Attacking 'from behind'

[Surrealone]

Not once did I intentionally target anything rude or insulting at you or your group.  And yes, I absolutely gave as good as I felt I got with downvotes.  As previously noted, if those who initiated the downvotes will retract them, I will, as well.  (I didn't start the downvoting … so I also won't start the retractions.  I like to be consistent.)

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 I think that a rule allowing one HTH combatant to make a half-move behind the other and get an "attack from behind" bonus is a stupid rule.  On the common sense theory, I'd advocate ignoring that rule. 

 

I agree in principle, it doesn't make sense to me even with the way Hero combat moves around in jumps rather than a constant fluid scene of action.  Someone can try to move around you on their phase to get an attack from behind, but you can also turn while not on your phase to face them.  Its just a question of whether you want to do so and let others be at your flank/back or not.  Which is where defense maneuver comes in: that ability lets you reduce or eliminate the problem by making you so fluid, fast, and skilled in combat you effectively have no flank or rear to be struck from.

[Chris Goodwin]

3 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

 

1. a formal authorization or proposition; a decree

    

   Whether its based on 'common sense', feelings, or the phase of the moon, any such ruling is a GM's fiat.

 

I've had plenty of instances where as a player I've appealed to common sense, and the GM has agreed.  Usually half or more of the group agrees.  It doesn't have to be a decree handed down from on high.  

 

And if players say that a rule is stupid, doesn't reflect reality, and can be massively abused, and the GM agrees and says we're not going to use that rule... is that really GM fiat?  

 

Tywyll, I'm not sure what you're looking for here that you're not getting.  To me, it's a stupid rule on its face, and doesn't pass the sniff test in game or by reality.  You seem to agree.  

 

If your issue with the rules is that you don't have a "zone of control" in Hero the way you do in D&D or TFT, you're right.  The phased movement system isn't perfect, but it seems to work pretty well for the majority of us.  A couple of people have spoken up about ways they work around that in game, specifically under certain circumstances allowing a character to "abort to attack", and it seems like you favor that notion.  And if it works for them, and you?  I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, and the Game Police aren't going to come to your house and take away your books.  

 

I'll note that the phased movement system isn't meant to represent people moving and then being locked in place until their next action.  It abstracts away a lot of the stuff that a player sitting at the table can't see or react to but that their character in the game world can.  It's worth noting that a number of gamers, even here on the boards, don't use the SPD chart at all.  If it helps, you can break up a Turn into two six-second "rounds"; in that case, at SPD 2, a character gets one action per "round", at 3 the character gets 3/2 rounds, at 4 the character gets 2 per round, and so on.  That... sort of... matches the "fighter's attacks per round" progression from many D&D editions.  

  

On 11/15/2019 at 2:24 AM, Tywyll said:

No, those prevent the repercussions of back attacks...what I'm asking is how do you stop the clearly unrealistic spinning fight effect that seems to result if just played straight. I attack you from behind, okay now I swing around behind you and attack you from behind, etc, etc. That's not how fights happen in the real world because trying to pull that off would get you killed.

 

I've never seen players doing that in games; have you?  Actually I think I may have tried something like that once back in the 1980's, and... I don't remember if it worked or not, but it's not a thing that I see anyone do in any game, regardless of edition, since then.  You and I both seem to agree that it's stupid and unrealistic; it also seems to be a thing that existed only in fifth edition (maybe revised? I'm still not sure) and nowhere else.  

[Lord Liaden]

Well, at this point we've had questions raised and responded to, and alternatives proposed. There have been several points on which various parties have agreed, and points on which parties have disagreed, which is normal. For the most part the exchange has struck me as quite civil. Expecting everyone to agree is unrealistic, and IME trying to force that to happen just leads to escalating resentment. Personally I prefer to agree to disagree once I've explained my position. Particularly when that involves opinions from people on the Internet whom I don't know and will probably never meet.

[Deadman]

On 11/14/2019 at 1:16 AM, Tywyll said:

So, in 5th Edition, Defensive Maneuver makes a big deal about attacks 'from behind'. However, other than 'surprise attacks' (which I find vague and unclear other than when the target is completely surprised) I can't find a reference to the benefit of attack from behind or to the side, basically I can't find any facing benefits or penalties.

