Swords and damage

[ToddWat1]

I am building a character whose main power is teleporting. As I want him to have some offensive abilities as well, I want to make him good with blades (he teleports in, stabs you, teleports out, etc). I'm confused on how this all works, though. Do you have to buy a Hand Killing Attack to be able to use a sword? Martial Arts with a Weapon Element, plus at least a Martial Strike? A weapon familiarity skill? All of the above? If all, can you combine a HKA with a martial strike or is it one or the other? Could you just have martial arts with a martial strike and have a sword without the HKA power? If someone is willing to walk me through it, I'd sure appreciate it. (I'm using Champions Complete, by the way).

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

In Superheroic play, you don't need a Weapon Familiarity. 

Beyond that, all the methods you've listed are perfectly valid ways to represent "I hit things with a sword".  You can pick whichever you feel is best. 

[Duke Bushido]

Those are all _great_ questions, and the answer is "yes."

 

To all of them.

 

 

No; I'm not trying to be funny-- hey!  My "return" key is working again!-- sorry.  Where was I?

 

These are questions best addressed to your GM, because he may have specific guidelines he wants you to follow, and we are all going to do things differently from each other.  Just as an example, I'm the only person on this entire board who thinks that Aaron Allston's martial arts system was fun as campaign thing, but has absolutely _no_ place in the official rules, and am baffled as to how it has managed to remain in them generation after generation.    Does that make me right?  No; of course it doesn't, but it doesn't make me _wrong_, either.  The GM will do that.  

 

 

One helpful thing would be to know what genre this character is intended for. If it's a super-serious non-supers game, then the GM will probably want you to build a weapon appropriate to the setting (or chose one from a list), and at least buy Skill Levels or such appropriate to give the end results you are looking for.

 

If it's supers, then all you _really_ have to do, at the very bare bones of the thing, is buy an appropriate hand-to-hand attack (Killing or otherwise:  remember that it is suggested that Killing Damage represents guns and swords and pointy things shoved into your entrails, but it is not _mandated_ that guns and swords and pointy things be built with Killing Damage, so you really either need to get with your GM to find out his expectations or, if you have carte blanche, make that decision for yourself.) and declare that this attack a sword / tonfa / sharpened stick with splinters / boat anchor with a razor's edge-- whatever.

 

Remember that there are pros and cons to whatever you _do_ chose:  if you don't take the Focus limitation, your weapon will always be available.  That may not be appropriate for the game your GM has in mind, so again-- check with him.

 

If you _do_ take the focus limitation, the weapon /  attack costs you less, but be prepared to not have ready access to it whenever you want it, either.

 

 

The list goes on and on, but I see GB(i) has pre lied, so let me stop there before I duplicate anything he might have already said.

[ToddWat1]

Thanks, both of you. I'm the GM (designing a villain for my adventure), so it sounds like  I can do it whichever way I see fit. It is a superherioc adventure, so Gnome BODY was right for pointing out I don't need weapon familiarity, I hadn't caught that nuance. 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

35 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

but I see GB(i) has pre lied, 

 

 

Oh Dear God!

 

REPLIED!  I swear I was typing "replied!"

 

I did _not_ mean that!  I _swear_ to you that this was an honest typo!             

 

[Greywind]

Nothing like lying in advance...

[Doc Democracy]

7 hours ago, ToddWat1 said:

I am building a character whose main power is teleporting. As I want him to have some offensive abilities as well, I want to make him good with blades (he teleports in, stabs you, teleports out, etc). I'm confused on how this all works, though. Do you have to buy a Hand Killing Attack to be able to use a sword? Martial Arts with a Weapon Element, plus at least a Martial Strike? A weapon familiarity skill? All of the above? If all, can you combine a HKA with a martial strike or is it one or the other? Could you just have martial arts with a martial strike and have a sword without the HKA power? If someone is willing to walk me through it, I'd sure appreciate it. (I'm using Champions Complete, by the way).

 

All of this comes down to how you see it playing in the game.  You can have teleport, the character moves, they attack, they move again.  One big issue with this is that there is a rule against moving (or acting) after you have moved.

 

You could buy your teleport with a trigger that makes it go off after you attack with a blade etc.  But all of this gets pretty messy mechanically.

