Should Abort be automatic?

[Sean Waters]

I've been thinking about this recently, and it seems odd that you can automatically abort to a defensive maneouvre, whatever the disparity in ability between the parties.

 

I'm thinking of requiring some sort of roll to abort, either a DEX off or a DEX roll with a penalty equal to the number of segments you are bringing your phase forward. I'm also wondering what the consequences of a 'failed abort' should be.

 

Thoughts? Pros and cons? Other ideas?

 

I am also trialing a new board debating technique where I just throw out an idea with little or no justification and see what comes back, rather than presenting a fully formed, if often poorly thought through, argument. We'll see how that works, shall we?

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

What do you mean with "disparity in ability"?

[Markdoc]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Heh. The new technique will save you some time, if nothing else.

 

As for the idea, I think the primacy of abort is justified on several grounds:

1.We prioritise defence over attack, as a general principle

2. The cost of an abort - the full loss of the next phase - is a relatively heavy one. In a situation where there is a relevant disparity in ability between the parties (relevant in this case being OCV/DCV, DEX/SPD), the ability to abort is actually less useful. If you have a really high DCV compared to your attacker's OCV, you gain relatively little in exchange for losing an action since he probably would not have hit you anyway. If it's the reverse, you are giving up a phase, and may get up getting hit anyway. When the disparity in SPD is great, in favour of the defender, they can use their extra actions defensively and still attack on "off phases" (this is actually more flexible than aborting). When it's in favour of the attacker, aborting really sets you up as a punching bag: it's a desperation tactic. Abort is actually most useful when the two foes are evenly matched.

 

In terms of simple pros and cons.

Pro ..... I don't see any Pro's here. What is the actual in-play problem this change is trying to address?

Cons .... 1. Given that aborting to defence can already carry a heavy penalty, I am not sure making it harder is a good idea. 2. It's an additional pair of dice rolls in a combat system that is already dice-roll heavy. 3. It places further combat advantages on the side of those characters who already have substantial combat advantages: I am quite certain we don't need that.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

What do you mean with "disparity in ability"?

 

1 SPD, 5 DEX octogenerian can Abort to Dodge 12 SPD, 38 DEX Speedster.

 

To the underlying issue, allowing Abort to be automatic certainly favours defense (and character survivability). The high disparity example above is obviously extreme, and is unlikely to come up in play. Just deciding that noncombatants can't abort and/or don't have full access to all the combat maneuvers would resolve that issue.

 

I could see removing automatic aborts if one wanted a game where defense is less certain. How much less certain depends on how you structure the rolloff. A standard rolloff probably means a 50/50 chance on average. One could allow a bonus if the character is using a defensive move, and/or a penalty for accelerating the segment the character would normally move in. A DEX roll penalized by acceleration of phases would have very different effects depending on the game. If PC's generally have 3 - 4 SPD and 13 - 18 DEX, the odds for some Aborts could be pretty poor. If the average is 6 SPD and 23+ DEX, Aborts are a much safer approach.

 

I suspect this would motivate a greater focus on offense and passive defense, especially if success in Abort is unlikely, since use of active defensive moves would become less certain. I've seen a lot of Force Field reliant Supers Abort the first phase of combat on a pretty regular basis. If they need a 13- to avoid that 12 DC Blast striking them with negligible defenses, Force Field Supers are probably out.

 

Seems like a "gritty dial setting" option - it's not like it's not viable. Would you also need to roll to use a delayed phase for a defensive action?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

I agree with Markdoc. I see no benefit to this houserule.

[Greywind]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

If Abort is automatic, won't a character automatically Abort to a defense if attacked?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Abort IS automatic. Do you find characters automatically abort to Block or Dodge when attacked?

 

Make it less likely to succeed, and there is a reduced likelihood characters will sacrifice their next phase to Abort. If you want to discourage aborting in the game, then that's a feature rather than a flaw. If you want to encourage Aborting, then this change does the opposite, so it's a bad idea. If you envision a game where the Titanic Heroes and Villains slug it out toe to toe, maybe you want to reduce or eliminate Aborts to defensive moves. If you envision a game where the wily characters Dodge or Block at the last second, then making Abort more difficult is not the way to go.

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

1 SPD' date=' 5 DEX octogenerian can Abort to Dodge 12 SPD, 38 DEX Speedster.[/quote']

Could be, or he means something totally different. I cant discuss until I know what we discuss about.

