Tactical Principals

[Killer Shrike]

Threw together a doc on some general tactical principals to apply to HERO System tactics:

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHERO/HERO5CombatTactics.htm

[Edsel]

I have only skimmed this so far but it looks pretty good. I have deemed it worthy to print and take to bed with me. I do my best reading there. :thumbup:

Frankly I have a couple of players in my group who would do well to follow the advice I see in this document.

[Killer Shrike]

I have only skimmed this so far but it looks pretty good. I have deemed it worthy to print and take to bed with me. I do my best reading there. :thumbup:

Thanx. I hope it proves interesting enough to deprive you of sleep :D


Frankly I have a couple of players in my group who would do well to follow the advice I see in this document.
I think we all do ;)

[APE]

That was a good article! REPPED

[Killer Shrike]

That was a good article! REPPED
Thanx!

[ghost-angel]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Killer Shrike again.

The goodness just keeps on coming, your site should be required HERO reading. :thumbup:

[Killer Shrike]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Killer Shrike again.

The goodness just keeps on coming, your site should be required HERO reading. :thumbup:
Aw shucks....thanx!

[Hyper-Man]

another must read for my group!

[Killer Shrike]

another must read for my group!
Thanx!

[Trebuchet]

Excellent article, although based on the title I assumed it was about combative heads of schools. ;)

[Sean Waters]

Great work which I will rep when you stop making sense for a while.

Sometimes, I have to say, I try the opposite approach: I know the system pretty well and I'll bluff through what I don't rather than look it up mid-combat, so I encourage (some) players to ignore the system completely and just describe what they want to do, which I then translate into game mechanics, but deal with by way of description rather than numbers.

I've had mixed success.

Also there are any number of cases, especially in superhero games, where the right tactical consideration is just not going to look right on the comic page. Yes it makes tactical SENSE to give MegaWhat? one more kick in the head to make sure he doesn't get up, but what you do instead is go and sweep the little girl to safety, even though she probably wouldn't be in that much danger if you DID stick the boot in. But you don't want her to see you doing that, do you :)

[Dust Raven]

Will all the shameless attempts to garner rep through intricate acts of frivolty (not that there's anything wrong with that), leave it to Killer Shrike to share with us something worthwile and useful.

And yes, repped. :D

[Eosin]

I think this deserves the title of MUST READ. Excellent work KS.

[Gary]

Nice work as always.

One thing I would disagree on would be holding your phase 12 action until phase 1 just so the target doesn't get an immediate recovery. That always struck me as 'gaming' the system in a non-plausible way.

[Killer Shrike]

Thanx, thanx, thanx, and thanx, respectively.

[Killer Shrike]

Nice work as always.

One thing I would disagree on would be holding your phase 12 action until phase 1 just so the target doesn't get an immediate recovery. That always struck me as 'gaming' the system in a non-plausible way.
Hmm...that wasnt my intended meaning. The main reason to hold 12 is so that you don't go early in the order and then stand there flat footed unable to Abort if necessary, giving everyone else a chance to take a pot shot at you.

[Killer Shrike]

Also there are any number of cases, especially in superhero games, where the right tactical consideration is just not going to look right on the comic page. Yes it makes tactical SENSE to give MegaWhat? one more kick in the head to make sure he doesn't get up, but what you do instead is go and sweep the little girl to safety, even though she probably wouldn't be in that much danger if you DID stick the boot in. But you don't want her to see you doing that, do you :)

Well, of course there are extenuating circumstances that require a non-tactical response.

[Gary]

Hmm...that wasnt my intended meaning. The main reason to hold 12 is so that you don't go early in the order and then stand there flat footed unable to Abort if necessary, giving everyone else a chance to take a pot shot at you.


Holding until after the target's recovery is something that used to happen often in my gaming group until there was an agreement not to do so.

[mudpyr8]

You must spread some Reputation around....

Nice work.

[pinecone]

Add me to the list of admeration...maybe they could port this over into Freestuff or FAQ: How do I not look like a fool?....:)

[radioKAOS]

Holding until after the target's recovery is something that used to happen often in my gaming group until there was an agreement not to do so.

Not to mention that it's the perfect time for a haymaker... only SPD 12 gets to go on phase 1...

[Black Rose]

I'd love to Rep this, but I have to wait a while....

Somewhat tangential to this, but it made me think of it: would y'all buy a book (or be interested in DH articles) that primarily consisted of essays designed to make you-the-GM/Player sound like you knew what you were talking about when you spoke as your PC? I'm thinking essays that concisely describe things like military tactic, scientific fields, poli sci, psychology, etc. so you aren't completely pulling terms out of your bum (like Star Trek).

