The Rules Discarded Along the Way

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Every football tackle I have seen, the tackler grabs the opponent and brings them down, its not just running and bashing into someone.  Here's the definition of tackle from the dictionary:

 

 

If its just bashing into someone, its a move through.

 

It doesn't fit the mechanics of a Grab.  HSMA:

 

Quote

This Basis allows a character to get his opponent in a hold. You can define a Grab-based Maneuver as a simple hold placed on the target, a bearhug, an elaborate joint-lock, or anything similar. This Basis adds +3 points to the cost of the Maneuver.

 

So, the hold is central to Grab.  That is not implicit in a football tackle.  There are PLENTY of cases where it doesn't hold  Perhaps the most obvious would be a receiver on a crossing route, where the defensive back is coming at a counter-angle.  So long as the tackler has a clear shot at center of mass, a grab isn't likely to be involved.  The arms are involved to make it harder for the ball carrier to avoid the hit, NOT to execute a grab per se.  It can also be involved to make it harder for the ball carrier to keep his balance;  the ball carrier sometimes just bounces off the body-on-body.  Which fits a Move By...in a Grab, if successful, the tackler finishes with a Throw.  Without it, *sometimes* there won't be Knockdown.  

 

MOST tackles involve a grab, but NOT!! all of em.  

 

Heck, tho...if you want?  Just start with Grab and accommodate the move element. Grab starts at -1/-2;  with FMove, perhaps -3.  But I'd rather not go there.  Sacrifice Move By, or if you're wanting to plant them, Sacrifice Move Through.  We don't need Grab at all.  Start with the base maneuver, add Target falls, You fall.  0 net cost.  Done deal.  Keep it simple.

[Grailknight]

Yes, Target falls is the key element of a football tackle. Again, tackle can have other contexts that emphasize the Grab as a primary element.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah, I remember that fun bit in Ninja Hero

 

 

I like your idea of a Grab Through better, it fits well.

 

 

I recalled having a football MA in the past - did not recall it was Ninja Hero, which we used for a lot of non-MA games.

 

I think the challenge here is which elements are key - grab, everyone falls, full move permitted. I can't see all three as a standard maneuver. 

 

Combining Grab and Trip puts both people on the ground, and the tackler has a Grab established.  Grab Through means both are still upright.  "Trip Through" means no grab established.

 

Given the normal result of a missed tackle is the runner sprinting away, I think full move is the easiest to sacrifice.  You fall regardless,

[unclevlad]

You don't need to sacrifice the full move.  If "you fall" is built in, then even if you miss, you're down at the point where you attack.  Since you did miss, your target gets to taunt you unmercifully as he continues on his merry way.

 

Well, OK, not in football.  That's a fast way to get an unsportsmanlike penalty.  

 

Rather than trying to invent a standard maneuver from scratch, which is rife with issues...standard maneuver costing seems rather ad hoc to me...I'd much rather start with the standard maneuvers that exist and tweak them.  The hardest element is FMove, IMO;  it's a 3 point element in MA, so that's big...and therefore, tougher to quantify.

 

--Move By and Move Through already have FMove, so we're ahead there.  Again...the easiest approach is to keep the core maneuver intact, and just add 

--Grab...really doesn't fit.  Grab's intent is to hold onto someone.  Yes, there are plenty of cases *in football* where this is what you want to do, but we're not talking football, we're talking in-game combat.  Note that the Slam option for the follow-on retains the hold.

--Trip:  if that's the goal, to simply take the person down, then Trip works just fine.  It doesn't include FMove, so we have to adjust for that.  We can consider the mods between Grab, and Grab By...which is Grab Object rather than Grab Person but both are 3 point elements, so we can assert reasonably, IMO, that they're equivalent.  Grab is -1/-2;  Grab By is -3/-4, with a +v/10 to STR.  That more or less means -3...offsetting FMove's +3.  So starting from Trip to Flying Trip, we do much the same.  -2/-3, You Fall counters the FMove.

 

A combo of Grab and Trip is excessive for the game.  You get the target on the ground AND you retain your hold?  That doesn't work for me...and it also *really* doesn't feel like a standard maneuver.  It's too fancy, especially with FMove. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I think the challenge here is which elements are key - grab, everyone falls, full move permitted. I can't see all three as a standard maneuver.

 

I don't know why this would be true.  None of them are exclusive maneuvers, are they?   I don't have my copy of 6th edition Martial Arts with me.  Its not 100% proper to build these maneuvers with the martial arts structure, but that is the only method we have to create new combat maneuvers.

[Grailknight]

So, starting from Martial Moves, would this be appropriate.

