Extra Attack Maneuver

I'm in favour of 4 Raises on both attacks because I don't see why the 2nd attack would be that much easier to make than the first.I can think of plenty of reasons. The fact that the first attack is a direct setup of the second in my eyes is a good enough rational. They call these things combinations in boxing terms. It is easier to land a rapid second hit after the first because the opponent is still reeling from the initial blow. Not trying to argue. Mainly Im just playing Devils Advocate. Trying two attacks in quick succession in archery or fencing is not easy though. I would make the argument that one well timed and placed attack is far easier then scrambling to make two attacks.

I would go myself for 4 raises on both attacks, and you need to be successfull on the first to gain the second, but you can fail the second without problem.

I am also in the camp that the 4 raises are on both attack rolls. Just to be clear, so am I. It makes the math easier for one thing. I've been playing devils advocate, since everybody else has been on the 4 raises for both attacks side. The fact that this is a rule that has never been officially clarified, and the only semi-answer from an official source told us that he thought that it was only on the first attack, means that it is still up in the air. Hopefully it is something that will get officially clarified or errata'd one of these days so that we can have a real answer when someone asks. The fact that the vast majority of people want it to be 4 raises for both is rather moot at this point because it has no AEG backing, official or unofficial to date, and indeed there is even unofficial AEG backing for the other interpretation, means there is still arguement for both interpretations.

I would go myself for 4 raises on both attacks, and you need to be successfull on the first to gain the second, but you can fail the second without problem. Honestly this is where I have more of the logic problem with the actual rule as well. I can't see how you would fail to hit someone that you have already hit, just because you missed hitting them again. You can think of reasons why or why not it would be more difficult to make the second attack, but disrupting the space time continuum bothers me abit. I would actually prefer this ruling most of all, however this would have to be an actual erratta as there is no way whatsoever that the rule as written could be interpretted this way.

The fact that this is a rule that has never been officially clarified, and the only semi-answer from an official source told us that he thought that it was only on the first attack, means that it is still up in the air. Hopefully it is something that will get officially clarified or errata'd one of these days so that we can have a real answer when someone asks. The fact that the vast majority of people want it to be 4 raises for both is rather moot at this point because it has no AEG backing, official or unofficial to date, and indeed there is even unofficial AEG backing for the other interpretation, means there is still arguement for both interpretations. I am fully aware that the RAW is unclear on this issue and a post by Shawn indicates that the four raises are only on the first attack. I was under the assumption that we were discussing what the 4 raises SHOULD be on.

The fact that the vast majority of people want it to be 4 raises for both is rather moot at this point because it has no AEG backing, official or unofficial to date, and indeed there is even unofficial AEG backing for the other interpretation, means there is still arguement for both interpretations. I don't particularly care which interpretation wins out in the end. I run it with 4 raises on both rolls. I would like a ruling on this because I think this is a pretty important part of the rules and deserves it.

I am fully aware that the RAW is unclear on this issue and a post by Shawn indicates that the four raises are only on the first attack. I was under the assumption that we were discussing what the 4 raises SHOULD be on. Sorry I had gone back to the original post and that one was an actual rules question asked by someone, and I was in the "what's the current ruling" mode. That post was really about me just stating my Devil's Advocate role, and I wrote all that just to show why I think this rule needs to have something official said about it one way or another. I don't particularly care which interpretation wins out in the end. I run it with 4 raises on both rolls. I would like a ruling on this because I think this is a pretty important part of the rules and deserves it. Pretty much my feelings.

I just would like a final answer myself, on the whole problem !

This is, to my experience, a academic argument. That is doubtless because I tend to play in low rank games, and making 4 raises on anything is most of the time not even possible because no one has 4 void, and few have skills of 4. So taken that you have to be pretty competent to even try to make this attack, it still seems tough unless you have a lot of free raises burning a hole in your pocket- Hello, Lion and Scorp!! So if you have free raises to burn, thru sucessful feint, full attk, School techs, etc, will they apply to both rolls, (if that's what's needed?) or to just the first. If it is just the first, than it would seem very likly that a R2 Scorp will pull the feint/ if missed more raises manuver to get another attack. The Lion would be likly to pull off a second attack on the first round of combat. And lest we mention Mantis BH? No, no we don't... So there is a definate "second attack gap" for certain schools. Do we care? Is this a game wrecking mechanic?