 

 

I suspect this would motivate a greater focus on offense and passive defense, especially if success in Abort is unlikely, since use of active defensive moves would become less certain. I've seen a lot of Force Field reliant Supers Abort the first phase of combat on a pretty regular basis. If they need a 13- to avoid that 12 DC Blast striking them with negligible defenses, Force Field Supers are probably out.

 

Seems like a "gritty dial setting" option - it's not like it's not viable. Would you also need to roll to use a delayed phase for a defensive action?

Actually, I think it could make the combat more passive. Holding your phase (so you can abort to that phase with little DEX penalty or maybe even autoamtic) would have a great value. Right now it is mostly used to intercept attacks.

 

If Abort is automatic' date=' won't a character automatically Abort to a defense if attacked?[/quote']

What I understand is that he means "Should an Aborted Action Automatically go first?"

 

Right now, by RAW, it does. Always.

Sean considers changing that to a DEX roll, propably with penalty based on how long until his next phase.

[Greywind]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Just because you Aborted does not mean the active defense will be successful. If the attack succeeds then the Aborting character has lost a phase with no gain. Seems pretty self-balancing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

1 SPD, 5 DEX octogenerian can Abort to Dodge 12 SPD, 38 DEX Speedster.

.....

 

Precisely.

 

One of the things that triggered this thought was the idea of NPC tactics. Against a single target attack, even a 10 DEX normal can abort to a Dive For Cover of 2m which will avoid the attack 50% of the time, no matter how fast or combat efficient the attacker is.

 

This then becomes a good tactic for agents fighting superheroes, especially if they normally fall over after one solid blow. They last a bit longer, well, twice as long, because it takes twice as many hits to put them down, which gives their companions twice as long to hit the supers with whatever they have.

 

It is also an excellent way to disrupt a multiple attack.

 

Sure I could say 'NPCs are not going to do that', but IT MAKES SENSE for them to do it, and they are supposed to be trained agents.

 

The trouble is making sense makes combats last a lot longer. I do not really see why someone who is SPD 2 and has just taken a phase on segment 12, should be able to take a defensive action before someone of higher DEX who is SPD 12 acting on segment 1, at least not automatically.

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Precisely.

 

One of the things that triggered this thought was the idea of NPC tactics. Against a single target attack, even a 10 DEX normal can abort to a Dive For Cover of 2m which will avoid the attack 50% of the time, no matter how fast or combat efficient the attacker is.

 

This then becomes a good tactic for agents fighting superheroes, especially if they normally fall over after one solid blow. They last a bit longer, well, twice as long, because it takes twice as many hits to put them down, which gives their companions twice as long to hit the supers with whatever they have.

Look at the downside:

The agent won't do damage for a looong time. Also diving for cover gives you all the penalties for being prone (can't be avoided with Breakfall or Acrobatics). And if you fail, you have 1d6 less to roll for Knockback resistance (thus you are even more likely to be stunned or knocked out) and the hth-attacker get's +2 OCV.

Also those 2 meters don't help of the foes has even 1 meter extra reach (heroic games tend to have more).

 

Sure I could say 'NPCs are not going to do that'' date=' but IT MAKES SENSE for them to do it, and they are supposed to be trained agents.[/quote']

It makes no sense that people shoot bullets at superman. And then throw the empty gun.

The entire physics makes no sense beyond a certain "basic premise".

It makes no sense that a single foe actually tries to attack the super with a readied action on it's own, that just took out his 6-12 colleagues while they attack together.

 

If at all the GM should not use Dive for Cover because it is simply to much work to track the effects.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

1 SPD, 5 DEX octogenerian can Abort to Dodge 12 SPD, 38 DEX Speedster.

 

I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but we're talking about 6th ed here and I couldn't notice that the one problem of having CV as a seperate characteristic is that in theory, the above examples have the same combat value. Therefore the 80 yo has an 11- chance to block the speedster! Whereas if we were talking pre-6th then the CV for the Speedster would be 13 and the 80 yo would be technically 2 (but generously a three) so gramps blockin would be

2-13+11=0. So unless the speedster has unluck or rolls a 3 then gramps is going to miss and the speedster hits.

 

To sum up though the question at hand, cinematically, the mechanic works fine. If you want a more "realistic" game then block shouldn't be automatic. Have you guys tried to block a punch? Its alot harder than it seems.