[Killer Shrike]

Actually, there are books like this.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/002-8195122-6124063?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=incomplete+education&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

I have An Incomplete Education for instance and its pretty good.

[Dust Raven]

Nice work as always.

One thing I would disagree on would be holding your phase 12 action until phase 1 just so the target doesn't get an immediate recovery. That always struck me as 'gaming' the system in a non-plausible way.

It's a two edged sword. The attacker doesn't get the free REC either, and if it's one of those high END attacks or Rapid Fire/Sweep he's SOL.

[Dust Raven]

Not to mention that it's the perfect time for a haymaker... only SPD 12 gets to go on phase 1...

Which reminds me, so you pay the END on a Haymaker (or any maneuver for that matter) when you begine the maneuver, or when it's completed (or rolled for, in the case of escapes)? This could have a significent effect on the use of Haymakers used in Segment 12 if you pay the END then get the recovery, but the other guy gets his REC before taking the damage.

[radioKAOS]

Which reminds me, so you pay the END on a Haymaker (or any maneuver for that matter) when you begine the maneuver, or when it's completed (or rolled for, in the case of escapes)? This could have a significent effect on the use of Haymakers used in Segment 12 if you pay the END then get the recovery, but the other guy gets his REC before taking the damage.

I'm pretty certain that you pay the END [and make the attack roll] during the phase you declare it, ie phase 12.


It's a two edged sword. The attacker doesn't get the free REC either, and if it's one of those high END attacks or Rapid Fire/Sweep he's SOL.

Not true. p361 5ER:

"A character who Holds his Action on Segment 12 still gets his Post-Segment 12 Recovery, and may use his Held Action in the next Turnon any Segment until a Segment in which he has another Phase."

[Dust Raven]

I'm pretty certain that you pay the END [and make the attack roll] during the phase you declare it, ie phase 12.
So you have to make an attack roll on a target that might not be there when you actually attack? That seems a bit harsh for a measly 4 DC, especially when you have to wait for it to land anyway, and take a massive hit to DCV.




Not true. p361 5ER:

"A character who Holds his Action on Segment 12 still gets his Post-Segment 12 Recovery, and may use his Held Action in the next Turnon any Segment until a Segment in which he has another Phase."

How does that make what I said not true?

Segment 12
Guy holds his action.
Post Segment 12
Guy get his REC
Segment 1
Guy uses action.

[radioKAOS]

So you have to make an attack roll on a target that might not be there when you actually attack? That seems a bit harsh for a measly 4 DC, especially when you have to wait for it to land anyway, and take a massive hit to DCV.

*shrug* Take it up with Steve ;)


How does that make what I said not true?

Segment 12
Guy holds his action.
Post Segment 12
Guy get his REC
Segment 1
Guy uses action.

I read you wrong.

I thought you meant that because the attacker was performing an action that cost him END, he would not get his REC for P-S12.

[pointyman2000]

Wow, excellent work, Killer Shrike.

As a relatively new GM to the game, I'm in dire need of stuff like this. :D

[radioKAOS]

Which reminds me, so you pay the END on a Haymaker (or any maneuver for that matter) when you begine the maneuver, or when it's completed (or rolled for, in the case of escapes)? This could have a significent effect on the use of Haymakers used in Segment 12 if you pay the END then get the recovery, but the other guy gets his REC before taking the damage.

Seg 12: Pay END for Haymaker [note that it would be the same END without the Haymaker]
PS 12: Attacker and Defender get Post Segment 12 REC
Seg 1: Haymaker lands

But how would this affect the use of haymakers?

[Killer Shrike]

Wow, excellent work, Killer Shrike.

As a relatively new GM to the game, I'm in dire need of stuff like this. :D
Thanx! If there are things that you, as a relatively new GM to the game, think need more addressing by all means share your thoughts as well. It might inspire some of us to write something to suit.

[Dust Raven]

Seg 12: Pay END for Haymaker [note that it would be the same END without the Haymaker]
PS 12: Attacker and Defender get Post Segment 12 REC
Seg 1: Haymaker lands

But how would this affect the use of haymakers?

The attacker would get his END back with the Post Seg12 REC, but the target has already has his REC when he taks the damage. This is as opposed to using a standard attack, in which case the target takes the damage, then gets a REC.

[radioKAOS]

The attacker would get his END back with the Post Seg12 REC, but the target has already has his REC when he taks the damage. This is as opposed to using a standard attack, in which case the target takes the damage, then gets a REC.