 

Can someone point me to them please?

 

Well this thread turned into something of a flamefest.  I will go back to your original post and see if I can make some sense of it.

 

In 5th Edition, you are correct, little is mentioned about attacking from behind.  There are two places you should look.  I am using the Revised copy so my page numbers will be different if you don't have that edition.  On page 373 in the DCV Modifiers table there are two entries which elude to being attacked from behind.  They essentially say that if a character is attacked from behind while in combat he is 1/2 DCV.  This is consistent with other modifiers imposed to suggest that you cannot see the attack coming (darkness, invisibility, etc.).  The second condition is attacked from behind when OUT of combat which means the character is both 1/2 DCV AND Hit Location Penalties are halved.  On page 380 in the Surprised section it is confirmed that the character is "Surprised" and will also take 2x Stun from the attack.

 

As far at the abuse that you cite in other posts, it is up to the GM.  If a character could completely break off the engagement and get behind the character without being seen then I suppose he could attack the character at 1/2 DCV.  This is somewhat unlikely in most games and as you mention, impossible in the real world..  My ruling would be that just because you can take a position behind a character does not necessarily mean you get the "from behind" benefit.  The half DCV suggests that the defender is not aware that you are there (but still moving defensively because he is expecting attacks).

 

Combat is not meant to be this series of start and stop motions where a character can do absolutely nothing.  His head still moves and in fact he is still moving as this is exactly what his DCV represents.  Ultimately, there is no game in the world that can perfectly mirror how things happen in the real world.  The rules exist to provide a framework for the characters to use to simulate combat they do not suggest that it is in any way just like reality.

 

I hope that helps,

 

Deadman

[Grailknight]

People also fail to take into account the lightning speed of Hero combat. Each segment is 1 sec long, 1 sec! Common sense makes it that you can't do that much effective facing changes even on your action. 

[Grailknight]

I dimly remember having this debate in games many years ago. It only takes one or two sessions to change the munchinly behavior on part of player or GM. Just do it back to them, every phase.with every other player helping or eeru NPC using the tactic, the offender will quickly realize that maybe things don't work that way.

[Lucius]

On 11/15/2019 at 4:21 AM, Tywyll said:

 

Also, since Hero doesn't have any rules governing a figure being locked into place or being penalised for moving around someone in combat, what prevents other characters from circling each other every action to get that sweet 1/2 DCV?

 

When a player moves their character around to get behind another character, either the player of that second character, or the Game Operations Director if it's an NPC, should reach out their dominant hand, grasp the figure between thumb and forefinger, rotate the figure until it faces the one who just moved, and say "Ok, he turns to face you."

 

Problem solved.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has no behind to get

[Tywyll]

10 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Not once did I intentionally target anything rude or insulting at you or your group.  And yes, I absolutely gave as good as I felt I got with downvotes.  As previously noted, if those who initiated the downvotes will retract them, I will, as well.  (I didn't start the downvoting … so I also won't start the retractions.  I like to be consistent.)

 

That's an absolute lie, if you need a reminder, just reread your posts. And no, you downvoted comments that disagreed with you, I've not been rude once, nor edition warred against you. 

[Tywyll]

13 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

I've been watching UFC since 1993 and after watching thousands of matches the number of times someone got attacked from behind is incredibly small.

 

It's a jarring break from common and dramatic sense to allow 1v1 fights to turn into two fighters running behind each other for back stabs.  It just doesn't happen.  Even in the comics this usually can't be pulled off without teleportation, massive speed differences or advanced martial arts moves (dodge a heavy strike and step behind the opponent). 

 

As an example - in 5th edition D&D - you can't get sneak attack without an ally also engaged with the same target OR some scenario that grants advantage (invisible, hidden from the opponent, attacking a prone opponent, etc.).

 

Just allowing all combatants to constantly half-move around each other big bonuses on their chances to hit is going to skew players towards big defenses and minimal DCV since it is permanently halved with this approach.

 

Absolutely. It's impossible. And the rules should reflect that (making allowances for genre of course, speedsters et al).

[Tywyll]

12 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I don't believe anyone should move from one edition to another over one rule.  I'd recommend using the particular rule from 6e. 