 

You could simply buy the teleport in, attack, teleport out as a ranged killing attack.  The special effects of that are that the villain teleports in, hits, teleports out again.  If you were to do that you could even limit the costs of the RKA.  According to SFX then you would trigger (and take) any damage shield effects around someone if you hit them with this ranged attack.  Your attack might be restrainable (someone might wait and disrupt the attack) it should also be able to be blocked, like a melee attack, though you might give penalties to the blocker in the first couple of rounds unless they have danger sense or something.  You would also restrict the range of the ranged killing attack to be the same as the combat distance of your teleport.

 

My inclination is for simplicity.  You do however have to make sure that you do not simply rule that noone can catch him, that would not make sense.  If the players come up with a decent plan to catch the villain as he teleports in, then you should allow that to happen - the attack has been disrupted and the villain is caught - you should not make this easy though, the mechanics do not support it and unless you limit it further, the villain has not opened up that potential except through SFX.

 

Doc

[mallet]

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 Just as an example, I'm the only person on this entire board who thinks that Aaron Allston's martial arts system was fun as campaign thing, but has absolutely _no_ place in the official rules,

 

Not the only one. 

 

Well, I think they are fine as an optional rule, like Hit Locations, to maybe be used in Heroic Games but not in most Super Hero settings. 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

5 hours ago, mallet said:

 

Not the only one. 

 

Well, I think they are fine as an optional rule, like Hit Locations, to maybe be used in Heroic Games but not in most Super Hero settings. 

Well I wasn't going to start the derail but I'm totally onboard with it.  Me too, but I think I take it a bit further.  I feel there's only room for one way to buy more CV. 

Buying OCV and DCV directly or through DEX?  Sure, just don't have CSLs or MA (and add a OCV/DCV Multipower Talent so flexible CV still exists).  Buying CSLs?  Sure, just don't have MA or direct purchase of CV. 

"Here's your CV, if you don't like it do Martial Arts" is great and would be highly thematic for a Kung Fu HERO game where martial arts are just better than other forms of fighting (because Martial Arts are better than basic maneuvers).  Just don't put it side by side with other, often better, ways to buy CV. 

Right now MA is in a really nasty spot where MADCs and the first 10-15 points are way too good, especially if you take the FMove maneuvers, but it very quickly becomes inefficient to buy more maneuvers.  The old master with 50 points of Martial Arts maneuvers would be better off ditching 30 points of them for +3 CV.  And that's just wrong. 

[Ninja-Bear]

The martial arts are fine where they’re at.

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

The martial arts are fine where they’re at.

 

 

Brother Bear, I know you like them, and I will never belittle you for that, nor anyone else who likes them.

 

Honestly, until those two above you said something, I was pretty sure I was the only one thinking "Why the hell aren't these just CSLs or limited CV?  Because that's all the hell they are."  I agree and admit to it with GB(i) that they are fun as a genre thing:  Let's play a Bushido HERO  game or a "Wuxia campaign" or even "Dude!  Pitfighter HERO, anyone?"

 

They are a flavor piece, and they're pretty good at being just that.  You like 'em?  Use 'em.  I won't tell you that you can't, or even that you shouldn't.   It's simply that I find them to be points poorly-spent.

[ToddWat1]

On 5/18/2020 at 5:46 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

All of this comes down to how you see it playing in the game.  You can have teleport, the character moves, they attack, they move again.  One big issue with this is that there is a rule against moving (or acting) after you have moved.

 

You could buy your teleport with a trigger that makes it go off after you attack with a blade etc.  But all of this gets pretty messy mechanically.

 

You could simply buy the teleport in, attack, teleport out as a ranged killing attack.  The special effects of that are that the villain teleports in, hits, teleports out again.  If you were to do that you could even limit the costs of the RKA.  According to SFX then you would trigger (and take) any damage shield effects around someone if you hit them with this ranged attack.  Your attack might be restrainable (someone might wait and disrupt the attack) it should also be able to be blocked, like a melee attack, though you might give penalties to the blocker in the first couple of rounds unless they have danger sense or something.  You would also restrict the range of the ranged killing attack to be the same as the combat distance of your teleport.