 

Passing Throw:  1/2 Phase, +0 OCV, +0 DCV, 2d6 +v/10; Target Falls; FMove

 

That's a 5-pt maneuver already in Hero Designer. Now, we just would need to decide what penalties would apply to the untrained version.

[Duke Bushido]

I do not think that a football tackle and a combat tackle are inherently the same.  For starters, there are a number of rules for football tackles, theoretically intended to avoid or minimize injuries.  Thus, only certain techniques or types of tackles are allowed on the field.  Further, the ultimate goal of a Football tackle is to stop advancement of the handegg, not necessarily the guy carrying it.

 

In combat, the goal is much more likely to be preventing escape or capturing the target, making the hold a more integral part of Tackle as a combat maneuver. 

 

Even then, though, you don't always pull it off.  Consider "you fall" as a mandatory element, and "target falls" only on some condition: a successful attack, or even a DEX roll or perhaps a direct STR v STR contest. 

 

 

[Grailknight]

It's true on the illegal football tackles but they can also give us guidelines. For instance, the most dangerous tackles, facemask, horse collar and clothesline, are all illegal but also all lack the You fall element. I think we need two maneuvers: tackle and sacrifice tackle to cover it all.

 

Or we just need to expand our personal feelings on SFX to include these as variants of Trip and Grab and Throw.

[Hugh Neilson]

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

You don't need to sacrifice the full move.  If "you fall" is built in, then even if you miss, you're down at the point where you attack.  Since you did miss, your target gets to taunt you unmercifully as he continues on his merry way.

 

If you want to Grab, Trip, do damage and get a full move in there, I think that is way too much for a standard maneuver. That's where I see the need to sacrifice some of these elements. Loss of Full Move simply feels like it does the least harm to the maneuver if both the Fall and the Grab are considered essential.

 

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Rather than trying to invent a standard maneuver from scratch, which is rife with issues...standard maneuver costing seems rather ad hoc to me...I'd much rather start with the standard maneuvers that exist and tweak them.  The hardest element is FMove, IMO;  it's a 3 point element in MA, so that's big...and therefore, tougher to quantify.

 

My comments above generally start with one standard maneuver and add a second, much like the Grab By example.

 

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

A combo of Grab and Trip is excessive for the game.  You get the target on the ground AND you retain your hold?  That doesn't work for me...and it also *really* doesn't feel like a standard maneuver.  It's too fancy, especially with FMove. 

 

Back to my first comment.  A Grab + Trip is a lot already - it will have CV penalties, and isn't going to get a lot of other bells and whistles.  Maybe we also tack on Duke's roll to take down the opponent - perhaps you still get +v/6, or it drops to +v/10, you roll damage, but it's only for Knockdown. If you don't knock him down, he stays on his feet (and, in football, can make an STR/Escape roll to wriggle loose and keep running).

 

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I don't know why this would be true.  None of them are exclusive maneuvers, are they?   I don't have my copy of 6th edition Martial Arts with me.  Its not 100% proper to build these maneuvers with the martial arts structure, but that is the only method we have to create new combat maneuvers.

 

Because getting all of those benefits from a free maneuver is too much, not because there is some mechanical prohibition against combining the three.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Because getting all of those benefits from a free maneuver is too much, not because there is some mechanical prohibition against combining the three.

 

That would seem like something you could balance with drawbacks, like Haymaker.  Penalties to OCV and DCV, take damage on impact, you fall down, etc.  The idea here is to simulate something people can do in real life.  I can do a running tackle on someone, grabbing them and knocking them down.  Prohibiting characters in a game from doing what a 57 year old man with poor health can do seems poor game design to me.

[Duke Bushido]

IShort on time, so forgive the lack of quotes: suffice it to say that for the most part, I am in line with Hugh's thoughts on this. 

 

The biggest thing I am seeing is a laundry list of issues that could be resolved by splitting Grab and Hold into 2 distinct actions:  a Grab would of course have the automatic breakout roll; it may be possible to replace that roll with a STR v STR toll.  As this is an attack action, the grabber's phase is now ended. 

 

If the breakout roll is failed, then on his next phase (remember that a higher SPD target may get additional breakout attempts), the grabber may then attempt to either place the target in a solid hold, or execute a follow-up attack.  Grabbing someone makes it much harder to avoid that Haymarket, after all.  Of course, the grabber has the option. To release his target at any time. 

 

So what does Grab do that it achieves without Hold? 

 

For one, it interrupts any Extra Time Required actions the target is attempting.  It serves as a distraction to the target's concentration, and may even re-orient him enough to affect his OCV (If a brick snatches a sniper around to face him, he will lose track of his own target. 