From the standpoint of a manner of 'adding another attack into a turn' I would agree.

[Gary]

It's a two edged sword. The attacker doesn't get the free REC either, and if it's one of those high END attacks or Rapid Fire/Sweep he's SOL.


Based on lots of actual gaming experience, this hurts the defender a lot more than the attacker. Generally it takes 2-4 hits to take out non-bricks, and the attacker usually has End for 6-12 shots at least (and can burn Stun for more). So recovery of Stun is much more vital than End.

[pointyman2000]

Since we're on the subject of tactics, what tactics would you recommend for characters to cope with opponent with higher Speed?

[Killer Shrike]

Since we're on the subject of tactics, what tactics would you recommend for characters to cope with opponent with higher Speed?
Depends on the character really.

However, there's an important concept of "significant actions" that Ill probably be putting together an article on soon that deals with the idea that not all actions are equal.

Quality over quantity in other words.

If you provide two different characters, one with higher speed than the other, I could look at them and give suggestions.



This isnt a supergood example since the SPD difference isnt tremendous, but here is a fight between a character with a 5 SPD and a character with a 6 SPD:

http://www.herocentral.net/readStoryThread.htm?postId=390487&campaignId=301376

Here is the 6 SPD character, CRUX:
http://www.killershrike.com/MillennialMen/CharacterFiles/crux.HTML


and here is the 5 SPD character, John Wrath:
http://www.killershrike.com/MillennialMen/CharacterFiles/John%20Wrath,%20Solo%20Avenger.HTML

Wrath has about 80 points on Crux, but on the otherhand all of that is sunk into skills and perks that have no bearing on combat so combat wise they are roughly equivalent characters though Wrath has the edge due to having more Skill Levels.

Anyway, without getting into a blow by blow, Wrath took more significant actions and won the fight without a scratch. Partly this was due to Wrath being played by an experienced player and Crux being played by a neophyte, but it basically boiled down to Wrath was used more efficiently, and used more of his abilities effectively.

[Gary]

Crux should've continually aborted to desolid whenever attacked. Having a 15 ED vs 87 active point energy attacks and lower CVs means his only chance is to force Wrath to use up his charges and then eventually grab a lamppost or bench to nail the sucker.

With his superior speed, he can always make sure that Wrath never hits. Most likely, the fight will end in a stalemate if Crux is played smart.

Incidentally, I highly disagree that the 2 characters are roughly equivalent power. Wrath has higher attacks, defenses, and CVs. Crux doesn't stand a chance without the desolidification.

[pointyman2000]

Wow. I should read up on more of these. I got lost halfway through the fight. :p No wonder my more tactically inclined players are running circles around my NPCs.

[Killer Shrike]

Crux should've continually aborted to desolid whenever attacked. Having a 15 ED vs 87 active point energy attacks and lower CVs means his only chance is to force Wrath to use up his charges and then eventually grab a lamppost or bench to nail the sucker.

With his superior speed, he can always make sure that Wrath never hits. Most likely, the fight will end in a stalemate if Crux is played smart.

Incidentally, I highly disagree that the 2 characters are roughly equivalent power. Wrath has higher attacks, defenses, and CVs. Crux doesn't stand a chance without the desolidification.

Agreed, Crux could have been played much smarter. As I noted, the player was new. Wrath was also much more salty with 27 (often long) sessions behind him, while Crux had zero. There's no question about it, Wrath is the more powerful, well rounded character.

What I meant was they had spent roughly equivalent points on combat. Its not as one sided as you make it sound however. For starters if Crux got Wrath in a grab it would be all over. For seconders Wraths gun is OAF and though Crux isnt particularly good at disarming, once he had Wrath wrapped up he could have taken it away. Crux was strong enough to use a bench or pole as a weapon, which would have canceled Wrath's high DCV and could have forced him to Abort to D4C at some point, falling to 1/2 DCV and becoming vulnerable to a grab; once grabbed his combat luck would stop working and from there it would be a short fight.

Wrath definitely had a strong advantage, but it wasnt a hopeless fight by any stretch.

[Gary]

Agreed, Crux could have been played much smarter. As I noted, the player was new. Wrath was also much more salty with 27 (often long) sessions behind him, while Crux had zero. There's no question about it, Wrath is the more powerful, well rounded character.