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but we're talking about 6th ed here and I couldn't notice that the one problem of having CV as a seperate characteristic is that in theory' date=' the above examples have the same combat value. Therefore the 80 yo has an 11- chance to block the speedster![/quote']

In the first attack.

9- for the second

7- for the third

5- for the fourth

 

And nobody says the speedsters has to use full endurance on each of the followup attacks.

 

Whereas if we were talking pre-6th then the CV for the Speedster would be 13 and the 80 yo would be technically 2 (but generously a three) so gramps blockin would be

2-13+11=0. So unless the speedster has unluck or rolls a 3 then gramps is going to miss and the speedster hits.

With those values I doubt Gramps has OCV and DCV on par with the speedsters anymore than he would in 5E.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Look at the downside:

The agent won't do damage for a looong time.

 

So what? Is the agent alone? if he is, he should be Diving for Cover and fleeing, as he isn't a threat to the Super. If there are a dozen agents, each with a 3 SPD, battling a 6 SPD Super, then Diving for Cover effectively negates the hero's SPD advantage.

 

Phase 12: Super moves first; targeted Agent Dives for Cover (probably needs 10 to 12-, so likely succeeds); remaining 11 agents co-ordinate fire on Super.

 

Phase 2: Super attacks an agent, who Dives for Cover. This one fails (we'll use 50/50 for simplicity) so 11 agents left.

 

Phase 4: Super attacks an agent (if he delays, they delay and the agents get an indefinite delay of the hero, so any other objective is accomplished while Our Hero stands staring at the agents). He dives for cover; Super misses. Ph 12 DFC agent stands up, and these 10 agents Co-ordinate their attacks.

 

Phase 6: Super attacks an agent, who aborts but fails DFC and is KO'd. "only" 10 left.

 

Phase 8: Super attacks an agent (if he delays, they delay and the agents get an indefinite delay of the hero, so any other objective is accomplished while Our Hero stands staring at the agents). He dives for cover; Super misses. Phase 4 DFC stands up and these 9 agents Co-ordinate their attacks.

 

Phase 10: Super attacks an agent, who aborts but fails DFC and is KO'd. "only" 9 left.

 

Phase 12: Super attacks an agent (if he delays, they delay and the agents get an indefinite delay of the hero, so any other objective is accomplished while Our Hero stands staring at the agents). He dives for cover; Super misses. Phase 8 DFC stands up and 8 other agents Co-ordinate their attacks.

 

Now, it will take a while to take the agents down even if one shot lands every phase, but it takes a lot less time, and the Super takes a lot less co-ordinated blaster fire.

 

Also diving for cover gives you all the penalties for being prone (can't be avoided with Breakfall or Acrobatics). And if you fail' date=' you have 1d6 less to roll for Knockback resistance (thus you are even more likely to be stunned or knocked out) and the hth-attacker get's +2 OCV.[/quote']

 

So what? His alternative is that he's likely hit and KO'd. This gives him a chance at getting an action later. The best Agent tactics delay the takedown to maximize the attacks the agents as a group get on the Super in the hopes of taking him down before they are all taken down. They're elite trained agents - teamwork is their best friend.

 

Looks good on the news when the Super is pounding prone agents, too.

 

Also those 2 meters don't help of the foes has even 1 meter extra reach (heroic games tend to have more).

 

You're assuming the Super closes to an adjacent space if he has the Reach to attack from further away.

 

It makes no sense that people shoot bullets at superman. And then throw the empty gun.

 

Do they do so in your game? Let me rephrase - do CREDIBLE OPPONENTS do so in your game? The Superman model that sees such "tactics" aren't based on combat being a challenge to Superman. His challenge is generally to figure out the enemy's plan so he can actually be there to stop it, and/or neutralize whatever gimmick they are using to prevent his easily stopping them. My experience is that combat is the real threat in Supers games, and the Supers can't just stand there, let the agents empty full clips that just bounce off their heroic chests, then throw the blaster rifles at them. BTW, the Supers don't DUCK if the agent throws a rifle at them either!

 

The entire physics makes no sense beyond a certain "basic premise".

 

True but irrelevant.

 

It makes no sense that a single foe actually tries to attack the super with a readied action on it's own' date=' that just took out his 6-12 colleagues while they attack together.[/quote']

 

No, it doesn't. The agent should flee, and most would in my games. Unless their purpose was not to take down the Super, but to distract him for a period of time while still more agents accomplish the actual mission. Teamwork, remember? We'll sacrifice these ten squads of agents to the prison system for a while so the stealth team can retrieve the Magnificent McGuffin.