 

I'll admit that I think that a rule allowing one HTH combatant to make a half-move behind the other and get an "attack from behind" bonus is a stupid rule. 

 

Thank you. Absolutely agreed on both counts. 

 

12 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

On the common sense theory, I'd advocate ignoring that rule.  If I were GMing 5th edition, I would ignore that rule.  I don't in the least think that just because you're using the very large black hardcover rulebook with the green and grey on it, you can't use a rule from 6th edition, or even common sense, and GMs ignore rules and change them in the face of common sense or any reason at all regardless of what edition, or even what game system, they're using.

 

Oh, I use rule from different editions. 

 

The problem with the 'fix' in 6e is that it still doesn't prevent dancing around a static, aware opponent. It doesn't go far enough I guess? That's basically all I'm saying. 

[Tywyll]

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I agree in principle, it doesn't make sense to me even with the way Hero combat moves around in jumps rather than a constant fluid scene of action.  Someone can try to move around you on their phase to get an attack from behind, but you can also turn while not on your phase to face them.  Its just a question of whether you want to do so and let others be at your flank/back or not.  Which is where defense maneuver comes in: that ability lets you reduce or eliminate the problem by making you so fluid, fast, and skilled in combat you effectively have no flank or rear to be struck from.

 

Yup, sounds reasonable to me. Though I would also argue that you ought to be able to prohibit circiling outside of your phase. Like the one hex shift rule (or 5' step in D&D) from TFT makes sense, you slowly and methodically move so as to not leave yourself open to an attack. But if you go fast you can be attacked (or in TFT's case you simply cannot move more than one hex while engaged). 

[Tywyll]

10 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I've had plenty of instances where as a player I've appealed to common sense, and the GM has agreed.  Usually half or more of the group agrees.  It doesn't have to be a decree handed down from on high.  

 

And if players say that a rule is stupid, doesn't reflect reality, and can be massively abused, and the GM agrees and says we're not going to use that rule... is that really GM fiat?  

 

That of course isn't, but the discussion wasn't about group table rules. It was always about the GM exercising 'common sense' and making a ruling or restiction, which would by definition be ruling from GM fiat. I understand why the other guy can't admit that because it would mean admitting his arguement was inconsistant. Why do you care about the terminology? How is a GM passing a judgement call/house rule, for whatever reason, not GM fiat? And I get the vibe that if it were, that would somehow be bad? Am I picking you up right? Why would that be the case?

 

10 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

Tywyll, I'm not sure what you're looking for here that you're not getting.  To me, it's a stupid rule on its face, and doesn't pass the sniff test in game or by reality.  You seem to agree.  

 

If your issue with the rules is that you don't have a "zone of control" in Hero the way you do in D&D or TFT, you're right.  The phased movement system isn't perfect, but it seems to work pretty well for the majority of us.  A couple of people have spoken up about ways they work around that in game, specifically under certain circumstances allowing a character to "abort to attack", and it seems like you favor that notion.  And if it works for them, and you?  I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, and the Game Police aren't going to come to your house and take away your books.  

 

No, and you've been nothing but polite and helpful. I have no issue with you (or anyone else on the board).

 

What I want is to be able to discuss issues with the system without someone edition warring or making snide insults against me or my group. I don't care if someone disagrees with me,  I just don't like insults and edition wars.

 

 

10 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I'll note that the phased movement system isn't meant to represent people moving and then being locked in place until their next action.  It abstracts away a lot of the stuff that a player sitting at the table can't see or react to but that their character in the game world can.  It's worth noting that a number of gamers, even here on the boards, don't use the SPD chart at all.  If it helps, you can break up a Turn into two six-second "rounds"; in that case, at SPD 2, a character gets one action per "round", at 3 the character gets 3/2 rounds, at 4 the character gets 2 per round, and so on.  That... sort of... matches the "fighter's attacks per round" progression from many D&D editions.  

  

 

I've never seen players doing that in games; have you?  Actually I think I may have tried something like that once back in the 1980's, and... I don't remember if it worked or not, but it's not a thing that I see anyone do in any game, regardless of edition, since then.  You and I both seem to agree that it's stupid and unrealistic; it also seems to be a thing that existed only in fifth edition (maybe revised? I'm still not sure) and nowhere else.  