What I meant was they had spent roughly equivalent points on combat. Its not as one sided as you make it sound however. For starters if Crux got Wrath in a grab it would be all over. For seconders Wraths gun is OAF and though Crux isnt particularly good at disarming, once he had Wrath wrapped up he could have taken it away. Crux was strong enough to use a bench or pole as a weapon, which would have canceled Wrath's high DCV and could have forced him to Abort to D4C at some point, falling to 1/2 DCV and becoming vulnerable to a grab; once grabbed his combat luck would stop working and from there it would be a short fight.

Wrath definitely had a strong advantage, but it wasnt a hopeless fight by any stretch.

The trouble is that between the Find Weakness and the Variable Advantage, Wrath is quite likely to one shot Crux with his 15 ED. And with his large CV advantage, it should be relatively easy to get that hit unless Crux constantly aborts.

[Killer Shrike]

The trouble is that between the Find Weakness and the Variable Advantage, Wrath is quite likely to one shot Crux with his 15 ED. And with his large CV advantage, it should be relatively easy to get that hit unless Crux constantly aborts.
Right, which is where his 1 extra SPD steps in and gives Crux a chance to break out of the vicious cycle. The player failed to capitalize on it, and correspondingly never laid a finger on Wrath.

[ghost-angel]

One thing you're assuming here Gary is that each character knows how the other is built. Wrath doesn't know Crux has a 15ED, for all he knows it's a 55ED.

What you know of your opponant plays as big a role as what you know you're capable of.

[Killer Shrike]

One thing you're assuming here Gary is that each character knows how the other is built. Wrath doesn't know Crux has a 15ED, for all he knows it's a 55ED.

What you know of your opponant plays as big a role as what you know you're capable of.
Also true.

[Kabluey]

I'm pretty certain that you pay the END [and make the attack roll] during the phase you declare it, ie phase 12.

This is not correct. On p. 389 of 5ER, it states that you don't actually launch the attack until the segment after you declare it, and pay endurance only when it is actually launched.

For example:
Segment 12: Player announces haymaker.
Segment 1: Attack launches, pays END.

The text doesn't specify when you make the attack roll, but I think it pretty strongly implies that it's made in the segment when it is launched, i.e., the second segment.

When I read what you'd said, it just sounded kind of off, so I went and checked. I will say that I think the text is poorly worded and could easily be confusing.

[Gary]

One thing you're assuming here Gary is that each character knows how the other is built. Wrath doesn't know Crux has a 15ED, for all he knows it's a 55ED.

What you know of your opponant plays as big a role as what you know you're capable of.


This actually works against Crux in this scenario. If he doesn't know that Wrath has FW and 87 active point energy attacks, there would be no reason for him to abort every phase to Desolid. And then get hammered by the first shot.

[Killer Shrike]

Slight quibble but Wrath's EB is really effectively 75 Active Points (the remainder going to the overhead for Variable Advantage), but the difference in this case is negligible.

[Sean Waters]

I had a look through the combat that you ran and the characters Crux and Wrath. Nicely done.

One long term topic is some sort of combat effectiveness scale - there a number of calculators out there, but I've never been convinced it is all that necessary.

Crux has a base CV of 8, as does Wrath.

Both have martial arts. Crux has a one point speed advantage.

Wrath has 6 combat levels, Crux has 3. That is quite a big difference.

Crux has a BIG damage potential: 16-18 d6, averaging 56-63 STUN. That is a LOT. One hit would take Wrath down, unless he was able to abort to a successful roll with punch. He needs to grab first and his best manouvre to do that is the grappling block (a little dodgy in itself - I did not think that you should have an offensive and defensive base for a martial manouvre, but we'll let that one slide.) This is +1 OCV, for a max OCV of 12, while maintaining a DCV of 8. Wrath can maintain an OCV of 8 and a DCV of 14 against HtH even when not using martial arts. Martial arts (apart from dodge) are of limtied use against someone with that kind of stretching.

Wrath's best attack is his Peacemaker, on autofire, delivering 3x10d6 energy. one solid hit with this will do (on average) 20 stun through Crux's defences even before find weakness. Three hits will be enough to take down Crux. Hitting three times with the autofire requires a roll of 10 or less, assuming his three OLs are OCV and Crux is not doing anything defensive (only one of his levels could count anyway, and none of his martial arts).

It is one of those interesting combats: Crux, if he gets lucky, could take Wrath down in two phases (hit and then damage), Wrath could, if he gets lucky, take Crux down in 1 or 2 phases (depending on how solid the autofire hit is).

Of course this is where combat tactics come in: Crux could have used his speed to better effect, and, one has to wonder, if he had not been calling out his hit rolls, whether Wrath would really have aborted to a dodge when he'd rolled 4: he may well have considered himself safe and thereby been sunk. Crux needs an 8- to hit a non-dodging Wrath. Not uncommon but not something you can rely on...