 

If at all the GM should not use Dive for Cover because it is simply to much work to track the effects.

 

So opponents should not use tactics that make sense because it's a hassle to track? Should we also prohibit PC's delaying their actions? That makes it harder for the GM to follow his SPD chart (and yes, I have seen GM's get confused and even upset as delayed actions mess up their action order listing).

 

Seriously, I've seen similar tactics on numerous occasions when the Super Team fights a MegaVillain. NO ONE ATTACK - let him make the first move. When he does, the target uses his delayed phase, or aborts, to a defensive action. Everyone else with a held action, blast the villain. Are these tactics also to be denied to the PC's? Why? And if the PC's can use these tactics, successfully, what is preventing these elite agent teams from noticing that, and implementing the same tactics to battle against the PC's?

 

If he missed the target, great, proceed. If he hit, target uses his next phase to back away and take a REC or two while the rest of the team holds the villain off. Superior numbers is an amazingly powerful advantage if (ab)used to full effect.

 

I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but we're talking about 6th ed here and I couldn't notice that the one problem of having CV as a seperate characteristic is that in theory' date=' the above examples have the same combat value. Therefore the 80 yo has an 11- chance to block the speedster! Whereas if we were talking pre-6th then the CV for the Speedster would be 13 and the 80 yo would be technically 2 (but generously a three) so gramps blockin would be 2-13+11=0. So unless the speedster has unluck or rolls a 3 then gramps is going to miss and the speedster hits.[/quote']

 

So Gramps dives for cover - his DEX roll doesn't require the Speedster's CV be beaten. And his 8 DEX reflexes were actually good enough to dive BEFORE the speedster could reach him? Grampa's not going to win, but the issue becomes a bit jarring. Even a Brain in a Jar can Abort before our 12 SPD, 38 DEX speedster can act. Every time!

 

To sum up though the question at hand' date=' cinematically, the mechanic works fine. If you want a more "realistic" game then block shouldn't be automatic. Have you guys tried to block a punch? Its alot harder than it seems.[/quote']

 

Definitely comes back to the feel desired for the game. And an optional rule that makes Abort less automatic could enhance the feel of a game where auto success is detracting from that feel.

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

So what? Is the agent alone? if he is' date=' he should be Diving for Cover and fleeing, as he isn't a threat to the Super. If there are a dozen agents, each with a 3 SPD, battling a 6 SPD Super, then Diving for Cover effectively negates the hero's SPD advantage.[/quote']

12 SPD 3 agents? You use TWELVE SPD 3 agents vs 1 SPD 6 Super in a open battle as example for a equal fight?

He is already done in if he has no area of effect attacks. No mater if they abort or not. The enemy has 6 times as many phases as he, so he can't win that. If just half of them delay to "when he attacks", they hit him without giving him the chance to abort.

 

So what? His alternative is that he's likely hit and KO'd. This gives him a chance at getting an action later. The best Agent tactics delay the takedown to maximize the attacks the agents as a group get on the Super in the hopes of taking him down before they are all taken down. They're elite trained agents - teamwork is their best friend.

Getting the chance to "have an action later" becaue you aren't stunned/K.O. is the point of aborting. The same could happen with abort to dodge. So it sound like aborting works perfectly in that situation.

 

Looks good on the news when the Super is pounding prone agents' date=' too.[/quote']

Really? It's a fight, the enemy has a weapon and allies.

Also Status "prone" does not needs to be "lying on teh ground". You can be prone in flight (without falling) and prone while standing (is explicitly given in Dive for Cover rules).

 

You're assuming the Super closes to an adjacent space if he has the Reach to attack from further away.

He will after the first agent pulls that for the first time.

 

 

 

Do they do so in your game? Let me rephrase - do CREDIBLE OPPONENTS do so in your game? The Superman model that sees such "tactics" aren't based on combat being a challenge to Superman. His challenge is generally to figure out the enemy's plan so he can actually be there to stop it, and/or neutralize whatever gimmick they are using to prevent his easily stopping them. My experience is that combat is the real threat in Supers games, and the Supers can't just stand there, let the agents empty full clips that just bounce off their heroic chests, then throw the blaster rifles at them. BTW, the Supers don't DUCK if the agent throws a rifle at them either!

[...]

True but irrelevant.

[...]