 

My players just came from playing a very tacticle game where positioning was ultra important, so yeah, they are doing everything they can to get into a better attack position. Despite insults to the contrary, there is nothing inherently munchkin about using the rules as they are written. Most games with map based combat avoid this sort of thing with either an engagement rule, abstracting combat so position doesn't matter,  or, more recently, attacks of opportunity (or the equivalent). But when they aren't there, and facing is an issue, and position matters... it's natural to attempt to maximize bonuses.  I think Hero just needs to pick one or two of those options (or be house ruled as I have done) to fix the inconsistancy. 

 

But yes, it's silly and I've fixed it with aborting to attack someone if they try something like that (this also allows some tacticle exploitation, because if your armored mate runs past and eats their attack, your lightly armored figure can go after without fear because they have already aborted). 

[Doc Democracy]

11 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

No, I downvoted your rude and insulting posts. You then just went and downvoted everywhere I disagreed with you, because unlike you, I've not made snide remarks or personal insinuations. So, it's hardly tit-for-tat. You got downvoted for making rude remarks. But hey, you believe what you want to believe and just do you.

 

11 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Not once did I intentionally target anything rude or insulting at you or your group.  And yes, I absolutely gave as good as I felt I got with downvotes.  As previously noted, if those who initiated the downvotes will retract them, I will, as well.  (I didn't start the downvoting … so I also won't start the retractions.  I like to be consistent.)

 

I thought our problem in HERO was that we were aging middle-aged and (mostly) men.  Not the target demographic. 

 

As an interested third party, I think none of the earlier posts warranted downvoting, though they may have warranted noticing in the discussion.

 

I know I sometimes feel hurt by comments on the forums but I think downvoting only exacerbates disagreements and encourages bad behaviour.

 

I know I ALWAYS think I am in the right, I expect many opinion givers on the internet feel likewise.  I am asking one of you (if not both) and everyone else to go back and remove all the downvotes. 

 

Then see if we can discuss like true old gamers who like the same game....

 

Doc

[Guest Usagi]

23 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Yet one more reason to move to 6e, since it addresses issues like this … among others.

I don't think you necessarily have to switch to 6E because of issues like this, but I did downvote Tyrell for slamming the system as a whole when he's complaining about an issue that was fixed in 6E, the actual current edition (as of the last decade).  6E and 5E are ridiculously cross compatible, and that goes double for the combat rules.  If 5E is confusing on the issue, then 6E is not, and you can just apply the ruling from 6E to 5E.  I mean, really guys, this isn't that hard to work out.  Some of you are complaining just to complain, when the solution is both obvious and right in front of you.

[Chris Goodwin]

9 hours ago, Tywyll said:

That of course isn't, but the discussion wasn't about group table rules. It was always about the GM exercising 'common sense' and making a ruling or restiction, which would by definition be ruling from GM fiat. I understand why the other guy can't admit that because it would mean admitting his arguement was inconsistant. Why do you care about the terminology? How is a GM passing a judgement call/house rule, for whatever reason, not GM fiat? And I get the vibe that if it were, that would somehow be bad? Am I picking you up right? Why would that be the case?

 

It seemed to me that you were saying that GM fiat was a bad thing; it's hard to get tone sometimes in written communication.   

 

Sure, a GM judgement call is GM fiat, and that's not a bad thing.  It seemed to me that you were looking for something other than GM fiat as a resolution to the problem.  

 

9 hours ago, Tywyll said:

What I want is to be able to discuss issues with the system without someone edition warring or making snide insults against me or my group. I don't care if someone disagrees with me,  I just don't like insults and edition wars.

 

I want that too!  I also don't like insults and edition wars!  

 

To be honest, I don't really believe in editions anymore.  First edition and sixth edition are compatible enough and similar enough that I see them as one big ruleset with a whole lot of options; one "edition" is a rules snapshot and a set of options in use.  I'm also not generally one to recommend an edition change; if people are happy with the edition they're playing, why change?  I love 3rd myself, but have been playing 6th a lot lately.  I'm further hesitant to recommend a different edition because I don't know what materials people have or are willing and able to get.  