This doesn't even cover the options: Crux would probably have been far better using his desolid than his force wall (and, given that most of his normal in-combat defences are non-resistant, would have been better off building his lack of weakness to cover his normal defences).

Despite the points advantage, even taking non-combat skills into account, I'd probably have bet on Crux, but I would not have wagered a lot.

OK, I'm just regurgitating here, but it does show the improtance of tactics and of luck, and of a little known but really quite important proverb:

The mouth is the enemy of the neck.

In this case that means don't shoult out what you've rolled until the other fella decides if he is going to abort.

[Sean Waters]

One thing you're assuming here Gary is that each character knows how the other is built. Wrath doesn't know Crux has a 15ED, for all he knows it's a 55ED.

What you know of your opponant plays as big a role as what you know you're capable of.


This is a really important point.

In most combats you give out a lot of information about the abilities of opponents

I've run combats where no information is given out about mechanics, including what was rolled to hit, except 'results' - a subjective view or whether they hit easily, and of course, their damage results. Your own damage results are described as well:

0-10% damage through: basically the target ignores the blow/doesn't react
10-25% target winces but keeps coming
25-50% target hesistates: clearly felt that one land
50%+ target probably stunned anyway...

Of course you can use acting to make an opponent think a blow is more or less effective...

It does make a real difference to the flow of combat when players only know the numbers on one side...players tedn to be more extreme - far more cautious or far more foolhardy...

[Killer Shrike]

Good analysis Sean, and I basically agree with everything you said except that I would still give the edge to Wrath based upon his extral CL's and because he's more flexible than Crux, having more options.

As to your quibble on Grappling Block, you'll have to take that up with Steve L. -- it's from the UMA.

I've also asked some questions about it here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33308&highlight=grappling

and here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33314&highlight=grappling

[CBikle]

Not bad.

One thing you might consider changing would be to place more emphasis on the role-playing considerations section to encourage new players to play their characters as opposed to "playing the system" (although that's not usually a concern with new players anyway).

There's a tone with some of the text that comes off a little hostile ("Don't Be Lazy", "Read The Damn Book") that was probably just intended to be humorous, but makes Hero System seem like a "job". I would definitely change that if I were using the pages as hand-outs for a demo-game. Maybe something along the lines of: "Be Prepared" might work better ?

I also think that Tactical Principals for HERO could work as a generic guideline for players new to RPGs, Hero System or otherwise.

Good work.

[radioKAOS]

This is not correct. On p. 389 of 5ER, it states that you don't actually launch the attack until the segment after you declare it, and pay endurance only when it is actually launched.

For example:
Segment 12: Player announces haymaker.
Segment 1: Attack launches, pays END.

The text doesn't specify when you make the attack roll, but I think it pretty strongly implies that it's made in the segment when it is launched, i.e., the second segment.

When I read what you'd said, it just sounded kind of off, so I went and checked. I will say that I think the text is poorly worded and could easily be confusing.

I agree it is poorly worded and can be confusing, unfortunately I am out of town atm, but I'll recheck when I get home. I do disagree with your reading of it at face value, but I'll check it out when I get home. I believe the idea is that you are committed to the Haymaker once you declare it.

[Sean Waters]

Actually I quite liked the aspect in the example where the characters didn't just launch into combat. I thought that was quite nicely done.

One thing that I think could change the way combats go - especially with things like abort to defence being prevalent is a firmer mechanic for making a feint: perhaps some sort of 0 damage manouvre that takes 1/2 phase but is not considered an attack roll - so the defnder THINKS they're being attacked and has to consider aborting. If they don't then you can follow up with an immediate attack that they can not abort from.

EG Feint: OCV+0 DCV-2 1/2 phase action does not require attack roll

The -2DCV is because you have to put yourself out of position to make it look like you really are attacking. If the target DOES abort you can't follow up with an attack and are stuck with the DCV penalty until either your next action or YOU abort to a defensive manourve.

Feint could also be used to make a character holding an action think that you have taken yours.

Perhaps it should require a PER roll but the problem with that is that it is a bit of a dead giveaway if a defender is asked to make a PER roll...

[ghost-angel]

I agree it is poorly worded and can be confusing, unfortunately I am out of town atm, but I'll recheck when I get home. I do disagree with your reading of it at face value, but I'll check it out when I get home. I believe the idea is that you are committed to the Haymaker once you declare it.
This might help in This Thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40851) the following exchange occured:


When performing a Haymaker, when is END spent? When the maneuver is declared, or when it is completed in the next Segment?

