Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

[Dust Raven]

Based in part on the later post in the Tactical Principals thread, I've developed an optional rule for blocking Move Throughs. Here goes...

 

All attempts to Block a Move Through incure an OCV Penalty equal to the attacker's velocity/5, with a minumum of -1 and a maximum of -3. The defender has the option of Blocking in such a way that, if successful, forces the attacker to continue his move as if the attack missed normally, or attempts to force the attacker to stop one hex in front of the defender. For the former, the result treated exactly as if the attacker simply missed, and they attack continues to move past his target to his full allotted movement. In the latter, if the block roll is successful, the attack still rolls damage, but only to determine KB; neither the attacker nor the defender take damage from the Move Through. The defender may resist KB using any means at his disposal as normal. If the defender takes any KB, it is resolved normally. If the defender does not take KB, the attacker is treated as if he stuck normally and takes full damage from his own Move Through, though the defender still take no damage.

 

Any comments, suggestions, criticisms, objections, etc.?

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Sounds good! (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Very nice idea although I might favour both parties taking some or all of the damage on a successful block - especially as there is the option of avoiding the collision - after all there is still a considerable impact.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Very nice idea although I might favour both parties taking some or all of the damage on a successful block - especially as there is the option of avoiding the collision - after all there is still a considerable impact.

 

The only reason I didn't allow for that is the simple fact that in all cases, a successful Block means the target take's no damage. With my optional rule, the blocker can take damage, but only from KB, which is the risk of attempted to stop the attacker and forcing him to take damage instead.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

The only reason I didn't allow for that is the simple fact that in all cases' date=' a successful Block means the target take's no damage. With my optional rule, the blocker [i']can[/i] take damage, but only from KB, which is the risk of attempted to stop the attacker and forcing him to take damage instead.

 

I can see the logic but the blocker under your system has the option of avoiding all damage - it is only if they want to potentially deliver some and deliberately put themselves in harms way that they risk injury - and I feel it should be a relatively substantial risk as this sort of manouvre is going to amke a lot of cgharacters think twice about doing move throughs in the first place.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I can see the logic but the blocker under your system has the option of avoiding all damage - it is only if they want to potentially deliver some and deliberately put themselves in harms way that they risk injury - and I feel it should be a relatively substantial risk as this sort of manouvre is going to amke a lot of cgharacters think twice about doing move throughs in the first place.

 

Hence the OCV penalty. It makes blocking a move through harder from the get go. Should the penalty be greater, or perhaps without a max of -3?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Based in part on the later post in the Tactical Principals thread, I've developed an optional rule for blocking Move Throughs. Here goes...

 

All attempts to Block a Move Through incure an OCV Penalty equal to the attacker's velocity/5, with a minumum of -1 and a maximum of -3. The defender has the option of Blocking in such a way that, if successful, forces the attacker to continue his move as if the attack missed normally, or attempts to force the attacker to stop one hex in front of the defender. For the former, the result treated exactly as if the attacker simply missed, and they attack continues to move past his target to his full allotted movement. In the latter, if the block roll is successful, the attack still rolls damage, but only to determine KB; neither the attacker nor the defender take damage from the Move Through. The defender may resist KB using any means at his disposal as normal. If the defender takes any KB, it is resolved normally. If the defender does not take KB, the attacker is treated as if he stuck normally and takes full damage from his own Move Through, though the defender still take no damage.

 

Any comments, suggestions, criticisms, objections, etc.?

 

I don't like a block enabling damage. Bracing and putting strength, or some such against the attacker, no problem... great maneuver for the super tough, but allowing a maneuver that negates damage to somehow cause (more) damage to the attacker... not so much.

 

We have martial throw for using velocity against them into the ground... and I'd be more comfortable with allowing "Reflection vs. Hand to Hand" with some kind of cost simlilar to missile reflection in order to do "damage with a block."

 

As it stands, my games would almost 100% say a block vs. move through would be some kind of "slap it past you" maneuver. The SFX of the move through combine with the SFX of a block to create a limited SFX event. That is the simplest ruling. Variations where that would not work are likely to be rare and should be given "one off" status if the situation is really unique.

[Zed-F]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I'd have to agree with RDU Neil here. Blocking a move through is just redirecting the attacker's momentum in a safe manner in 99% of all cases that don't involve outright dodging. Either you're shoving him offtarget just as he's about to land, or you're sidestepping his attack and redirecting him as he passes by.

[gojira]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Hmm, this is a rather cool idea. I think Sean and RDU Neil have some points though.

 

How about something like this: A character with Missile Deflection, an appropriate SFX (maybe a shield, being big and very tough, having power armour with a high PD, etc), and enough STR to lift his attacker can make a Power skill roll to deliver damage to an attacker making a Mover Through. The Power skill roll is made at a penalty of attackers's Velocity / 5. If the Power skill roll is successful, then the defender may block as normal and if the block is successful, each side takes 50% damage and the attacker is stopped in the defender's hex. If either the Power skill roll or the block roll fails, the defender fails and the attacker may proceed as normal.

