Topic: C Magel - Simplified RMSS (can be used for RM2) round.

[Cory Magel]

Posting this here to move it out of the RMU discussions...

Here is the round I'll be using in an upcoming campaign.  There's some parts I wouldn't automatically recommend for other groups, these parts are highlighted (in Teal).  This round is more abstract than any of the various RM rounds, resulting in a quicker round overall once a group is used to it, yet it is still detailed enough for our very tactically oriented group.

THE ROUND
Step 1. Initiative
Roll initiative using 1d10+Average of Stats Bonuses.
The bonus to a physical actions initiative roll is calculated by taking the average of the characters Quickness, Agility and Intuition stat bonuses.  Mental actions can opt to use Memory, Reasoning and Self Discipline.

Step 2. Movement
The combatant with the worst initiative is called upon to take their movement action first, however combatants with a higher initiative can choose to react to the movement of those with a lower initiative.  This is in order to simulate the advantage a combatant would have in winning the initiative.  They are able to either move first to block a passage for example, or react to others movement and adjust theirs accordingly. (Note: Some moving maneuvers are made with the intent of actual movement, this is more of GM call on when this is allowed).

So, characters with the worst, or lowest, initiative will take their movement first unless someone chooses to react to that movement.  They can move as little or as much as they want, but obviously no further than the character can move in a given round.

Step 3. Declarations.
Players now declare their characters actions.  Basically, anything other than movement, which has already occurred, needs to be declared at this point.  The only exception to this are Instantaneous actions.  For example, all of the following would be declared at this point: Attack Actions, Moving Maneuvers, Static Maneuvers, Shield allocation, and Parry / Attack OB allocation

Step 4. Action Resolution
Actions are resolved in the order of the character with the best, highest, initiative to the worst, lowest, initiative.  Characters can chose to delay their action and continue it later in reaction to another, slower characters, action.

For example, a character may wish to interrupt another character while in the process of taking their action (as opposed to merely trying to stop it in the first place).

Related Rules
Snap and Deliberate Equivalent Actions
Making a “snap” action simulates attempting to perform your action quicker by sacrificing effectiveness in your action.  A “snap” action will add +2 to your initiative, but give a -20% penalty to your action.
Making a “deliberate” action simulates attempting to perform an action more skillfully by taking ones time in performing it.  A “deliberate” action will impose a -2 penalty to your initiative total, but will provide a +10% bonus to your action.

Instantaneous Actions
Instantaneous actions are exactly, that… instantaneous.  They do not require declaration and they do not impact any of the characters other actions negatively.  If an instant action has not been declared up front that will take a percentage of action they will be 'paid for' in the next round if needed.

Instant Spells
-   Instant spells take no percentage of action.
-   Instant spells do not count towards the One Spell Per Round rule.
-   You may only cast one offensive instant per round.
-   You can cast as many defensive instants as you like each round.
        o   Instants of the same spell cannot be stacked for more effect on the same ‘target’ (two 'Bladeturns' will have no increase impact).
-   Instant spells need not be declared if…
        o   You are not in melee combat.
        o   You are targeting your current foe or an action that foe is performing.
        o   You are in melee combat and roll a successful Situational Awareness: Combat check.

If anyone has any left over activity they want to move with at the end of the round they may do so, in the same initiative order as movement occurred at the start of the round.

[Merkir]

Too late. I already posted all my questions here: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12469.msg169672#msg169672.

You may wish to quote my questions and answer here to keep it tidy.

[Cory Magel]

So, merkir, you mentioned you had some further questions...

I'm going to post a quick (heh, yeah right) example of how movement works, which is often the part that needs move coverage for people not used to it.

So, you roll initiative, which is 1d10 + your averages Qu/Ag/In stats (obviously you can change these up).  This is the initiative for all or all physical actions (alternately you can use Me/Re/SD for mental actions).

Starting with the individual with the worst initiate everyone take whatever movement they plan on making (which might be all 100%) before their action.  An individual with a better initiative can choose to react to someone’s movement if the moving individual had a lower initiative.  So, if someone you are trying to catch makes a break for a door, window, alleyway, whatever… you can say I am trying to catch/cut him off.  This means once someone with a lower initiative has moved you can (if you have enough movement) you can choose to beat them to that spot.  This requires a small amount of GM ruling, but it’s pretty common sense stuff.