.. So there is a definate "second attack gap" for certain schools. Do we care? Is this a game wrecking mechanic? I don't see it as game-breaking. Don't forget that some of the schools you didn't mention may get a second attack through a technique sooner than some of the schools you did mention. If anything, it may allow that Rank 2 Akodo to get a second strike that a Rank 2 Miromoto takes for granted. I think your question whether bonuses that apply to the first roll are applied to the second roll as well is a good one. The argument for allowing them on both rolls is similar to the argument for requiring four raises on both rolls. Wow, with each post the question begs even more for a ruling.

So if you have free raises to burn, thru sucessful feint, full attk, School techs, etc, will they apply to both rolls, (if that's what's needed?) or to just the first. That's not a factor in the maneuver, it depends on where you get these FRs. If you have the Akodo 1 tech, you get a FR (or get to ignore armour) 'when attacking'. Logically, this means you get a FR for both attacks. If you have the Tsuruchi BH 1 tech, you get a fixed number of FRs each round. Logically, this means you have to divvy them up between all your attacks that round.

This is, to my experience, a academic argument. That is doubtless because I tend to play in low rank games, and making 4 raises on anything is most of the time not even possible because no one has 4 void, and few have skills of 4. Any bushi on 9 XP can and should have a weapon skill of 5 and most have an emphasis. Full Attack for 2 raises adding +10 to hit, Rank 5 Skill Mastery for a Free raises adding +5 to hit, and the Emphasis for +5 is +20 to hit. With 5 Ranks of Skill you can declare 4 raises and have them be covered by your raises, so you are just rolling against their normal TN with your raw dice now. So you are now rolling 5 skill plus 4 Agility = 9k4 +20 versus TN +20. This hits TN 10 twice 99% of the time This hits TN 15 twice 99% of the time. This hits TN 20 twice 97% of the time. This hits TN 25 twice 90% of the time. This hits TN 30 twice 62% of the time. You do 5k2 damage twice (10k4) verses 5k2 + 2k2 = 7k4 had you called 4 raises for damage. If you have Bishimon’s Blessing, you get an addition 2 raises that you can use for damage for +1k1 twice for 6k3 and 6k3 damages. You could have also called 2 raises, gotten one from Bishimon;’s Blessing and then used your mastery free raise all for the two attacks and still had +5 to hit extra to do with as you see fit. Thus, raising for two attacks is not that uncommon on 9 XP. So taken that you have to be pretty competent to even try to make this attack, it still seems tough unless you have a lot of free raises burning a hole in your pocket- Hello, Lion and Scorp!! The Rank 5 Mastery free raise, Full Attack Raises, and the Skill Emphasis all add it to help. So if you have free raises to burn, thru sucessful feint, full attk, School techs, etc, will they apply to both rolls, (if that's what's needed?) or to just the first. Most apply to both rolls. (I don; think the Akodo Rank 1 Free raises for your first attack would not apply to the second roll). If it is just the first, than it would seem very likly that a R2 Scorp will pull the feint/ if missed more raises manuver to get another attack. No this is pointless. The Scorpion is giving up an attack now to gain an attack later. The Scorpion should have just attacked now, done damage, given the opponent wound penalties, and drop the opponent further down the initiative order. Then later, attack the guy again to finish him. The Lion would be likly to pull off a second attack on the first round of combat. And lest we mention Mantis BH? No, no we don't... So there is a definate "second attack gap" for certain schools. Do we care? Is this a game wrecking mechanic? If has nothing to do with the schools. As I pointed out anyone with 5 Skill and Emphasis (9 to 11 XP) can pull this off.

View Full Version: Extra Attack Maneuver