 

 

Another idea: allow a defender with a full phase held to use a block and, if the block is successful, then counter attack a move through immediately before the attacker moves out of the defender's hex. The defender effectively uses his first held half phase to block, then his second held half phase to counter attack. The counter attack must be a HTH attack with an appropriate SFX.

 

 

* * *

 

As I was thinking about this, I start thinking about counter attacks. I used to fence a little, and there are counter attacks in fencing. I don't see anything like that on the Hero manuvers chart, not even the martial one.

 

I wonder if Hero needs some sort of counter attack manuver. The SFX should match. Fists should counter a hand attack, blades should counter a weapon attack, maybe even ranged attacks can counter ranged attacks wuxia chi warrior style. Not sure where I'm going with this, just thought it might be a usefull addition.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

 

As I was thinking about this, I start thinking about counter attacks. I used to fence a little, and there are counter attacks in fencing. I don't see anything like that on the Hero manuvers chart, not even the martial one.

 

I wonder if Hero needs some sort of counter attack manuver. The SFX should match. Fists should counter a hand attack, blades should counter a weapon attack, maybe even ranged attacks can counter ranged attacks wuxia chi warrior style. Not sure where I'm going with this, just thought it might be a usefull addition.

 

I think the issue of Counter Attacks is a crucial one that needs to be dissected. Maybe another thread is a better place... 'cause I think we need to discuss...

1) Violating the segmented action/movement standard that is Hero. Attacking off your phase... combining a defensive and offensive maneuver in one, etc.

 

2) Does the fact that blocking sets you up for first attack next action fulfill the need for counterattack, thus not violating the segmented action standard? (In many ways, I think this does work. In Hero it is two actions, Block then attack, which is different than a fencing riposte or a blocking elbow strike which in real life are trained as a "single maneuver." This a place where Hero's two separate actions are good for game balance and close enough that we don't need counter strikes... at least IMO.)

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I still would rather rule on this based on the physics, to generate something that wouldn't make eyebrows raise or eyes rolls whenever it comes up in play.

 

"I hit him going how fast, and he just blocked it, and so I just stopped and neither of us moved and neither of us took any damage? What????"

 

[prestidigitator]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Hmm. For one thing I try not to restrict the SFX of a character's powers too much, but I won't hesitate to decide as GM the SFX of a Block or other maneuver. Sorry. That's me. If you want to get out of the way, use a Dodge (or maybe a Dive for Cover). If you are actively countering the actual attack by stopping the movement of the attacker's limb/body, that's a Block. Don't push me too far into the, "anything can have any SFX," argument, 'cause I'll start, "Blocking," your Pre Attacks.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Hmm. For one thing I try not to restrict the SFX of a character's powers too much' date=' but I won't hesitate to decide as GM the SFX of a Block or other maneuver. Sorry. That's me. If you want to get out of the way, use a Dodge (or maybe a Dive for Cover). If you are actively countering the actual attack by stopping the movement of the attacker's limb/body, that's a Block. Don't push me too far into the, "anything can have any SFX," argument, 'cause I'll start, "Blocking," your Pre Attacks. [/quote']

 

I'm with you on this. I usually say, "Describe what you are trying to do, and I'll give you the best maneuver option."

 

If they say "I puff up my chest and stop him cold with my might pectorals!" well, that is brace-and-take-the-hit... not block. I'll give 'em a chance to change their idea if they don't like my ruling.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I still would rather rule on this based on the physics, to generate something that wouldn't make eyebrows raise or eyes rolls whenever it comes up in play.

 

"I hit him going how fast, and he just blocked it, and so I just stopped and neither of us moved and neither of us took any damage? What????"

 

 

 

Agreed.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Does the fact that blocking sets you up for first attack next action fulfill the need for counterattack' date=' thus not violating the segmented action standard? (In many ways, I think this does work. In Hero it is two actions, Block then attack, which is different than a fencing riposte or a blocking elbow strike which in real life are trained as a "single maneuver." This a place where Hero's two separate actions are good for game balance and close enough that we don't need counter strikes... at least IMO.)[/quote']

For purposes of this kind of action, I allow a character to Delay one Phase and then Abort their next normal Phase rather than using the Delayed one. That means you can:

1. Delay a Phase and wait for an incoming attack.
   
2. Abort the next Phase to Block when the attack comes in.
   
3. Use the Delayed Phase to attack back immediately (or, if you prefer, first in the next Segment even if you wouldn't normally have a Phase then).

If you go with that, I think it is definitely sufficient; it really does allow the defender to go before the attacker next time (rather than depending on having a Phase before or on the same Segment as the attacker's next one).

 

Of course, how that interacts with Sweep is a little odd. I haven't really dealt with that. I'd probably require the defender to successfully Block all attacks against them in the Sweep, or at least that last one, to pull it off. I don't know.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I still would rather rule on this based on the physics, to generate something that wouldn't make eyebrows raise or eyes rolls whenever it comes up in play.

