Kenshinzen are FUN! and broke.

I recall the 2ED game master guide has some guidance as far as how raises should be handled. I don't have my book handy, but I think it is in there. Could someone see what the pertinent info is? Thanks! This is not supported in the rules. We also have the problem that we are using common sense and logic yet are coming to different conclusions. I think this tech is unsaveable in its current form. It's because realism is thrown out the window and common sense doesn't apply in figuring out whether the technique is intended to be realistic or an anime-style attack.

The more I look at this technique, the worse it gets. If the Kenshinzen is armed with a chain weapon and decides to perform either the knockdown or disarm maneuver with his rank 3 technique, do they all get knocked down/disarmed and have a chance to be grappled?

The more I look at this technique, the worse it gets. If the Kenshinzen is armed with a chain weapon and decides to perform either the knockdown or disarm maneuver with his rank 3 technique, do they all get knocked down/disarmed and have a chance to be grappled? Heck, what if I just DON’T use a chain and just grapple normally. I now grapple 300 people at once with my bare hands?

Heck, what if I just DON’T use a chain and just grapple normally. I now grapple 300 people at once with my bare hands? Weren't we just having a discussion of using common sense? :lol:

The more I look at this technique, the worse it gets. If the Kenshinzen is armed with a chain weapon and decides to perform either the knockdown or disarm maneuver with his rank 3 technique, do they all get knocked down/disarmed and have a chance to be grappled? Heck, what if I just DON’T use a chain and just grapple normally. I now grapple 300 people at once with my bare hands? For ultimate Cheese - Kenshinzen to Tatooed Monk (Centipede). Brioooww! Chain weapon vs lion Platoon! Lion Lawnmower and thresher all in one. This is where my attempt at super new grapply rules with the "initiate Grapple" action fixes things. It guarantees that if you do this, you die. I grapple 300 people! I make contact with all of them! I wait until they nominate a leader, and then try and grapple him. All the others get to boost his roll. Um. I get crushed under their weight. Stacks on. One of the things that REALLY helped 3rd ed Shadowrun was worked examples after the rules description. This gave context to rules. This kenshinzen tech really really needs a worked example.

1) Like Katsumoto says: they are applied to the targets for which they are valid and not to the rest. It's as simple as that. This cannot be true or else I can declare 4 raises and apply them differently versus each opponent. It clearly states a single attack roll. You can have a single attack roll that has X raises being allocated differently per target. Anything says you can't apply those Raises differently to different opponents? 2) The tech doesn't specify it requires only one arrow/knife/shuriken/yari when used for a ranged attack either. Yes it does. “A single attack” There is no mention that if I only have 1 arrow that I can only hit one target. "A single attack to every enemy within 5' of you". If there are five enemies, that means five single attacks. Since it's nonsense that you'd possibly hit several targets who surround you with one shot, logic dictates you need more shots. It is also nonsense that you can hit someone who was 5’ from you but then teleported 2000 miles away before you took your Turn, but that counter point on that was refuted. Refuted? I have given a perfectly valid interpretation of the technique that doesn't allow any of this "5' at any point in the round" shenanigans. They simply all use the same attack roll (the shots/strikes/jabs used as part of the tech must be combined so fluently that they beome one, or some such rationalization). This is not supported in the rules. Actually, yes it is. All you have to do is read the text accordingly. If you don't, you get all these ridiculous consequences that got the Kenshinzen in this area of the forums in the first place. We also have the problem that we are using common sense and logic yet are coming to different conclusions. I think this tech is unsaveable in its current form. Bollocks. Apply "in the round" to making a single attack and not to being within 5' and most if not all problems go poof.

Anything says you can't apply those Raises differently to different opponents? How could you. You only make one attack roll. How can you declare conditional raises versus specific target one a single roll? What does that even mean? "A single attack to every enemy within 5' of you". If there are five enemies, that means five single attacks. No. It later says, “You make a single attack roll”. Why do people keep referring only to the “A single attack to every enemy within 5' of you" line and not the rest of the tech? Refuted? I have given a perfectly valid interpretation of the technique that doesn't allow any of this "5' at any point in the round" shenanigans. Togashi Shinjitsu has shown valid arguments to the contrary. They simply all use the same attack roll (the shots/strikes/jabs used as part of the tech must be combined so fluently that they beome one, or some such rationalization). This is not supported in the rules. Actually, yes it is. All you have to do is read the text accordingly. If you don't, you get all these ridiculous consequences that got the Kenshinzen in this area of the forums in the first place. Well you didn’t use the entire text when you tried to claim that it was separate attack rolls when the text clearly states that it is “a single attack roll”. So you have not read the text accordingly. In now way does the rule text prevent a single arrow from hitting 300 targets and the rule text ceranly can be read to allow the character to run past 300 opponents during the round and attack them all at once even though they are not 5’ of the Kenshinzen at the time of the attack roll since the targets being 5’ of the Kenshinzen at the time of the attack is not in the text, only that the targets are 5’ of the Kenshinzen during the round. We also have the problem that we are using common sense and logic yet are coming to different conclusions. I think this tech is unsaveable in its current form. Bollocks. Apply "in the round" to making a single attack and not to being within 5' and most if not all problems go poof. In the round just needs to be “at the time of the attack”. It also still lets one arrow to kill as many people within 5’ of you at once. It only allows the character to grapple as many people within 5’ of the Kenshinzen at once and doesn’t help the issue on how to resolve conditional and declared raises versus the targets.