For example...

I am trying to get through a doorway.  The foe is trying to stop me.  We roll initiative and I lose.  Since worst initiative moves first, I move first…

If I am already closer to the door and have more movement than my foe initiative isn’t going to matter much.  Technically the movement is simultaneous, so I beat my foe to the door.

If I am not closer to the door, but have more movement so I could get there first, but my foe is going to be allowed to make an attack on me if I just run past him (I could try to avoid him, but this will require enough movement that he’s probably just going to be able to run over to me, or the door, anyhow).  This is, essentially, an attack of opportunity on the foes part.

If I am closer to the door, but have less movement than my foe (enough that he would be able to pass me in the round) then once I’ve moved to the door the foe can say “I’m stopping him from going out the door” at which point my foe will be in the doorway and I’ll be facing him.  I can't 'change my mind' once the foe chooses to intercept my movement.  I move, he says he's stopping both end up at the doorway (probably with him in or blocking it).

The only part that really comes into question for most players at this point is “What if I’m closer to the door, lost initiative, and have less movement that my foe but still enough to reach the door and my foe doesn’t have enough to reach the door?”  In this case the person trying to escape… can.

Keep in mind this whole scenario could work in reverse.  Maybe my foe was the one running for the door, so I reacted to him movement (towards the door) in order to stop him.  All the same ‘rules’ apply, I’m just on the other side of the situation now.

THEN actions start, best initiative to worst…

So, if my foe was either in my way and I ran past him or he had enough movement to beat me to the door… he then gets an attack on me before I can do anything assuming he actually has enough activity left to do so.

Lastly there’s leftover activity… we’re always let players take leftover action points as movement at the end of the round.  This is the one area where I’m wondering if we’ll eventually run into an odd situation.

[Turbs]

You lost me as soon as you typed the words "Attack of Opportunity"

however.  I do think that its somewhat over complicated.. and as has been stated in other threads the whole initiative system is overly complex..

I adhere to the simplicity of using %activity within a round. and a player can do whatever they want "on thier turn" as long as they have enough activity.

[Cory Magel]

In the following, LIC=Lower Initiative Character, HIC=Higher Initiative Character.

Here goes:

1. How much movement is allowed during this phase (up to 100% Activity at a Run pace I assume?), and must the amount of movement be predeclared by each char before the movement takes place? The reason I ask is that if a HIC is allowed to "react" to that movement, then knowing how much movement the LIC is about to make is an important consideration. The question is also tied up with some of the questions below.

You can use 100% of your movement in this phase, leaving you with no % left to take other actions.
The moving character must make their full intended movement, then any HIC can react to that movement - potentially blocking the LIC from taking their full intended movement.  So the LIC could potentially now have more % left over than they intended.

2. I'm interested in what you allow for the HIC(s) being able to "react to the movement" of the LIC(s). Here's (at least) three different ways I could see this being applied - ie. three different sets of movement rules:
   a. A LIC is about to start movement but before she starts, the HIC says "stop, I'm moving first" and takes their full movement action before the LIC starts.
   b. A LIC starts movement by moving one or more hexes (I'll assume a hexmap for the purpose of this discussion). The HIC interrupts that movement by saying "stop" and takes their full movement action. The LIC then resumes where they left off.
   c. A LIC starts movement by moving one or more hexes. The HIC interrupts that movement by saying "stop" and moves part of their movement action, eg. 1 or 2 hexes, then says "continue".  That same HIC may then interrupt the LIC movement on as many occasions as he/she wants for the remainder of the LIC movement action, then finishes their own movement action.

A. They could do this, but it's often in their best interest to see where the LIC intends to go first.
B. You could do this then let the HIC move again based on that, but again... it's best to see what the LIC character intends to do, then potentially 'intercept' it.  Effectively forcing them to 'rewind' a bit.  This could get into opportunity attacks on the HIC's part.
C. (I think I just answered that in B).