 

"I hit him going how fast, and he just blocked it, and so I just stopped and neither of us moved and neither of us took any damage? What????"

 

 

That's precicely what I'm attempting. In this optional rule, there are several possible outcomes, all of which sound realonable in a Heroic or Supeheroic setting.

 

If Blocking in a way that redirects the attack:

1) You fail and the attack hits you normally.

2) You deflect the attack, you and the attacker take no damage and the attack continues along his path until his movement runs out.

 

If Blocking to stop the attack dead:

1) You fail and the attack hits you normally.

2) You succeed, you and the attack take no damage, but you take KB.

3) You succeed, you take no damage or KB and the attacker takes damage as if the attack succeeded but the target took no KB.

 

I can see where that last option might cause problems. It's incredibly difficult to pull off though. For one, you have to actually succeed at the Block roll, which with this rule has a penalty to the roll just for attempting it. Also, you have to somehow avoid all KB, which is a trick only tough immovable like characters can even attempt in the first place. There is just to way that little billy is gonna stop the Flash dead in his tracks. Even if little Billy succeeds at the block (maybe he rolled a 3), he'll still take the KB or the Flash will just pass him by. However, if the Flash were to attempt a Move Through on the Hulk, who probably wouldn't take KB anyway, he's in trouble.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Oh, and this rules is also intended to reinforce the danger of attempting to do Move Throughs on those immovalbe targets. Now, only if you cleanly miss will the attacker avoid damage.

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

There's already a mechanic in the game for this...if the target takes no knockback from the move through, he doesn't move. Otherwise, he moves. You can be the baddest Bruce Lee mojo bugger on the planet, and none of your moves is going to let you stand in front of an oncoming freight train and say, "Oh, I Martial Blocked it."

[prestidigitator]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Oh' date=' and this rules is also intended to reinforce the danger of attempting to do Move Throughs on those immovalbe targets. Now, only if you cleanly miss will the attacker avoid damage.[/quote']

Hmm. Last I checked immovable objects don't normally perform Blocks....

[Threnody]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Doesn't Fantasy Hero have a Maneuver for pikes facing cavalry? Couldn't you do over that for unarmed fighting?

 

I think it'd be simpler.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

There's already a mechanic in the game for this...if the target takes no knockback from the move through' date=' he doesn't move. Otherwise, he moves. You can be the baddest Bruce Lee mojo bugger on the planet, and none of your moves is going to let you stand in front of an oncoming freight train and say, "Oh, I Martial Blocked it."[/quote']

 

A litteral freight train, definately. A guy running real fast to slam into me, I think can be blocked, and in such a way that the blocked will take no damage from the impact but still be knocked down or across the room, cinematically speaking.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Doesn't Fantasy Hero have a Maneuver for pikes facing cavalry? Couldn't you do over that for unarmed fighting?

 

I think it'd be simpler.

 

I don't have Fantasy Hero, but a friend does. I'll have to see if I can borrow it.

[Boulder]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

You should be able to block since all intended purposes a Move Threw is a hand to hand attack. As for the frieght train aspect, um, you can't block a area effect attack, like a frieght train or gozilla wanting to step on you, you better off diving for cover!

 

Missile deflection for a hand attack is well....corney

Block and throw is a very valid defence against movethrews but relize if you block it than the attack did "not" hit so the attacker takes no damage from the attack. Throwing is much better only if you still have an action on that phase, while blocking can be a abort action.

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

IMO, the SFX and the mechanic should match. Getting out of the way is Dodge, not Block.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

IMO' date=' the SFX and the mechanic should match. Getting out of the way is Dodge, not Block.[/quote']

 

Maybe what is happening here is that the superhero concept of blocking has too much sway. Only (really) in super situations is a block a matter of flat out "stopping" the attack. In almost every real situation an effective block is a matter of pushing the attack past you or away from vital areas. The block doesn't meet the attack head on, but is stopping it before full force is achieved, hitting the attack from the side to deflect it, etc. Even shield vs. sword, the effective block pushes the blade to the side. A good block doesn't just "take the hit" which should be ruled as an attack vs. the shield, sword doing damage and potentially destroying the blocking object or injuring the blocking arm/leg/hand.

 

Only in supers are blocks consider, "stopping Thor's hammer with the palm of my hand!" or some such craziness. And in those cases, such mighty maneuvers are more of a description of "Holy crap Count Nefario is bada$$!" rather than "Holy Crap Count Nefario has amazing blocking technique!"

 

I think, to Kristopher's point, that Hero's openness to SFX divorced from mechanic can have very jarring results in play that are unintended, and may not crop up more than one in five times, but when they do it's a matter of "What the fudge?"

 

I'm very much in the camp that maneuvers, unlike generic powers, are very much SFX based... and interpreting them with the same "Any SFX goes" is not conducive to consistent game play... where as "Any SFX for an EB" is often just fine.

 

As in many of these discussions, the root cause of disagreement is in some fundamental issues of interpretation of Hero... differences and inconsistencies that have cropped up over 25 years of play.