No, it doesn't. The agent should flee, and most would in my games. Unless their purpose was not to take down the Super, but to distract him for a period of time while still more agents accomplish the actual mission. Teamwork, remember? We'll sacrifice these ten squads of agents to the prison system for a while so the stealth team can retrieve the Magnificent McGuffin.

True expressions, but irrelevant. Things in supers make no sense. People not making the best moves in combat makes no sense. Yet it happens in comics aaalllll the time.

 

So opponents should not use tactics that make sense because it's a hassle to track?

The same way we do not normally track agents recovery once they get to -10.

Or make 1-hit agents.

 

They aren' important for the story. PC's and relevant foes are. No reason to track them in more detail then nesseary.

 

So Gramps dives for cover - his DEX roll doesn't require the Speedster's CV be beaten. And his 8 DEX reflexes were actually good enough to dive BEFORE the speedster could reach him? Grampa's not going to win' date=' but the issue becomes a bit jarring. Even a Brain in a Jar can Abort before our 12 SPD, 38 DEX speedster can act. Every time![/quote']

If the speedster attack without surprise effect, sure.

Also, gramps can only abort once. ONE time. The Speedster an just ignore that one lsot phase and get's him next phase, with a even HIGHER chance of success.

If if mutliple Dive for Cover is allowed, it's still limited to half movement distance. And he needs to make a 11- roll every time.

 

Also, does "Brain in a Jar" have movement and SPD? If yes, he is a normal character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

12 SPD 3 agents? You use TWELVE SPD 3 agents vs 1 SPD 6 Super in a open battle as example for a equal fight?

He is already done in if he has no area of effect attacks. No mater if they abort or not. The enemy has 6 times as many phases as he, so he can't win that. If just half of them delay to "when he attacks", they hit him without giving him the chance to abort.

 

As usual, you assume a small portion of the facts will be determinative of the results. I've definitely played in games where a dozen VIPER agents are a limited, or no, threat to a member of the Superteam. 500 normals with saturday night specials have WAY more than 6 times as many phases as any Super. Does that mean the hero is doomed?

 

Getting the chance to "have an action later" becaue you aren't stunned/K.O. is the point of aborting. The same could happen with abort to dodge. So it sound like aborting works perfectly in that situation.

 

Your first point was that the agent's ability to act is so hugely delayed by aborting that it's a bad tactic. So now it's a good tactic? Which is it? Sometimes, the point is not to win, but to stall. If you can stall more effectively by Aborting, it becomes a very good tactic.

 

Although the tactical issue strays far from the point, which was not "the senior citizen will win" but "the senior being able to automatically abort and beat the speedster's reflexes reduces verisimilitude and with it immersion".

 

Really? It's a fight' date=' the enemy has a weapon and allies.[/quote']

 

I would not expect the Agency's media managers to detail that full context in using the images of the Super hitting a man on the ground.

 

He will after the first agent pulls that for the first time.

 

Follows below ***

 

True expressions' date=' but irrelevant. Things in supers make no sense. People not making the best moves in combat makes no sense. Yet it happens in comics aaalllll the time.[/quote']

 

Seriously? People not picking the exact best tactical choice "makes no sense"? In my experience, most people do not consistently and routinely make perfect decisions. They make decisions based on an array of personal misconceptions, biases and perceptions. Pawns in a game select the perfect tactical move every time. Well written, fleshed out characters do not.

 

***and, when people in comics fail to exercise good tactics "aaalllll the time" in the source material, how is it good role playing for every PC to automatically adjust his tactics "after the first agent pulls that for the first time"?

 

The same way we do not normally track agents recovery once they get to -10.

 

Please don't assume that we all run our games like you run your games. I typically track recovery for most characters (it's not that difficult if you're organized - it takes a couple of seconds to note that the agent just taken to -12 is going to recover with 4 STUN after Ph 4 of the next turn), although I'd probably think twice on that theory if running 12 agents per Super. That doesn't mean an agent recovering with 4 STUN leaps back into combat - many will slip away if possible, seeing the battle is lost. So will many Supers, for that matter.

 

I don't buy "one hit agents". One hit from what? Grandma's purse? An attack spread to fill many hexes so it has 1 DC left?

 

They aren' important for the story. PC's and relevant foes are. No reason to track them in more detail then nesseary.

 

If they are not relevant foes, and aren't important for the story, why are we bothering to play out combat with them at all?