Also, when is the attack roll made (I know this is answered somewhere, but I can't find it)?

Thanks!

1. See 5ER 389.

2. In the Segment in which the attack is launched and the END for the attack is paid.
Between the two, it seems clear you declare a Haymaker and in the next segment you make the Attack Roll and pay the END Cost as that's when the attack is "Launched."

[Killer Shrike]

A Feint Manuever is a good idea.

However, under the existing game rules you can try to feint by using a PRE Attack. Despite the name "Presense Attack", they don't require an Attack Roll and they don't end your turn. They also are actions that "Take no time" and thus can be done in any Segment.

Thus a character can make a PRE Attack in any Segment to attempt to convince opponents that they are making some sort of attack. The level of success of the PRE Attack would determine how much the opponents believe it and how much it upsets their own action(s).

[tgrandjean]

A couple of other ideas for feint are acting, sleight of hand, or just to be nasty: Images.
Usually, just description on CSLs is enough to do the job: +OCV "I feint and it leaves 'em open", or DCV "My feint throws their attacks off balance.

[Sean Waters]

PRE is a good way to model feinting because it gets less effective if you repeat the manouvre. My concern with using it is that there is no penalty for using it the first time, so someone playing a perfect tactical game should probably include it in every combat (at least against a foe fighting defensively), and and can do so without any downside.

Also, I'm not sure the 'defence' (PRE or EGO) is the best measure of the ability to not be fooled by a feint (if you see what I mean).

[Michael Hopcroft]

I'm sure you meant "Tactical Principles": the two words are easy to mix up, and I do it all the time. Still, I couldn't help but think:

Tactical Principal: 4d6 Area Effect RKA Megascale x2, OAF Principal Jones ("Those damn delinquents!")

[Killer Shrike]

Yeah yeah, everyone and their brother has informed me of my spelling error. Corrected ;)

[Killer Shrike]

Just had a thought. It would be cool to make a Fight Club campaign on HERO Central solely for the purpose of making characters and fighting them against each other.

The only thing is Im too busy to run it solely myself.

However, a pool of GM's could probably manage it without fuss since there is no storyline to maintain, just who "killed" who.

Thoughts? Interest? Volunteers?

Actually, I think Ill start a thread specifically for this......

[austenandrews]

In this case that means don't shoult out what you've rolled until the other fella decides if he is going to abort.
I don't know if the rules specifically cover it, but in my games you have to declare actions before throwing the dice.

GM: Wrecking Ball clenches his fist and throws a massive punch at you.
Glass Man: I Abort to Dodge!
GM: I rolled a 5. Good thing you Aborted.

GM: Wrecking Ball clenches his fist and throws a massive punch at you.
Glass Man: He'll never hit me!
GM: I rolled a 5.
Glass Man: I Abort to Dodge!
GM: In your dreams, shard-boy. Care to Roll With the Punch?

[Killer Shrike]

Declaring Aborts before attack rolls is the rule, and should definitely be enforced.

Unfortunately in a play by post players tend to get carried away and just blammo roll everything without pausing to let any one declare aborts.

[Sean Waters]

FYI I checked UMA and the grappling block IS perfectly legally constructed - I was remembering the rules wrong: grab is a non-exclusive base and so CAN be combined with an exclusive base like block - I'd remembered it that you could not combine attack and defence bases.

Bad Sean.

[Killer Shrike]

The Rules Questions I linked to previously are relevant.

In fact I asked the question specifically because John Wrath had the manuever and at one point the player wanted to Abort to the Block and it was unclear what would happen -- I ruled that a Grab required an Attack Roll and thus couldnt be Aborted to, but that the BLOCK could be Aborted to. After the game I researched it to make sure I was right, and I was, but it did reveal that the Manuever is costed incorrectly. Incidentally Steve also confirmed that the ABORT element is available for the Block even if its not listed.



UMA: Grappling Block
Hi Steve. In the UMA on page 9 the Manuever Grappling Block is listed with the following effects:

+1/+1, Grab One Limb, Block

However, on page 91/92 in the section for designing Martial Arts, under Block it states that the Block Element comes with a free Abort.