This is getting ridiculous and I think people should just agree to disagree. There are good arguments that each side has presented. People clearly have different views on this technique and I think everyone can agree that the technique could have been more clearly worded to help us figure out what was actually intended for this complex attack. If we really want to figure out what was intended by design, why not get Brian Yoon to weigh in as I believe he was responsible for writing up the Kenshinzen for 3ED (and quite a few other schools for the Four Winds)? In fact, I think it would be best that I PM him tonight and see what was intended to help settle this debate.

Anything says you can't apply those Raises differently to different opponents? How could you. You only make one attack roll. How can you declare conditional raises versus specific target one a single roll? What does that even mean? "A single attack to every enemy within 5' of you". If there are five enemies, that means five single attacks. Oh. Ye. Gods. If you do this with the Kenshinzen... Don't EVER give them One Strike Blade. "I use the tech to gain 10 single attacks. I sacrifice 9 of those. I gain +135 to my initiative. Or +27 Free raises to my only attack this round." If a Kenshinzen decides to make themselves hard to hit, then does this for say, 2 rounds, then decides to let loose. + 270 initiative, that is +27 free raises thanks to Kakita rank 2, and +270 damage on that one strike. This is why it is only one attack. There was a discussion on this in the AEG forums before the Jourei Bengoshi forum started. Imagine attacking a swarm of bees, with one Oni in the middle. Or for ultimate death of DOOOOOM, Kakita 4, Kenshinzen 3, Ichiro 1. No. It later says, “You make a single attack roll”. Why do people keep referring only to the “A single attack to every enemy within 5' of you" line and not the rest of the tech? Refuted? I have given a perfectly valid interpretation of the technique that doesn't allow any of this "5' at any point in the round" shenanigans. Any Togashi Shinjitsu has shown valid arguments to the contrary. That's right, any Togashi Shinjitsu will do. You can pick up your Shinjitsu down at your local Togashi Emporium today! Don't forget to pick one up for the kids! :lol: (Typos are fun ;)).

Any Togashi Shinjitsu has shown valid arguments to the contrary. That's right, any Togashi Shinjitsu will do. You can pick up your Shinjitsu down at your local Togashi Emporium today! Don't forget to pick one up for the kids! :lol: (Typos are fun ;)). Yeah, I am done with this thread now.

Any Togashi Shinjitsu has shown valid arguments to the contrary. That's right, any Togashi Shinjitsu will do. You can pick up your Shinjitsu down at your local Togashi Emporium today! Don't forget to pick one up for the kids! :lol: (Typos are fun ;)). Yeah, I am done with this thread now. Damn. You fixed it :(

