Tactical Principals

[radioKAOS]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

I agree it is poorly worded and can be confusing' date=' 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.[/quote']

This might help in This Thread 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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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' date=' by similar reasoning, you could abort to the block portion of Defensive Throw if you sacrificed the throw portion.[/quote']

Yes, you can.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

Good stuff, well worth a bump.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

Off hand I'd say a move out the way block does not stop the mov througher - they just miss' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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

 

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]

Re: Tactical Principals

 

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

 

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.