 

Also, gramps can only abort once. ONE time. The Speedster an just ignore that one lsot phase and get's him next phase, with a even HIGHER chance of success.

If if mutliple Dive for Cover is allowed, it's still limited to half movement distance. And he needs to make a 11- roll every time.

 

No one is saying Gramps will win. What is being noted is the impact on verisimilitude, and through it immersion. That is then extrapolated out to situations where the opponents are not so disparate in ability. Why is it an 11- roll to avoid a swat from Grandma's handbag as she leans over her walker, and the same 11- roll to avoid the speedster moving just below the speed of sound?

 

Also' date=' does "Brain in a Jar" have movement and SPD? If yes, he is a normal character.[/quote']

 

Which means he can readily DFC from that Super Speedster closing at the speed of sound, even if all he has is a 1 DEX, 1 SPD and a Teleport Switch, and he just acted at the end of Ph 12, before Speedy rushes him at 43 DEX (he's Hurrying) in Ph 1.

[Markdoc]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

A seperate issue here (though one which colours the discussion somewhat) is dive for cover.

That's not an issue with the rules for aborting, per se, because aborting covers other things, but in one specific instance - using dive for cover against melee attacks - you can really abuse the aborting rules.

 

When Dive for cover was first introduced (4E, 155) it was only for area effect attacks, where Dodge - which affected DCV - was irrelevant. This made sense.

It was only later that DFC was extended to also cover melee attacks. I've commented on other threads that we pretty swiftly identified that as a case of poor game design and added a house rule.

 

The house rule is: "You can try to get away from an attack by dodging. This maneuver adds +3 to your DCV. A dodge can also include a half-move, by "diving for cover". A Dive for Cover requires a DEX roll at -1 per 2 M covered and you fall prone at the end of the move. If the distance moved by a successful Dive for Cover takes you outside the area of an AoE attack, you are not affected by that attack. You not have to end your move behind cover to "dive for cover", but if your movement does end behind cover, you may add a further +2 DCV. If the DEX roll required for a Dive for Cover is failed, you instead fall prone at your starting point, and are at half DCV.".

 

Very simple and avoids the problem with DFC.

As for aborting, there still doesn't seem to be a problem with that mechanism at all.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

As usual' date=' you assume a small portion of the facts will be determinative of the results. I've definitely played in games where a dozen VIPER agents are a limited, or no, threat to a member of the Superteam.[/quote']

What powerlevel was the Super? Was he perhaps a brick with enough defense or a martial Artist with enough DC that he could ignore active defense at all?

 

If so, he does not wastes phases on aborting and still will take the enemy down.

 

Your first point was that the agent's ability to act is so hugely delayed by aborting that it's a bad tactic. So now it's a good tactic? Which is it?

A good tactic. With downsides if he does it and more donwsides if he fails (wich has a chance relevantly higher than 25%).

 

Although the tactical issue strays far from the point' date=' which was not "the senior citizen will win" but "the senior being able to automatically abort and beat the speedster's reflexes reduces verisimilitude and with it immersion".[/quote']

You obviously think that the "senior citicen" has no chance at all. Should never have one. I can agree on that. So why are you rolling it out at all?

When you roll dice, you want the Chance to fail being part of the action. You wanted chances to fail, you got chances to fail. It's like saying "you have to roll system operations to turn on the light" and then complain about the chance that your Player Charactes can fail that roll.

 

I would not expect the Agency's media managers to detail that full context in using the images of the Super hitting a man on the ground.

So "aborting to dive for cover" is unablanced because the media might do something with that footage?

Sorry, but that logic is lost on me.

 

Seriously? People not picking the exact best tactical choice "makes no sense"? In my experience' date=' most people do not consistently and routinely make perfect decisions. They make decisions based on an array of personal misconceptions, biases and perceptions. Pawns in a game select the perfect tactical move every time. Well written, fleshed out characters do not[/quote']

Then the GM plays the Mooks beyond thier abilities. So we are again at your "a bad GM will missuse that rule" deadbeat argument.

 

***and' date=' when people in comics fail to exercise good tactics "aaalllll the time" in the source material, how is it good role playing for every PC to automatically adjust his tactics "after the first agent pulls that for the first time"?[/quote']

Because the PC has a brain and is the protagonist, while the Agent is just an extra to somewhat even the fight/have a little danger?