 

My inclination is for simplicity.  You do however have to make sure that you do not simply rule that noone can catch him, that would not make sense.  If the players come up with a decent plan to catch the villain as he teleports in, then you should allow that to happen - the attack has been disrupted and the villain is caught - you should not make this easy though, the mechanics do not support it and unless you limit it further, the villain has not opened up that potential except through SFX.

 

Doc

Doc, I figured I would have him teleport in and attack, in all likelihood with surprise, and then his phase would be over, per the rules. His next phase he will teleport away and attack someone else, or teleport around his target. His target will at least occasionally get a chance to hit back that way. I haven't play tested it yet to see if that works, but will before I run a game with other people in it. Thanks for the help! 

[Ninja-Bear]

On 5/18/2020 at 9:29 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

Brother Bear, I know you like them, and I will never belittle you for that, nor anyone else who likes them.

 

Honestly, until those two above you said something, I was pretty sure I was the only one thinking "Why the hell aren't these just CSLs or limited CV?  Because that's all the hell they are."  I agree and admit to it with GB(i) that they are fun as a genre thing:  Let's play a Bushido HERO  game or a "Wuxia campaign" or even "Dude!  Pitfighter HERO, anyone?"

 

They are a flavor piece, and they're pretty good at being just that.  You like 'em?  Use 'em.  I won't tell you that you can't, or even that you shouldn't.   It's simply that I find them to be points poorly-spent.

Duke I ain’t either in the mood to argue. First is the martial arts system the best? Probably not but I’ve been looking now for years and well Hero system is still the best. Second I’m really over people overly analyzing certain things and say “ this is too efficient and this is not” . The pints are a guideline but doesn’t tell the whole story. Third since this is a generic system and you can (usually) buy things on your own and none of the game designers are omnipotent, someone somewhere can figure out how to game the system. That doesn’t mean it’s broke per se just means that you need to use restraint.  Fourth personally over the years some things that I didn’t like about Hero gave me fits but in the end either the work around was more of a PIA than it was worth or the rules ways wasn’t that bad.  (I’m still pretty much a rules follower).  I have no problem saying “hey caution cause this can be abused and here’s how”.  I just say ok how can it work for my game? 

[Grailknight]

On 5/18/2020 at 8:29 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

Brother Bear, I know you like them, and I will never belittle you for that, nor anyone else who likes them.

 

Honestly, until those two above you said something, I was pretty sure I was the only one thinking "Why the hell aren't these just CSLs or limited CV?  Because that's all the hell they are."  I agree and admit to it with GB(i) that they are fun as a genre thing:  Let's play a Bushido HERO  game or a "Wuxia campaign" or even "Dude!  Pitfighter HERO, anyone?"

 

They are a flavor piece, and they're pretty good at being just that.  You like 'em?  Use 'em.  I won't tell you that you can't, or even that you shouldn't.   It's simply that I find them to be points poorly-spent.

 

Duke, a good number of your objections are rooted in the fact that you've never updated to later editions and haven't stress tested the rules for 6th especially. People who came into Hero in 4th, or later probably look at the earlier rules and are glad for the added detail. I am a 1st edition player but I appreciate all views and contributions. Anything that makes me think makes my game better even if I don't use it.

 

 

Are all the changes through the years for the better? No, but most of them are. Those changes to Martial Arts that you disparage are just proliferation of maneuvers not CV"s/CSL's disguised as such. The OCV and DCV attached to the basic moves haven't changed much throughout the editions. There are just more moves and greater detail. Damage has been changed to make it more genre neutral but the CV's have not.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

23 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Duke, a good number of your objections are rooted in the fact that you've never updated to later editions and haven't stress tested the rules for 6th especially. People who came into Hero in 4th, or later probably look at the earlier rules and are glad for the added detail. I am a 1st edition player but I appreciate all views and contributions. Anything that makes me think makes my game better even if I don't use it.

Duke's objections to MA seem to mirror my objections and I entered with 5th. 

 

23 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Those changes to Martial Arts that you disparage are just proliferation of maneuvers not CV"s/CSL's disguised as such. The OCV and DCV attached to the basic moves haven't changed much throughout the editions. There are just more moves and greater detail. Damage has been changed to make it more genre neutral but the CV's have not.