[Surrealone]

I play both 5er and 6e and move fairly seamlessly between the two despite their differences.  Neither of my GMs mix them; both are rules purists.  I feel both editions have their merits and flaws, and I happen to like them both for different reasons.  So, anyone thinking I was being edition-warry was sorely mistaken.  However, like Usagi, I, too, think it makes no sense to gripe about something that one sees as a problem in an earlier edition … that is fixed in a later edition … since the problem is easily and readily solved by either moving to the edition wherein the problem is solved … or playing a game that uses a blended ruleset.

 

I guess some people would rather just bitch than switch (with respect to problems in the ruleset they're playing … relative to fixes in a ruleset they could switch to or blend from). To this day, I don't understand the point of such edition slamming regarding an edition-specific problem… when a solution is already present.  Key to this is that, from my angle, it just sounds like un-necessary noise about an already-solved problem … as do complaints about it not being solved sooner (i.e. in earlier editions).  For me it boils down to a lack of understanding why someone would spend so much energy on the issue … when that same energy could be spent moving to an edition where it's fixed (if one wants to be a rules purist) … or blending rules from the fixed edition to the current edition (if one wants to).

I also don't understand why someone would house rule something away when one could actually use the situation to generate good storyline/storytelling. Key to this is that regardless of the edition being used, shared storytelling is what the ruleset ultimately enables, right?

 

[TranquiloUno]

Hmm. I was mostly here for the downvotes and slapfighting but since it looks like we're passed that...

 

Are we really doing this "The HERO Way"?

 

3pts to negate a -1/2 DCV penalty for rear attacks? Isn't that just skill levels with "Extra Time" added in? Seems crazy cheap! If I'm a Dex 30 martial artist I can get 5 levels of CSLs for only 3pts? That'd be 25pts in DCV CSLs alone!

 

2pts to eliminate multiple attacker bonuses from all attackers. Uh...that seems crazy cheap, right? +x CSLs (Only Versus Multiple Attackers, Only up to max value of attackers bonuses) with that same Extra Time (half phase)? Not sure "only versus characters the recipient can perceive" is worth much but surely a potentially unlimited number of CSLs to counter an equally silly and unrealistic unlimited number of Multi Attack Bonus seems pricier than 2pts, no?

 

3pts to apply those CSLs against all attackers all the time seems like we've moved in to maybe limited forms of Dex\DCV (for 6th) except for the Extra Time feature.

 

2pts to eliminate the Extra Time limitation seems pretty cheap too if bought as a Naked Advantage for a potentially unlimited number of CSLs, right?

 

Shouldn't this ability be much MORE expensive?

 

Or, put another way:

 

Let's say you're the GM.

You have a player who wants his character to be unsurprisable from behind and able to fight many attackers at once without defensive penalties.

 

How do you build that for them and how much does it cost in real points (and how many active points does it turn out to be)?

 

 

Assuming something semi-reasonable like capping potential benefit at 6 CSLs (one attacker per hex on a totally surrounded character) or whatever.

 

I think it's gonna be more than 3pts or 10pts, right?

 

Where's the Palindromedary?

 

 

The 6th Ed HERO Way is clearly: Anything you can do in the rules you can atomize\decompose in to smaller and more atomic rules structures.

Like Transfer or Armor\FF\Resistant Defense, right?

 

 

So...even tho 5th isn't *quite* that decomposable, for the sake of argument, how would you price Defense Maneuver 1 thought Defense Maneuver 4 using 5th and\or 6th edition if it wasn't a skill in the book?

 

 

[Grailknight]

But it is a skill in the book. Why does it need to be repriced when it's already broken into 4 categories? If you disagree with the pricing, that a thing,. So propose your fix.

 

You might also want to consider that guy who persist on circling to the back, as attempting a Surprise Attack and give bonuses or penalties accordingly.

[TranquiloUno]

5 CSLs, only for DCV (25pts in 5th, right), only versus rear attacks (-1 given the discussion in the thread about them being rare? More?), extra time (half phase) let's call that -1/2, only up to have of base DCV (-1/4? or call it -1/2 to make the math easy? Let's do that!). Is 25 Active and so...8 real? Is that right?