 

My own suggestion (that is to say, the way I have been doing it) is that a grabbed character who succeeds his initial breakout roll is at 1/2 OCV for ranged attacks and is at 1/2 DCV against the grabber.  If the grabber is unsuccessful with or chooses not to make a follow-up attack immediately (first action in his phase), the grabbed character gains a +2 bonus for his breakout roll. At the end of this phase, the person in the Grab will be free, presumably by his own actions. 

 

Why? Because a grab is not a hold. It is about disadvantaging the target to gain the upper hand with your next move. 

 

With this in mind, a tackle is a grab with a move element, and the penalties that the attacker falls, and his only viable follow up action (if the iooent does not succeed his breakout) is to go into a Hold with the Target falls element. 

 

Both are prone, and the target may even receive partial cover from his own attacker. 

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree that Grab's multiple actions on the same segment does cause some concerns but it does simulate what happens in comics and movies etc.  When someone grabs a target, it shouldn't take to the next phase to do something with the grabbed foe.

[Duke Bushido]

And that's fine; if it doesn't work for you in Supers, don't use them as separate things. 

 

I play mostly not-supers, and the idea that Agent Joe snags a guy by the lapel and the guy in the suitcoat can't escape because he isn't as strong as agent Joe is nine kinds of bass ackwards. 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I play mostly not-supers, and the idea that Agent Joe snags a guy by the lapel and the guy in the suitcoat can't escape because he isn't as strong as agent Joe is nine kinds of bass ackwards. 

 

Really?  Because that seems perfectly reasonable.  You grab me.  I am weaker than you.  I cannot escape from your superior strength.  Isn't that how a hold works?

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Really?  Because that seems perfectly reasonable.  You grab me.  I am weaker than you.  I cannot escape from your superior strength.  Isn't that how a hold works?

 

Duke's whole point is that a Grab and a Hold are different.

 

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That would seem like something you could balance with drawbacks, like Haymaker.  Penalties to OCV and DCV, take damage on impact, you fall down, etc.  The idea here is to simulate something people can do in real life.  I can do a running tackle on someone, grabbing them and knocking them down.  Prohibiting characters in a game from doing what a 57 year old man with poor health can do seems poor game design to me.

 

Now, let's look at that Grab and Trip and Full Move maneuver that you are looking for.

 

I will  note first that many things we can do in real life take more than one phase.

 

If we combine a Grab and a Trip, we get -2 OCV and -4 DCV. Accepting that "you fall" creates a drawback, let's make that only -3 DCV.

 

Why do we need this to also allow a full move?  By the rules, you can run as a half move and tackle with this combined Grab and Trip maneuver.  To me, we now have a very serviceable non-martial Tackle. Maybe a great football player can make a full move and tackle - he spent points on that.  A 57 yo man doesn't have the same skill at tackling as a trained football player in his prime.

 

If you want to add a full move element, what drawbacks do you suggest to offset this added advantage? -2 OCV is already significant, and -3 DCV makes it pretty tough for anyone to miss you (Haymaker's -5 is not a lot more disadvantageous)?  It doesn't seem like it is delayed, like a Haymaker. I don't think the attacker takes more damage than the target (and the lack of damage to the target is no more unrealistic here than with a Trip). But I also don't think that full move is essential to a "normal person" untrained tackle.

[unclevlad]

And, why should we even TRY to make a non-martial maneuver combining so many elements?  Come on, at some point, *training* is implied in order to do this.  Of some type.  I think the massive hang-up here is the alternative is stated to be "martial arts" maneuvers.  

 

If anything?  For specialized single maneuvers?  Let them buy *that* maneuver for a few points.  Don't demand the "you must buy 10 points in martial maneuvers" when the training is focused, particularly when the focus is not combat.  There's a simple 3 or 4 point Maneuver...+0/+0, FMove, Opponent Falls is 4, add You Fall for 3.  Is it so hard to consider that defensive football players learn THIS, as a form of combat skill?  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Maybe its worth building all of the current ordinary maneuvers and showing how they do not all break down to 0 points.  Almost none of them do, as a matter of fact.  If you're trying to break them down to 0 points then you're going to make crippling maneuvers.  Dodge alone costs 3 points.  It has no drawbacks.  Like I said, the system laid out originally in Ninja Hero probably isn't the ideal way to build new base maneuvers but its the only system we have so we either come to a consensus on what constitutes a normal, free maneuver or there's not much point in discussing any of this.

 

And as I said above, anybody can run up and crash into someone, knocking them down and holding on.  This is not some fancy maneuver that takes a lot of skill to attempt.  I'm not going to be very good at it, but I can do it, and I have had zero training.  That's kind of the definition of a basic maneuver isn't it?

