Releasing a Grab: Zero Phase Action/Implications

[Manic Typist]

Hey all - am I blind or does nothing in Vol I-II say anything about what kind of action it is to willingly RELEASE a character from a Grab?

 

Based upon my reading, sense of game balance/common sense/dramatic sense, and some text from the books, I think it's either a Zero Phase action (which means it can't occur if the Grab just took effect or if the Grabber just Squeezed/Slammed/engaged in an attack action) or it's MAAAAYBE an action that Takes No Time but it occurs at the end of the Segment (like releasing a Grabbed character due to being Knocked Out per RAW).

 

In either case, the reason I care is because I think this is what makes sense/allows for the Grabbed character to do interesting things like run around with the Grabber on their back, slamming them into the walls, or using their Flight to fly the Grabber into the ceiling, etc.

 

Anyone have a strong argument against this/why a Grabber should be able to avoid situations like this by being able to release on a whim?

[dsatow]

I've always run it as a zero phase action to release a grabbed object or character.

 

I asked about the situation to Steve before when the grabber is someone like Thor vs. the grabbee, a Celestial or the Hulk when he frigging blind with rage.  Steve defers to the GM at that point in what make sense in the game.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well the timing stuff in games always ends up being a bear and grinds things down to a series of rules rather than fun play, so its best to wing it, when possible.  I mean, there's nothing that would stop someone from just letting go if you try some maneuver like backing them into a cactus.  They just usually will not because they don't want you to be free.

[unclevlad]

The grabber also needs some time to react, IMO, even if it's a different phase.  A has B grabbed on 3.  On 4, B tenses, preparing to leap.  Where to?  If it's 15m UP, then A can let go while and fall a few meters...no biggie, probably.  But if it's to jump 2m backwards into that cactus or wall...A doesn't have time to react.

 

Plus, trying to grab someone you can't really contain physically is generally a very bad idea, so I'm not inclined to make this a freebie.  Make it part of an Abort action?  Sure, because now at least it's costing A his next action.

[Surrealone]

I believe the release of a Grab should Take No Time instead of being Zero Phase.  As an example of why: if you KO an opponent who acted before you (in a Segment prior to the one where you achieved the KO) to Grab you, s/he would still have a firm hold on you until his/her next Phase comes up ... unless the release of you Takes No Time.  (Note: S/he already spent the END for the STR … making END moot until his/her next Phase comes, despite being KO'd.)

I think this example underscores why the release (which costs no END) of a grabee by a grabber should Take No Time (rather than take time or be Zero Phase).

Or did I miss something in my own example?

[dsatow]

5 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I believe the release of a Grab should Take No Time instead of being Zero Phase.  As an example of why: if you KO an opponent who acted before you (in a Segment prior to the one where you achieved the KO) to Grab you, s/he would still have a firm hold on you until his/her next Phase comes up ... unless the release of you Takes No Time.  (Note: S/he already spent the END for the STR … making END moot until his/her next Phase comes, despite being KO'd.)

I think this example underscores why the release (which costs no END) of a grabee by a grabber should Take No Time (rather than take time or be Zero Phase).

Or did I miss something in my own example?

 

Per 6e2p106, the KO'd grabber releases the target at the end of the segment not at the immediate time the grabber is KO'd.  So it can be argued the other way too.

[Manic Typist]

While reasonable perspectives are presented, I still think sticking with the Zero Phase is probably the best for consistency and (more importantly) balance.

 

The length of time/easiness of "letting go" is irrelevant. If someone's attempting a Move Through on me, it takes just as much time/is just as easy to deliberately take a half step out of the way (Dodge/Dive for Cover) to avoid it... but if I've already acted that Phase, I don't get to do that.; I don't even get to Abort. I have to rely upon my DCV and hope for the best.

 

If a character has just engaged in an Attack Action, either by initiating the Grab or inflicting damage in a subsequent phase, they've committed to the strategy and must bear the consequences of it until their next opportunity to act (a theme you see consistently in the books). Usually this is their next Phase; I'd probably let them Abort their next action in a Segment where they have't already acted to release.

 

Aside: I just recently learned that the "free"/immediate Throw you can perform after Grab is only if you are throwing the character at a non-specific target. If you want to Throw a character at a window or a cactus, etc. - that's a separate Attack Action that must be performed in another Phase. The "generic" throw does half damage to the "full" Throw I believe. 

 

ALSO - I didn't know that the max damage for throwing objects is the PD+Body in DICE, not total number. Now I want to go re-read the smashing through walls/hitting objects rules. This certainly wasn't clear to me when I was reading through the earlier sections (I'm currently re-reading the entire Vol2 for "fun."), so I'm concerned that the rules won't be philosophically consistent there. If they aren't, I might adjust them so that the same principle applies when throwing an object at a person as when throwing a person at an object (such as via Knockback, etc.)

 

As always, in this as all other things, YMMV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Zero phase seems most reasonable - it's a conscious decision to let go.  If the target does something unexpected, an Abort to react (let go) is no more or less reasonable than any other defensive action.