 

Please don't assume that we all run our games like you run your games. I typically track recovery for most characters (it's not that difficult if you're organized - it takes a couple of seconds to note that the agent just taken to -12 is going to recover with 4 STUN after Ph 4 of the next turn)' date=' although I'd probably think twice on that theory if running 12 agents per Super. That doesn't mean an agent recovering with 4 STUN leaps back into combat - many will slip away if possible, seeing the battle is lost. So will many Supers, for that matter.[/quote']

It boils down to two possibilities:

1. This agent is not overly relevant. Wheter you just stop tracking him after reaching -10 or track his recovery and let him surrender/slip away - he is out of combat.

2. He is relevant/would again go into the fight after being barely recovered. You track his recovery either way.

When both techniques/approaches have the same result, wheter you use one or the other makes no difference.

 

No one is saying Gramps will win. What is being noted is the impact on verisimilitude, and through it immersion. That is then extrapolated out to situations where the opponents are not so disparate in ability. Why is it an 11- roll to avoid a swat from Grandma's handbag as she leans over her walker, and the same 11- roll to avoid the speedster moving just below the speed of sound?

 

Which means he can readily DFC from that Super Speedster closing at the speed of sound, even if all he has is a 1 DEX, 1 SPD and a Teleport Switch, and he just acted at the end of Ph 12, before Speedy rushes him at 43 DEX (he's Hurrying) in Ph 1.

Few characters i have seen written have combat movements near the Speed of Sound.

What you describe sound more like a problem of percieving that attack at all.

DFC vs. HTH is a last ditch effort. As I see my source material, it has the advantage of being relatively sure way to avoid the attack, at the expense of putting you in a very disadvantageous position.

 

Also, how would the sitation change if the Speedster use a Ranged 2m radius AoE?

 

As for aborting' date=' there still doesn't seem to be a problem with that mechanism at all.[/quote']

Dito.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

A seperate issue here (though one which colours the discussion somewhat) is dive for cover.

That's not an issue with the rules for aborting, per se, because aborting covers other things, but in one specific instance - using dive for cover against melee attacks - you can really abuse the aborting rules.

 

When Dive for cover was first introduced (4E, 155) it was only for area effect attacks, where Dodge - which affected DCV - was irrelevant. This made sense.

It was only later that DFC was extended to also cover melee attacks. I've commented on other threads that we pretty swiftly identified that as a case of poor game design and added a house rule.

 

The house rule is: "You can try to get away from an attack by dodging. This maneuver adds +3 to your DCV. A dodge can also include a half-move, by "diving for cover". A Dive for Cover requires a DEX roll at -1 per 2 M covered and you fall prone at the end of the move. If the distance moved by a successful Dive for Cover takes you outside the area of an AoE attack, you are not affected by that attack. You not have to end your move behind cover to "dive for cover", but if your movement does end behind cover, you may add a further +2 DCV. If the DEX roll required for a Dive for Cover is failed, you instead fall prone at your starting point, and are at half DCV.".

 

Very simple and avoids the problem with DFC.

As for aborting, there still doesn't seem to be a problem with that mechanism at all.

 

cheers, Mark

 

You are right that DFC is the most glaring problem. If I am reading it right, you can DFC as part of a dodge, to avoid AoE attacks (but not single target attacks). Even if you limit it to avoiding AoE you STILL have the same logic problems though, if Mr Incredibly Fast AoE Attacker is trying to hit Mr Slow, especially if Mr IFAoEA has small AoE attacks.

 

The problem with not making abort automatic is that people will tend to delay phases more, or may do, to create a sort of abort - but then you still have a DEX off.

 

To be clear I'm not suggesting there is a problem with the aborting mechanism, which is straightforward, but with the logic, or lack of logic, of allowing abort to be automatically effective.

Let us try a more realistic example:

 

1. 6 SPD 24 DEX 8 CV super v

2. 3 SPD 15 DEX 5 CV agent (x4 agents)

 

It makes sense for the agents to abort to dodge every time they are attacked by the super because then they equal the CV of the agent, and they can avoid attacks over 1/3 of the time. Once they are dodging they retain the benefit until they next act. They probably will not WIN but they will delay the super a lot longer then is perhaps warranted AND once the super attacks one of them, they know the rest are 'safe' to attack with multiple attacker bonuses and coordination. They could get lucky and take him down.

 

Obviously this is not a gamebreaker, but it does not really make sense that the 'twice as fast' superhero should have even these problems.

 

You say there is not a problem with the mechanism, I'm looking for a reason for the mechanism in the first place.