[Duke Bushido]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Really?  Because that seems perfectly reasonable.  You grab me.  I am weaker than you.  I cannot escape from your superior strength.  Isn't that how a hold works?

 

Yes. 

 

That is _exactly_ how a hold works.  As Hugh mentioned, that is _not_ the only option for a _grab_. 

 

I can come up behind someone and spin them around by their shoulder, lining them up for a sunker punch.  I could do this to a guy twice my size (so I had better hit him real, real good.      )  I can _grab_ him by the shoulder, even if there is zero chance that I can _hold_ him by the shoulder. 

In fact, that particular grab is almost impossible to turn into a hold because you pull across / away from the target to turn the target.  We're you to try and _hold_ after that sort of thing, your wrist-- and to some extent, your fingers-- would have to have joints that flex 180 degrees because your palm will be more toward you than it is toward them. 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

That is _exactly_ how a hold works.  As Hugh mentioned, that is _not_ the only option for a _grab_. 

 

Right, you can grab and hold, grab and throw, or grab and squeeze, or grab and hurl the target to the ground.  Once you have grabbed a target, you have the option to do any of those things.

 

Quote

If the Grabber chooses to Squeeze, Slam, or Throw the Grabbed character in the same Segment in which he (the Grabber) successfully Grabbed him, the Squeeze, Slam, or Throw does not require an Attack Roll (it automatically succeeds) and takes no time.

 

If you don't do that right away, then you have to make another roll to hit, later, on your next phase to accomplish any of these goals (against a ½ DCV target)

[Scott Ruggels]

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Really?  Because that seems perfectly reasonable.  You grab me.  I am weaker than you.  I cannot escape from your superior strength.  Isn't that how a hold works?

 

I could draw a diagram.

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Maybe its worth building all of the current ordinary maneuvers and showing how they do not all break down to 0 points.  Almost none of them do, as a matter of fact.  If you're trying to break them down to 0 points then you're going to make crippling maneuvers.  Dodge alone costs 3 points.  It has no drawbacks.

 

I believe it has the "drawback" of having no negative impact on any opponent, but serving only to make you more difficult to hit.

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

And as I said above, anybody can run up and crash into someone, knocking them down and holding on.  This is not some fancy maneuver that takes a lot of skill to attempt.  I'm not going to be very good at it, but I can do it, and I have had zero training.  That's kind of the definition of a basic maneuver isn't it?

 

When someone runs into me (most often accidentally), they do not automatically knock me down. If someone does shove me to the ground, they do not automatically get a firm grip on me at the same time. Someone trying to grab me and shove me to the ground, falling with me, might well grab me and neither of us falls (I maintain my footing and they are holding on), or knock us both down and lose their grip on me. None of this indicates that they can make that attempt after a full move because (SURPRISE) the real world lacks segment and phase markers.

 

Why don't you show us YOUR proposed maneuver and explain how you derived the mechanics (OCV, DCV penalties, etc.) and how you concluded that it is not unbalanced as compared to other ordinary maneuvers, and inferior to martial maneuvers which achieve similar results, and for which points must be paid.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I believe it has the "drawback" of having no negative impact on any opponent, but serving only to make you more difficult to hit.

 

Sure, but I was referring to the martial arts build structure. Although one could argue that making someone miss is a negative impact.

 

Quote

When someone runs into me (most often accidentally), they do not automatically knock me down

 

...when someone turns around and accidentally hits me with their hand, that doesn't deal much damage to me either.  That's not an argument against a maneuver, because that's not an attack maneuver.  A flying tackle is exactly what it sounds like, its an attempt to dive on someone, grab them, and knock them down.  Why is this even an argument?  We all know what an attack maneuver is, we all know what this is describing.

 

I already wrote up the maneuver several pages ago before this started to go in circles

[Hugh Neilson]

On 3/8/2023 at 11:35 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I already wrote up the maneuver several pages ago before this started to go in circles

 

Humour me and post the exact maneuver you are suggesting should be as available as a Strike, Dodge or Block - or more to the point, as a Trip, Grab or Move Through, given that you want to combine the first two with elements of the third.

[GDShore]

I am late to this but it has been a good read. I played football in high school as probably did most of you, I did not play on either offense or defense I kicked field goals. I was 5'3" tall and weighed 97 lbs. Under 40 yds. I was lethal, one field goal try was from the 32, the snap was botched, the holder fumbled it then flipped it back to me. I ran with it and at the 2 yd. line I thought I had a touchdown when I got grabbed, then lifted and flung over a shoulder and began an unpleasant trip back up the field. WE had crossed the 15 when the ref finally blew the play dead, there was a long argument about whether I had been tackled, the tackler said my knees never hit the ground so no tackle, the ref ruled a grab was a tackle.