Rules that have changed

[Edsel]

I have, and several of my friends, have been playing Hero system since the old 1st Ed Champions days. Recently we have been discussing rules that have changed over the years. Or at least rules that we remember being different long ago. The trouble is we can't really figure out when they changed (what edition) or if we are just remembering them wrong.

 

1) There used to be a rule that said in the event of a tie that the defender won grab and takeaway attempts. The rule now seems to be that the tie goes to the attacker. When did this rule change, or was it always this way?

 

2) It seems to me that there used to be a rule that performing a half-move before attacking was a -1 OCV modifier. We dropped that rule in the case of melee attacks as a house rule. Now I can find no evidence that the -1 OCV penalty ever existed. I've looked through my 5th, 4th and 1st Edition rules. I no longer have copies of 2nd and 3rd Ed stuff. Does anyone else remember this?

[tesuji]

Re: Rules that have changed

 

2) It seems to me that there used to be a rule that performing a half-move before attacking was a -1 OCV modifier. We dropped that rule in the case of melee attacks as a house rule. Now I can find no evidence that the -1 OCV penalty ever existed. I've looked through my 5th, 4th and 1st Edition rules. I no longer have copies of 2nd and 3rd Ed stuff. Does anyone else remember this?

 

IIRC this was a 3rd ed rule which got dropped for 4th. i remember it, more as a bonus for staying still.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Rules that have changed

 

1) There used to be a rule that said in the event of a tie that the defender won grab and takeaway attempts. The rule now seems to be that the tie goes to the attacker. When did this rule change' date=' or was it always this way?[/quote']

 

The rule itself hasn't changed, just the definitions. Legally, the one with the weapon is more likely to be the attacker, so DOJ just changed the terminology, not the rule.

 

[keithcurtis]

Re: Rules that have changed

 

The rule itself hasn't changed, just the definitions. Legally, the one with the weapon is more likely to be the attacker, so DOJ just changed the terminology, not the rule.

 

Wouldn't the one with the weapon in a takeaway attempt logically be the defender? People don't try to take away a weapon they already have. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

 

Keith "???" Curtis

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rules that have changed

 

I might be wrong (seems like I often am lately), but the rules for the "attacker" winning a tie only apply when the "defender" is attempting the escape. Technically the grabbed character is acting as the attacker for purposes of that roll, so he must overcome the grabber to succeed instead of just tie. I think the same applies then the target is initially grabbed (disarmed/takaway) for the same reason, the "defender's" attempt to escape the effect is seen as the attacker. Also, doesn't a tie when performing a Disarm or Takaway result in a standoff; both characters have ahold of the object but neither have controll of it?

[Fox1]

Re: Rules that have changed

 

Also' date=' doesn't a tie when performing a Disarm or Takaway result in a standoff; both characters have ahold of the object but neither have controll of it?[/quote']

 

No. Page 386 5th revised: "If the attacker's BODY total is higher or the rolls tie, the Disarm succeeds"

 

I was somewhat stunned. I've always played by "ties go to the defender", so this ruling and the inability to find anything saying different (BBB doesn't mention ties for disarm) has me thinking my mind is going...