I feel that most MA maneuvers are CV/CSLs pretending they're something fancier. 

There's a few things MA does that CV/CSLs don't but I feel those should be killed (such as FMove) or moved to distinct universally-available maneuvers (such as Target Falls). 

[Grailknight]

10 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Duke's objections to MA seem to mirror my objections and I entered with 5th. 

 

I feel that most MA maneuvers are CV/CSLs pretending they're something fancier. 

There's a few things MA does that CV/CSLs don't but I feel those should be killed (such as FMove) or moved to distinct universally-available maneuvers (such as Target Falls). 

 

But the same can be said of the original Martial Arts system. But yes, you can boil MA down to CSL's if you want. There are examples in 5th.

 

IMO, that robs the game of flavor. You can get that with more descriptive combat narrative but that's more work for players and GM.

[Ninja-Bear]

32 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

There's a few things MA does that CV/CSLs don't but I feel those should be killed (such as FMove) or moved to distinct universally-available maneuvers (such as Target Falls). 

Then for your games that’s fine.  No one is saying that your forced to allow moves such as Flying Dodge in your game. Though FMove allows you to build a maneuver such as a Flying Tackle (also with the target falls element among others.) I’ll repeat again a core principle of Hero System, just because it’s rules legal doesn’t mean that’s has to be allowed in a particular game. 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

58 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

But the same can be said of the original Martial Arts system. But yes, you can boil MA down to CSL's if you want. There are examples in 5th.

 

IMO, that robs the game of flavor. You can get that with more descriptive combat narrative but that's more work for players and GM.

I don't feel that "I Martial Strike!" is more flavorful than "I Strike!".  I've experienced the opposite occasionally, actually.  Players with MA seem more likely to describe their attack via the maneuver while players without MA on their sheet don't know they're using the Strike maneuver so are more likely to use a narrative term as their verb.  I see a lot of "I Martial Strike!" "I Defensive Strike!" compared to "I slash him!" "I clobber him!". 

The implicit narrative of "What's your MA Style, anyways?" can just be moved to "Hey, when making your character, tell me what martial art they favor or gimme a sentence or two about how they fight.". 

 

38 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Then for your games that’s fine.  No one is saying that your forced to allow moves such as Flying Dodge in your game. Though FMove allows you to build a maneuver such as a Flying Tackle (also with the target falls element among others.) I’ll repeat again a core principle of Hero System, just because it’s rules legal doesn’t mean that’s has to be allowed in a particular game. 

Yes, of course.  I've never said "THOU SHALT PLAY MY WAY".  I'm trying hard to put an "I feel" or "I believe" in when I'm talking about this because not doing it the way I would isn't objectively wrong, it's just not the way I'd want things to be. 

Also, you're sure very talkative on this subject for somebody not in the mood to argue! 

[Duke Bushido]

 

Two things:

 

First, I want to step up for N-B:

 

He's not arguing.  He might bet a bit defensive when things are being pushed back more strongly than he pushed, but he's not arguing.  I can say this with some authority, because he and I _have_ argued over this very topic before: it looks way different when he's arguing.  

 

For what it's worth, I'm not arguing, either:  I said all I have to say about when he and I argued last time-- well, when _the board_ and I argued last time.  I wasn't kidding; until this very thread, I'd have bet actually money than I was the only one who saw the whole thing as some silly fun flavor ideas that had somehow developed acolytes and disciples.  

 

Second:

 

This is one of those times when I feel weird, because I find myself in agreement with GB(i).  To be fair, I rarely find myself completely at odds with him, but we disagree in a key way on almost every conversation in which we've both participated.  When we don't----   I feel like I must have read something wrong....    

 

As to the idea that i've not shaken out newer and later editions:

 

I have _several_ copies of BBB, hardback, paperback, brownback, and even that illegible re-issue, because I am always thinking "one more table copy" or "one more loner" couldn't hurt.

 

 

Hell, I volunteered hours upon hours of my own limited free time and paid for related expense from my own pocket to ensure that _two_ different 4e books would not be lost to time . I think I gave it a fair shake, since I shook it enough to have fond memories of it.  I just didn't find it to be any better.

