved peacefully.

Combat time start when I say so.

Re: combat time *again*
with which the situation can only be settled with violence. The logic here is : if your sneaking then you can just sneak away, thus settling the situation without violence thus you may not enter combat rounds. (for pageref see 'combat rounds' in the book of fire in 3E) So I can never sneak up on an enemy and attack them because I can just sneak away? Once you attack, violence becomes inevitable. Making an attack is the trigger for combat time. but you must be in a situation where you are forced into combat and cannot resolve the situation peacfully. So I guess you can never attack someone period as there is no situation ever that cannot be resolved peacefully. As above: if someone attacks, the situation cannot be resolved peacefully.

Once you attack, violence becomes inevitable. Making an attack is the trigger for combat time. If combat time begins with the actual attack, then we are skipping Initiative and choosing Postures.

What if I'm on the top of a cliff, and I'm sniping at a guy walking through the pass below? Do I get initiative rolls? What's his TNtbH? What about my next shot? What's his TNtbH then? What if I'm a Kakita Bushi, and I want to roll initiative, 'cos I get cool stuff for beating him by lots? What if I'm allowed an iniative roll, then decide not to attack that round, 'cos my shoelace was untied (or a more convincing reason)? Does combat end? My target is unaware of me still, so I try to shoot next round ... and decide to actually shoot, 'cos I was meta-gaming last round and I rolled 50 better this round. Muchitsujo, your intentions are good, but the way you describe combat to work simply doesn't.

Once you attack, violence becomes inevitable. Making an attack is the trigger for combat time. If combat time begins with the actual attack, then we are skipping Initiative and choosing Postures. Not necessarily. Making an attack is not the same as resolving it.

What if I'm on the top of a cliff, and I'm sniping at a guy walking through the pass below? Do I get initiative rolls? Yes. What's his TNtbH? Assuming he's unaware, 5 + armour (adjusted for range and circumstances). What about my next shot? What's his TNtbH then? If that's a second shot in the same turn, still 5 + armour (adjusted for range and circumstances). If that's on your next turn, it's his regular TNtbH (adjusted for range and circumstances). What if I'm a Kakita Bushi, and I want to roll initiative, 'cos I get cool stuff for beating him by lots? What of it? You roll, he rolls, if you beat him by lots you get cool stuff. SOP. What if I'm allowed an iniative roll, then decide not to attack that round, 'cos my shoelace was untied (or a more convincing reason)? Does combat end? Then my response as the GM is: should have thought of that earlier. You wanted to attack, so you attack. Combat only ends when nobody continues it. So if *everyone* starts tying their shoelaces it ends, if just you start tying your shoelaces it continues (and you likely get killed). My target is unaware of me still, so I try to shoot next round ... and decide to actually shoot, 'cos I was meta-gaming last round and I rolled 50 better this round. If you shot, he should be aware (barring exceptions like you missing by a mile and he not noticing). The mechanics work just fine like this. PS: Chugo above is also me.

What this both this thread, and some of the discussions of the simplified dueling mechanics seem to have in common is the concept of 'intent' forcing your action (unless circumstances change). If I intend to attack in the simplified duelling rules (i.e. call 'strike'), then I must do so unless I lose the duel first (not yet universally agreed upon, but seems to be a popular opinion). If I intend to shoot someone with an arrow, then I must do so at the first available opportunity unless something happens that changes the situation (for example, my target suddenly takes cover). As an ancilary topic, which should either be addressed in this or another thread, I think we need to examine the default state of someone who is unaware that combat is about to begin. I still am unhappy with the idea that the people with the best reactions are the only ones unable to act in a surprise scenario. (It seems to me that they should be assumed to be holding their action unless there is a specific task they are involved in when the ball drops).

Not necessarily. Making an attack is not the same as resolving it. There is nothing in the RAW that forces me to attack. In fact, I can take the Full Defense Posture with my Rank 5 Mastery or simply do it on my turn. If I intend to shoot someone with an arrow, then I must do so at the first available opportunity unless something happens that changes the situation (for example, my target suddenly takes cover). What if I intend to shoot the enemy after I Focus for a few rounds? The Focus action is not usable outside of combat.

Not necessarily. Making an attack is not the same as resolving it. There is nothing in the RAW that forces me to attack. In fact, I can take the Full Defense Posture with my Rank 5 Mastery or simply do it on my turn. In which case combat (and combat time) doesn't start. I don't see the problem. There's only an issue if you state your intention to attack, the GM concludes combat time should start, everyone rolls initiative and starts declaring postures and actions, and you then decide you don't want to attack after all. But as there is no good IC reason to do so, I don't see why the GM should allow you to reverse that decision. If I intend to shoot someone with an arrow, then I must do so at the first available opportunity unless something happens that changes the situation (for example, my target suddenly takes cover). What if I intend to shoot the enemy after I Focus for a few rounds? The Focus action is not usable outside of combat. That's a good point. I suppose focusing starts combat time as well.

If I intend to shoot someone with an arrow, then I must do so at the first available opportunity unless something happens that changes the situation (for example, my target suddenly takes cover). What if I intend to shoot the enemy after I Focus for a few rounds? The Focus action is not usable outside of combat. I was acutally just trying to re-state the positions that had already put forward. From a RAW perspective we already know there's a problem, so if I were to put forth a personal answer that remains consistant with the 'declaration forces action' philosophy (not the philosophy we necessarily want to use), it would be something like this: "Taking the Focus action does not initiate 'combat time' unless your opponent detects your presence. So long as both you and your target remain stationary for 6 seconds, you may gain the bonuses of having focused for a Combat Round." "Once you declare your intent to take the Attack action, combat begins and all parties must roll initiative. Because it is your intent to attack, you may not use the Rank 5 Defense Mastery Ability. On your turn you must carry through with your intended attack unless you have already been targeted by another combatant's hostile action." While hardly an ideal solution, it does get rid of the problem of 'fishing for initiative' (which is an especially annoying phenominon, as Initiative should not be apparent before combat has started). This could also be solved by having the GM roll all initiatives and not announcing the results - but that will be a major handicap to anyone with Initiative dependant Advantages and Techniques - and makes the "Swap Initiative" use of Void Points a highly risky venture at best.

While hardly an ideal solution, it does get rid of the problem of 'fishing for initiative' (which is an especially annoying phenominon, as Initiative should not be apparent before combat has started). This solution bothers me. We all know that there are a number of schools and the like that are reactive, like the Bayushi Bushi. The would be attacker declares that he is going to attack, but realizes that his opponent must have been quicker and assumed the Full Defense Posture. Our hero is now screwed. The situation changed on him, but because he is the attacker, he still has to attack. Plus, why is it only the attacker that is penalized this way? One of the PC's declares that he is going to attack, so he initiates combat. The rest of the group now gets to act normally, just the attacker is forced into a particular action. What happens when the rest of the party beats him on Initiative and kill every opponent that is within range of the attacker?

While hardly an ideal solution, it does get rid of the problem of 'fishing for initiative' (which is an especially annoying phenominon, as Initiative should not be apparent before combat has started). This solution bothers me. We all know that there are a number of schools and the like that reactive, like the Bayushi Bushi. The would be attacker declares that he is going to attack, but realizes that his opponent must have been quicker and assumed the Full Defense Posture. Our hero is now screwed. The situation changed on him, but because he is the attacker, he still has to attack. This is more of a problem with the initiative system and how it interacts with surprise and the Defense 5 Mastery Ability than with combat time per se.

View Full Version: combat time *again*

View Full Version: combat time again