 

6 CSLs, only for DCV, only versus multiple attackers (-1? -2?), only up to max number of attackers (-1/2?), extra time? Or do we just take the initial 5-6 CSLs and limit them less? Should still be another 7-15 points probably.

 

And so on?

 

Defense Maneuver seems cheap to me for the points based on that kind of a breakdown.

 

As for the circling back attack portion of events I think Lucius has it right. They just turn to face.

Just like Scottish Fox is saying about UFC. Or like Chris, Tywyll, and myself (and Surrealone?) are saying about boffer combats and martial arts generally.

 

Unless it's a chaotic enough melee and large enough melee that folks are losing track of other folks then...they just turn to face. If it's a 2-on-1 engagement THEN maybe we have a potential Attack from Behind (much like 5e D&D with the adjacent ally thing). Though for myself in LARP we found it best to bracket the guy at more like 90 degree angles. Trying to get to 180 degrees just gives them a way to escape, rushing past and out from between. IME at least.

 

Since GM fiat and common and stylistic genre sensibilities apply (per the *rules*!) then surely if somebody tries to run behind you in a melee..logically, common sensically, genre...sensically?, and  in most other respects you turn to face them. Unless something prevents you, or there are multiple opponents, or you can't perceive them\lost track of them, right?

 

 

 

 

[TranquiloUno]

2 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

But it is a skill in the book. Why does it need to be repriced when it's already broken into 4 categories? If you disagree with the pricing, that a thing,. So propose your fix.

 

You might also want to consider that guy who persist on circling to the back, as attempting a Surprise Attack and give bonuses or penalties accordingly.

 

The Hero Way is to construct stuff from other rules, right? Like if there happened to be a skill called, "F*ck it! Fine! You just win then! F*ckin' PCs!", for 10pts surely we'd have issues with it, right?

6th really seemed to take that towards its logical conclusion.

 

So...the intent in my question is: IF the skill was NOT in the book...how would you price this construct using the rules as written (or intended, or just how you'd do it at your table).

 

I, personally, DNGAF about the pricing. I just think it's funny to see Hero folks that looooove throwing together 20pt spoons and 15pt cell phones and whatever else (flashlights, right? Wasn't that a recent thread? Or was it a very very old thread I was reading recently? Who knows!!?!?) saying something is too pricey but...without pricing it.

 

Surely we can price it out, yes?

[Grailknight]

6 minutes ago, TranquiloUno said:

 

The Hero Way is to construct stuff from other rules, right? Like if there happened to be a skill called, "F*ck it! Fine! You just win then! F*ckin' PCs!", for 10pts surely we'd have issues with it, right?

6th really seemed to take that towards its logical conclusion.

 

So...the intent in my question is: IF the skill was NOT in the book...how would you price this construct using the rules as written (or intended, or just how you'd do it at your table).

 

I, personally, DNGAF about the pricing. I just think it's funny to see Hero folks that looooove throwing together 20pt spoons and 15pt cell phones and whatever else (flashlights, right? Wasn't that a recent thread? Or was it a very very old thread I was reading recently? Who knows!!?!?) saying something is too pricey but...without pricing it.

 

Surely we can price it out, yes?

 

All of those threads are about things that are not priced out. Apparently the silent majority either doesn't care about or agrees with the pricing as is. Propose your better option so we can use it as the basis for this debate you want so much.

 

Oh and I would price it just as it is in the book. it is useful but doesn't come up in the source material of all genres

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

3pts to negate a -1/2 DCV penalty for rear attacks? Isn't that just skill levels with "Extra Time" added in? Seems crazy cheap! If I'm a Dex 30 martial artist I can get 5 levels of CSLs for only 3pts? That'd be 25pts in DCV CSLs alone!

Levels with a single maneuver are 2 points each.  Extra time cuts that price down considerably.  

[Grailknight]

1 minute ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Levels with a single maneuver are 2 points each.  Extra time cuts that price down considerably.  

 

Except you can't discount 2 point levels.

[TranquiloUno]

Just now, Christopher R Taylor said:

Levels with a single maneuver are 2 points each.  Extra time cuts that price down considerably.  

 

Is general DCV (in limited circumstances) a single maneuver?

 

+X DCV - only for rear attacks = single maneuver?

 

Extra Time should only be -1/2 or -1/4, right?