 

 

5e may have been bullet proof, but enough use of it still results in dropped pages.  Trust me.   Sidekick and re-Sidekick get more use, as they are more portable and quicker to reference, but my 5e has taken such a beating from use  That I eventually had it rebound and spiraled (won't be doing that again; worst advice I ever heeded) and replaced.  My re-five...  I don't know what to tell you:  I can't find it significantly different from 5e to really get worked up about, and _certainly_ not different enough to warrant flipping through the extra pages!    

 

Yeah; I've tried them; I've given them solid and fair shakes--  even New Millennium (which I will probably always prefer to 6e) got used off and on for a couple of _campaigns_.  Not sessions; not months, not even "a couple of years," but a couple of campaigns.  I think we "shook it out" for nearly six years, working that game into our rotation.  It was okay, but if you screwed around with it long enough, the missing bits and pieces became pretty apparent and annoying.

 

Six E--

 

well, six e can go hug a hairy one.  Yep; I've read it.  I rather _like_ Basic, actually; I don't want to dismiss that out of hat.  Seems a shame that two, maybe 4 more pages would have included everything yet it didn't get done.  Oh well.    But using a one-thousand, eight-hundred and twenty- page rules book?   Oh, Hell no.  I don't want to memorize it.  I don't even want to learn where to open it to get to what I need to look up. I don't want to teach it-- I don't even want to _present_ it to anyone for fear of them never wanting to think about role playing again.

 

And for the amazing and incredible changes best described as "a couple new powers and no figured Characteristics?"

 

Feh!  No thanks.

 

HS 1, HS 2,  APG 1, APG 2, Skills, and of course Martial Arts.  (I defy anyone in this thread who isn't me or GB(i) to step up and say that HSMA _isn't_ important core rules      ).

 

Or any of the others.  I've made the comment before about the size of the rules (Hey, I didn't mention the Bestiary or the Equipment Guide, but I don't think anyone will argue the idea that they aren't core rules), only to be told "It's just books 1 and 2!"

 

Yet when someone asks a question that isn't addressed to their satisfaction in either HS1 or HS2, they are pointed to the other books.  They are not told "well whatever works for you should be fine, really."  They are pointed directly at the other books to look for the answer to their question.  When someone wants an "official" answer and solicits the author himself, if that question can be answered using one of those other books, it _is_ answered using one of those books.  At no point are those books called extraneous.  Such answers start with, if I may paraphrase, "As I wrote in Book X,  in this situation, you should...."

 

So no matter what we like to pretend, those _are_ official rules, and there are nearly two thousand pages of them.

 

Screw that; I play a game to have fun with friends.  If I'm going to invest that kind of reading time, I'm going to spend it in the encyclopedia for the full graduate-school course of study experience.

 

 

Anyway, short version:

 

I have given fair and solid trial to every edition of the rules save this last set.  I have run supers, fantasy, and sci-fi in every single one of them, and a few pulp and western adventures in most.

 

The fact that I eventually end up closing them forever as anything more than reference material and going back to a set of rules from forty years ago says at least as much about the new versions as does all the cheering from people who read it and don't actually play.

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

My apologies for being defensive (martial defensive even) and derailing this thread. The older I get, I come to understand why people will play an Urbanmech in Battletech and why people will complain to High Heaven about an Urbanmech. (For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, in Battletech 3025-the original game- Urbanmech-by design are the worst Mechs in the game. They’re highly inefficient but do to the fluff, they’re built just right. Also in 3025 you shouldn’t see all the good mechs because of the ravages of war you’re left with the clunkers.) Anyways when I get a chance I’ll post some of my old characters that I created and then when I went to play them, the GM kindly bumped me up in certain areas to be competitive with the other players. I’ve found now that many a game walks a line of concept and playability. I have a martial artist for a standard Champions game that has 15 DEX if I recall. Sorry kinda rambling here. Another point (and I got called on this years ago-so I’m guilty) is before you complain about Rule X, have you tried it out? And not even in a full game either. At least try it out in sample combat? I’ve admitted before that I’ve made mountain putt mole hills. Over the years most of these mountains never appear. And when they do they’re more of the Appalachian than the Rockies. 