Also, Grappling block costs 5 points, but it seems like it should only cost 4. Reverse engineering Grappling Block I get the following:

Block (0 pts)
Grab Opponent (+3 pts)
One Limb (-1)
+1 OCV (+1 pt)
+1 DCV (+1 pt)

So,

Q: According to the rules for building a Manuever in the UMA, shouldn't Grappling Block be defined as:

4 points 1/2 Phase +1 OCV, +1 DCV, Grab One Limb, Block; Abort

instead of:

5 points 1/2 Phase +1 OCV, +1 DCV, Grab One Limb, Block

?

Thanx!
__________________



Re: UMA: Grappling Block
The abilities provided by the maneuver are described correctly, but it looks like it should only cost 4 points. I'll look at it more closely when I have the time.
__________________
Steve Long
HERO System Line Developer

[Killer Shrike]

And the followup....


Jun 19th, '05, 06:25 PM


UMA: Grappling Block Followup
As far as the free Abort from the Block element is concerned, I understand that you cant Abort to a Grab, but you've indicated in the FAQ that the character can Abort to the Block portion if they don't use the Grab portion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FAQ
Q: How does the Grappling Block from UMA work?

A: Grappling Block allows a character to Block a HTH attack, and at the same time Grab the person making the Block. If the character just wants to Block, without Grabbing, he can Abort; he cannot Abort to it if he wants to use the Grab.

So then, is it simply not listed so people dont get confused and think they can Abort to the Grab portion?
__________________




Re: UMA: Grappling Block Followup
Yes.
__________________
Steve Long
HERO System Line Developer



As a side note, the player of John Wrath took the manuever thinking he could abort to the grab, so I let him switch out the manuever for something else.

[Zed-F]

This is useful to know. I wound up discarding Defensive Throw off one of my character sheets because it didn't seem like you could abort to it. Presumably, by similar reasoning, you could abort to the block portion of Defensive Throw if you sacrificed the throw portion.

[Kristopher]

It was always my conclusion that the user of Grappling Block could use it as he would any other Block, including Aborting to it and still using the Grab.

I am inclined to continuing under this interpretation.

[Killer Shrike]

This is useful to know. I wound up discarding Defensive Throw off one of my character sheets because it didn't seem like you could abort to it. Presumably, by similar reasoning, you could abort to the block portion of Defensive Throw if you sacrificed the throw portion.
Yes, you can.

[Killer Shrike]

I'm of two minds on it myself Kristopher. On the one hand the Manuever makes more sense if you can Abort and use the Grab (same w/ Defensive Throw and the Throw element). It also mirrors reality closer; where you grab someone to protect yourself from damage.

On the other hand it goes against the never Abort to an Attack rule, which sets a precedent for other scenarios that could get pretty egregious.

It's a can o worms in other words.


I actually gave a lot of thought to allowing it myself, restricting the Grab portion to just Grab (not Grab & Control or Grab & Squeeze etc) but finally decided not to allow it just for consistency with the Abort / Attack restriction.

[Manic Typist]

The Rules Questions I linked to previously are relevant.

In fact I asked the question specifically because John Wrath had the manuever and at one point the player wanted to Abort to the Block and it was unclear what would happen -- I ruled that a Grab required an Attack Roll and thus couldnt be Aborted to, but that the BLOCK could be Aborted to. After the game I researched it to make sure I was right, and I was, but it did reveal that the Manuever is costed incorrectly. Incidentally Steve also confirmed that the ABORT element is available for the Block even if its not listed.


Hmmmmmm............ well, a block requires an attack roll, but it is a perfectly acceptable abort. You are attacking an attack........................and you get bonuses to DEX only to go before that person if you share the next phase.

So, how about you allow the Grab like a Block, but at the begining of the next person's phase (the grabed or the graber), the graber has to roll to make a NEW successful grab if they want to LOCK it down and use it like any other grab, with maybe a plus or two to their roll? After that........ they can then use the Grab as normal. If they fail, then the Grab is broken.

[zornwil]

Good stuff, well worth a bump.

[Sean Waters]

Sort of an aside but still potentially relevant: blocking move throughs.

OK some blocks have the sfx that you get out of the way (a dodge, surely? Dorry - this is Hero) and some have the 'get in the way and brace' sfx. Either way a succesful block stops the move-througher in the hex in which the block occurred and no one takes damage, regardless of previous relative velocity.

OK, nicely balanced perhaps, but also not very game-logical. Has anyone mucked about with alternative resolutions?

Off hand I'd say a move out the way block does not stop the mov througher - they just miss, and a brace block means the blocker takes the impact and full damage is rolled for BOTH attacker and blocker, then halved if the other takes KB.

[Doc Democracy]

Off hand I'd say a move out the way block does not stop the mov througher - they just miss, and a brace block means the blocker takes the impact and full damage is rolled for BOTH attacker and blocker, then halved if the other takes KB.