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Let us try a more realistic example:

 

1. 6 SPD 24 DEX 8 CV super v

2. 3 SPD 15 DEX 5 CV agent (x4 agents)

 

It makes sense for the agents to abort to dodge every time they are attacked by the super because then they equal the CV of the agent, and they can avoid attacks over 1/3 of the time. Once they are dodging they retain the benefit until they next act. They probably will not WIN but they will delay the super a lot longer then is perhaps warranted AND once the super attacks one of them, they know the rest are 'safe' to attack with multiple attacker bonuses and coordination. They could get lucky and take him down.

 

Obviously this is not a gamebreaker, but it does not really make sense that the 'twice as fast' superhero should have even these problems.

He may be twice as fast, but he also has four times more targets. Wich in the end results that the other side has twice as many phases as he, but with worser comabt values.

 

Let's comapre this 1 Super vs. 4 Agents example with two Supers example:

1. 1 Super: SPD 12, 15 DEX, 5 CV

vs

2. 1 Super: SPD 6, 24 DEX, 8 CV

 

Now we have the same situation:

One side with more phsaes but DEX/DCV, vs one side with less phases but with higher DEX/DCV. Is it fair that the Super 1 can dealy Super 2 a lot better?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

He may be twice as fast, but he also has four times more targets. Wich in the end results that the other side has twice as many phases as he, but with worser comabt values.

 

Let's comapre this 1 Super vs. 4 Agents example with two Supers example:

1. 1 Super: SPD 12, 15 DEX, 5 CV

vs

2. 1 Super: SPD 6, 24 DEX, 8 CV

 

Now we have the same situation:

One side with more phsaes but DEX/DCV, vs one side with less phases but with higher DEX/DCV. Is it fair that the Super 1 can dealy Super 2 a lot better?

 

 

Your point eludes me. It probably aborted to Dive For Cover.

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Your point eludes me. It probably aborted to Dive For Cover.

I took your example and condensed the 4 agents into one super with the same amount of phases.

 

You say that those 4 agents togehter with the current dive for cover/aborting rules are a lot better at delaying the foe than they should be.

I ask if the same situation with the single super would also be unfair.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

I took your example and condensed the 4 agents into one super with the same amount of phases.

 

You say that those 4 agents togehter with the current dive for cover/aborting rules are a lot better at delaying the foe than they should be.

I ask if the same situation with the single super would also be unfair.

 

 

That missed the point too. See the trouble defensive actions cause?

 

One character with 12 phases is not the same as 4 characters with three phases each. One character can not get a multiple attacker bonus or co-ordinate attacks. The fact that four characters can do that gives a good reason for them to spend as long on the battlefield as they can, and they therefore have good reason to use delaying tactics.

 

We can argue about what those tactics actually should be but we stray from the point; what need does abort being automatic actually fill? What would the downside of taking away automatic aborting be? If we had never had it would we perceive a need for it?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

In the first attack.

9- for the second

7- for the third

5- for the fourth

 

And nobody says the speedsters has to use full endurance on each of the followup attacks.

 

 

With those values I doubt Gramps has OCV and DCV on par with the speedsters anymore than he would in 5E.

 

Two things Chirstopher.

1)What does END have to do combat values?

2) Yeah I never said that Gramps should or probally would have the Combat values in 6th either. I was just pointing out that since you now have to buy OCV and DCV seperately in 6th, and if you missed it, (i.e. both have the same OCV and DCV) you could have a bigger disconnect with the Gramps blocking a speedster.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

So Gramps dives for cover - his DEX roll doesn't require the Speedster's CV be beaten. And his 8 DEX reflexes were actually good enough to dive BEFORE the speedster could reach him? Grampa's not going to win, but the issue becomes a bit jarring. Even a Brain in a Jar can Abort before our 12 SPD, 38 DEX speedster can act. Every time!

 

Ok Hugh wasn't the DEX 5? But that's neither here nor there. And technically Gramps has the reflexes well enough to attempt the dive for cover and if I did the math right, he has a 9- chance to succeed. But I understand the point, it does make you think-how cn that happen? Myself I just chaulk it up the some of the vagrancies of the game.

 

By the way, I noticed the discussion went from agents to elite agents. I agree that if I was using elites, then they would use things such as dive for cover. However, so far I have been using VIPER standard agents and since my version of these agents are goons with "super" guns, they don't have the training to do all those fancy manuevers!