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I don't feel that "I Martial Strike!" is more flavorful than "I Strike!".  I've experienced the opposite occasionally, actually.  Players with MA seem more likely to describe their attack via the maneuver while players without MA on their sheet don't know they're using the Strike maneuver so are more likely to use a narrative term as their verb.  I see a lot of "I Martial Strike!" "I Defensive Strike!" compared to "I slash him!" "I clobber him!". 

The implicit narrative of "What's your MA Style, anyways?" can just be moved to "Hey, when making your character, tell me what martial art they favor or gimme a sentence or two about how they fight.". 

 

Yes, of course.  I've never said "THOU SHALT PLAY MY WAY".  I'm trying hard to put an "I feel" or "I believe" in when I'm talking about this because not doing it the way I would isn't objectively wrong, it's just not the way I'd want things to be. 

Also, you're sure very talkative on this subject for somebody not in the mood to argue! 

As to the role play aspect, I’m glad you have players that describe their actions more than just stating the mechanical name. I’ve been working on that myself and getting the other players to do it too.  And that can also be said for any ability too. 

[Grailknight]

4 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I don't feel that "I Martial Strike!" is more flavorful than "I Strike!".  I've experienced the opposite occasionally, actually.  Players with MA seem more likely to describe their attack via the maneuver while players without MA on their sheet don't know they're using the Strike maneuver so are more likely to use a narrative term as their verb.  I see a lot of "I Martial Strike!" "I Defensive Strike!" compared to "I slash him!" "I clobber him!". 

The implicit narrative of "What's your MA Style, anyways?" can just be moved to "Hey, when making your character, tell me what martial art they favor or gimme a sentence or two about how they fight.". 

 

Chalk this up to different experiences then. My players would build a Martial Arts school( from the lists of moves not from scratch) and attach names to the moves. They' then used those names in play. Taking away all the moves made things too generic for them, the one time another GM rotated in. So I'm used to " I evade your Cobra Fang using the Leap of the Mongoose" So maybe we reach the same point, we different starting places.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

8 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Chalk this up to different experiences then. My players would build a Martial Arts school( from the lists of moves not from scratch) and attach names to the moves. They' then used those names in play. Taking away all the moves made things too generic for them, the one time another GM rotated in. So I'm used to " I evade your Cobra Fang using the Leap of the Mongoose" So maybe we reach the same point, we different starting places.

That would absolutely do it. 

[Greywind]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

My apologies for being defensive (martial defensive even) and derailing this thread. The older I get, I come to understand why people will play an Urbanmech in Battletech and why people will complain to High Heaven about an Urbanmech. (For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, in Battletech 3025-the original game- Urbanmech-by design are the worst Mechs in the game. They’re highly inefficient but do to the fluff, they’re built just right. Also in 3025 you shouldn’t see all the good mechs because of the ravages of war you’re left with the clunkers.) Anyways when I get a chance I’ll post some of my old characters that I created and then when I went to play them, the GM kindly bumped me up in certain areas to be competitive with the other players. I’ve found now that many a game walks a line of concept and playability. I have a martial artist for a standard Champions game that has 15 DEX if I recall. Sorry kinda rambling here. Another point (and I got called on this years ago-so I’m guilty) is before you complain about Rule X, have you tried it out? And not even in a full game either. At least try it out in sample combat? I’ve admitted before that I’ve made mountain putt mole hills. Over the years most of these mountains never appear. And when they do they’re more of the Appalachian than the Rockies. 

 

Urban combat. Hidden deployment.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Duke's objections to MA seem to mirror my objections and I entered with 5th. 

 

I feel that most MA maneuvers are CV/CSLs pretending they're something fancier. 

There's a few things MA does that CV/CSLs don't but I feel those should be killed (such as FMove) or moved to distinct universally-available maneuvers (such as Target Falls). 

 

I recall in the SETAC days suggesting that Martial maneuvers should be variations from standard maneuvers, but should not do things standard maneuvers can't.  I believe 6e was the one that added a Shove and a Trip maneuver.  It also has the optional Choke maneuver.

 

To me, full move maneuvers are "martial moveby/move through"

 

Is anything still missing, GB?