Hmm. As you say, I'd be inclined to look for a game logical result.

I'd be more inclined to reverse the application of the damage - so a successful block means that the attacker takes full damage and the blocker takes half.


Doc

[Kristopher]

Whereas I'd look for the resolution that most accurately reflected the physics.

In other words, you typically don't want to Block a Move Through.

[Sean Waters]

Whilst Doc's approach is most amusing I think in practive it would stop move attacks being used - they'd become far too risky.

OTOH, Kristopher, whilst I might agree in my soberer moments, comic book reality has some 'interesting' characters some of whom most certainly would use this tactic (Blob, Juggernaut, hell most brick types at one time or another).

Outside comic books I can again see it happening, to an extent: the quarterback runs at you and you lean into the tackle rather than trying to dodge it - you might both go down, or you might surprise him and knock off his attack altogether. Something like that (and I do hope quarterbacks tackle - not sure a rugby analogy would necessarily be appreciated :))

Maybe another manouvre entirely is needed? Something like (on the fly so feel free to chip in)

Tackle and Block :D

OCV +0 DCV -2 Block, damage = STR + relative v/3

This is a manouvre specifically used against move through attacks. It can not be aborted to and is usually done as a held action. When the person doing the move through attacks, this manouvre can be used simultanouusly, reardless of whether the person doing the move through hits or not.

The defender rolls to hit as if performing a block (OCV v OCV not DCV).

If the 'defender' hits he rolls damage as if they had performed a move through on the attacker, with all the usual consequences - he takes half the damage if the attacker is knocked back, all of it if he isn't.

This is a risky manouvre as both attacker and defender can end up taking full damage from two simultaneous move throughs (their own and their opponent's). They do, of course, get defences against each attack seperately.

[Kristopher]

Whilst Doc's approach is most amusing I think in practive it would stop move attacks being used - they'd become far too risky.

OTOH, Kristopher, whilst I might agree in my soberer moments, comic book reality has some 'interesting' characters some of whom most certainly would use this tactic (Blob, Juggernaut, hell most brick types at one time or another).

Outside comic books I can again see it happening, to an extent: the quarterback runs at you and you lean into the tackle rather than trying to dodge it - you might both go down, or you might surprise him and knock off his attack altogether. Something like that (and I do hope quarterbacks tackle - not sure a rugby analogy would necessarily be appreciated :))

Maybe another manouvre entirely is needed? Something like (on the fly so feel free to chip in)

Tackle and Block :D

OCV +0 DCV -2 Block, damage = STR + relative v/3

This is a manouvre specifically used against move through attacks. It can not be aborted to and is usually done as a held action. When the person doing the move through attacks, this manouvre can be used simultanouusly, reardless of whether the person doing the move through hits or not.

The defender rolls to hit as if performing a block (OCV v OCV not DCV).

If the 'defender' hits he rolls damage as if they had performed a move through on the attacker, with all the usual consequences - he takes half the damage if the attacker is knocked back, all of it if he isn't.

This is a risky manouvre as both attacker and defender can end up taking full damage from two simultaneous move throughs (their own and their opponent's). They do, of course, get defences against each attack seperately.

Well, I did say "typically". If you have enough Knockback Resistance or can Brace well enough, and the attacker bounces off because he doesn't move you, then it's smart. But even if you don't take any damage from the hit, if you get moved, you're taking damage from the Knockback.

[CBikle]

I don't have 5E in front of me, but mechanics-wise, having neither target take damage seems like the fairest way to rule it.

As far as the lack of damage from velocity goes, you could rationalize that depending on SFX, genre and circumstances.

[RDU Neil]

I don't have 5E in front of me, but mechanics-wise, having neither target take damage seems like the fairest way to rule it.

As far as the lack of damage from velocity goes, you could rationalize that depending on SFX, genre and circumstances.

I would agree. The mechanics of a block negate it doing damage as a base result. Also, blocks have (since first edition) been anything from "just taking the short" in a tough guy sort of way to "stepping to the side and brushing the attack past you" in the soft form martial arts way. The latter is highly effective against moving attacks.

Adding in the fact that a moving attack keeps moving after being blocked THEN you could add in "does attacker hit the ground or another object and take damage" as a second but separate step to determine, but in my mind, the block itself doesn't do damage or reverse damage.

[Sean Waters]

I'm pretty sure the rules as they are specify that a blocked move through stops the attacker in the hex in which they were blocked (and neither party takes damage or KB).