How could you. You only make one attack roll. How can you declare conditional raises versus specific target one a single roll? What does that even mean? I really, really don't see the problem. Kenshinzen Bill uses his tech to attack 5 opponents (Joe, Jim, Jarvis, Jules and Jack). He wants to Make a Called Shot to the head against Joe, a CS to the leg against Jim, Disarm Jarvis, Knock Jules Down and Raise for +1k0 damage against everyone except Joe. Bill also knows the Sudden Strike technique, which can give him extra Free Raises against some or all of his opponents. Initiatives: Bill 65, Joe 52, Jim 51, Jarvis 29, Jules 36 and Jack 60. TNtbH before Raises are made: Joe 42, Jim 38, Jarvis 35, Jules 39 and Jack 45. Bill gains 1 FR against Joe, 1 FR against Jim, 3 against Jarvis, 2 against Jules and 0 against Jack. He has to make additional Raises against his opponents for his maneuvers: 2 against Joe, 2 against Jim, 1 against Jarvis, 2 against Jules and 1 against Jack. This means the final TNtbH for his opponents become: Joe 52, Jim 48, Jarvis 40, Jules 49 and Jack 50. Bills makes his attack roll and gets 49. He hits 3 out of 5 opponents (with added effects, but he'll have to roll further to see if the Disarm and Knockdown attempts will succeed) but misses Joe and Jack. What's the big deal? Are you really suggesting that if Bill wants to Disarm one of his 5 opponents, he must attempt to Disarm them all? "A single attack to every enemy within 5' of you". If there are five enemies, that means five single attacks. No. It later says, “You make a single attack roll”. Why do people keep referring only to the “A single attack to every enemy within 5' of you" line and not the rest of the tech? So? You make a single attack roll that covers all your attacks. Nothing says one attack roll must absolutely mean one and only one attack. Refuted? I have given a perfectly valid interpretation of the technique that doesn't allow any of this "5' at any point in the round" shenanigans. Togashi Shinjitsu has shown valid arguments to the contrary. Not really. He's shown what happens when you apply 'in that round' to the within 5' part and the result stinks to high heaven. I say apply to 'in that round' to making the attack and not to the within 5' part and most of the stench goes away. Two interpretations, one that works reasonably well and one that doesn't. Why go with the latter? They simply all use the same attack roll (the shots/strikes/jabs used as part of the tech must be combined so fluently that they beome one, or some such rationalization). This is not supported in the rules. Actually, yes it is. All you have to do is read the text accordingly. If you don't, you get all these ridiculous consequences that got the Kenshinzen in this area of the forums in the first place. Well you didn’t use the entire text when you tried to claim that it was separate attack rolls when the text clearly states that it is “a single attack roll”. So you have not read the text accordingly. It's not separate attack rolls, and I didn't try to claim otherwise. 1 attack roll, several attacks. In now way does the rule text prevent a single arrow from hitting 300 targets and the rule text ceranly can be read to allow the character to run past 300 opponents during the round and attack them all at once even though they are not 5’ of the Kenshinzen at the time of the attack roll since the targets being 5’ of the Kenshinzen at the time of the attack is not in the text, only that the targets are 5’ of the Kenshinzen during the round. It can be read that way, and consequently result in problems. It can also be read another way, without as many problems. I'm merely suggesting reading it the second way. We also have the problem that we are using common sense and logic yet are coming to different conclusions. I think this tech is unsaveable in its current form. Bollocks. Apply "in the round" to making a single attack and not to being within 5' and most if not all problems go poof. In the round just needs to be “at the time of the attack”. It also still lets one arrow to kill as many people within 5’ of you at once. It only allows the character to grapple as many people within 5’ of the Kenshinzen at once and doesn’t help the issue on how to resolve conditional and declared raises versus the targets. You can add "at the time of the attack" to 'within 5 ft.', but you still need to specify when that attack must be made. Otherwise a Kenshinzen can forego attacking during one skirmish (or even several of them) to use his technique during another one. The tech doesn't let 1 arrow kill several people at once. It doesn't say so, so why would it? If the rules don't say you can do something, as a rule you can't. That's usually your argument, iirc. There is no issue with differing amounts of Raises vs. different targets. See my example above.

Oh. Ye. Gods. If you do this with the Kenshinzen... Don't EVER give them One Strike Blade. "I use the tech to gain 10 single attacks. I sacrifice 9 of those. I gain +135 to my initiative. Or +27 Free raises to my only attack this round." If a Kenshinzen decides to make themselves hard to hit, then does this for say, 2 rounds, then decides to let loose. + 270 initiative, that is +27 free raises thanks to Kakita rank 2, and +270 damage on that one strike. Who says you can gain the benefits of One Strike Blade several times by sacrificing several attacks in one and the same round? From where I'm standing, you can gain the benefit once per round by sacrificing one attack. You want to increase the initiative benefit, you have to wait for the next round to use the kata again.

A lot of very reasonable stuff. I fully agree with the ideas of your post. The problem comes from using the text to support those ideas. When I get around to FAQing the Kenshinzen I fully expect to implement nearly everything you said. Right now however all I have to go on is the RAW and the tech as written is just written badly.

Who says you can gain the benefits of One Strike Blade several times by sacrificing several attacks in one and the same round? From where I'm standing, you can gain the benefit once per round by sacrificing one attack. You want to increase the initiative benefit, you have to wait for the next round to use the kata again. So you can only use a Kata once a round? good luck trying to get that one to fly. The Matsu might have something to say about that. And if you dig through the rules thread on the aeg boards, it is mentioned that as long as you have a kata active, you are entitled to the benefits, and also suffer the penalties. The wording for the kata implies that you sacrifice one of your attacks for the +15 initiative /+3 free raises. This is a ratio. One attack for the listed bonuses. No mention that you can't do it more than once in a round. What about Matsu/Kenshinzen? They build momentum with each enemy they attack. Where do you start if they are all single attacks? The final one is going to cop such a whalloping. Or Hiruma ancestral rank 5? Slaughter all the bees first, then transfer all the extra damage over to the bad guy in the middle. This is the beehive weilding Kenshinzen of doom. He just carries a bee's nest around, and at the sign of someone tough, smashes it, kills all the bees, and obliterates the baddie. Nope, it is one attack. Multiple targets, one attack. NOT multiple attacks, multiple targets, one target to one attack.

View Full Version: Kenshinzen are FUN! and broke.