Side Notes:
Point c. above is an interesting one for the following reason, which I'll illustrate with an example. LIC starts moving towards a 5' wide tunnel in the hope of escaping. HIC sees LIC heading in that direction and decides to react by moving towards the same tunnel to head them off. LIC sees this happening, knows she can't make it in time, so turns and starts moving in a different direction. HIC may then chase LIC as he sees fit. All this seems reasonably realistic, with the HIC able to cut off the LIC character due to higher initiative. Is it manageable though in actual gameplay, all this to'ing and fro'ing between chars? What if a third or fourth (or more) char with higher initiative decides to react to any previous LIC? Unmanageable?

Ah, this is why you are best forcing the LIC to 'give away' their intended movement first.  Additionally the LIC needs to be aware of their available movement vs their foes... they need to be aware of whether they can make it to where they want to go without being intercepted.  If they do not know... then they don't know and must gamble 'giving away' their goal first.

If the b. rules are used instead, we have the undesirable situation of the HIC reacting to the LIC by having to take their full move action, probably moving the whole way to block the tunnel, but then allowing the LIC to move off in a different direction without the HIC able to follow.
[/i]

This is why we have the LIC make their full intended movement first, then 'rewind' so-to-speak if we need to.  So, you (the LIC) start to move full movement starting 40' from a door, a (HIC) foe 60' from the door decided to intercept.  So, as you reach the door, they stop you.  You now are at the door, with the HIC in front of you, who only has 40% left, and since you didn't use your full 100% by fleeing fully (because you were stopped) you, the LIC, now have 60% activity left and could take a -40 attack at the HIC (who can't attack back, being left with only 40%) when you all take your actions.  The HIC will effectively have decided it is better to risk getting attacked then let you flee.

3. Disengage. I assume this is resolved during the Movement step? However I see an issue here in that if Disengage is still a 30% Activity to move up to 10', that leaves only 70% Activity to flee. Does that then mean the opponent can use a full 100% Activity to chase, therefore always catching up? Or do you assume the opponent has already used the 30% the disengager used as part of the melee/disengagement process and therefore only has 70% to use for movement to chase?

This is an interesting one.  A combatant could take their full 100% attack at a fleeing foe and not follow, or they could instead choose to follow them (ending up with whatever % is left after movement).  This is where I'm thinking of adopting jdales idea of simply giving a penalty for the amount of movement used, rather than saying it uses up action.

4. I assume the Charge action is resolved during the Action Resolution step rather than the Movement step? This would make it one of the only actions that allow char movement during the Action Resolution step?

Good question.  What if the charging attacker is the LIC?  I ask the HIC if they want to move before or after the LIC and let them deal with the repercussions.  So they can 'give up' the movement initiative and run out of range (if possible) or let the charging foe catch them and get an 'attack of opportunity' if they then try to move away.  Seems the simplest way to handle without getting overly detailed.  (Generally they are going to flee or fight, so it's usually fairly self).

5. With separate Move and Action steps, if an (unengaged) enemy flees, presumably 100% activity at Run pace, shouldn't a PC with a hand axe ready at the start of the round be able to attempt to throw it at him (min 30% Activity in RMU)?  It appears the only possibility for the PC woudl be to Run 70% Activity then throw, which is probably much less desirable if the PC doesn't want to run that far away from the rest of the party?

That's a good question.  Does the LIC get to move away and eventually potentially run out of range?  I think I'd allow the HIC to make their attack using the range both combants started at from each other.  So the HIC will need to decide if they way to follow before they throw.  They could close 40% and throw for 60%  This is another example of where I think I would like to try the idea of not having movement remove %, but simply impose a penalty.

[Cory Magel]

You lost me as soon as you typed the words "Attack of Opportunity"

It's simply when a foe in melee combat with someone/thing tries to flee (with RM this translates into more than 40% movement as that's when they can no longer make an attack and, therefore, try to defend themselves from melee).  Note an attack of opportunity IS the attackers attack for that round if they choose to take it.

however.  I do think that its somewhat over complicated.. and as has been stated in other threads the whole initiative system is overly complex..

It's pretty simple once you get used to it and runs faster than the normal RMSS round I think (no more three phases).

I adhere to the simplicity of using %activity within a round. and a player can do whatever they want "on thier turn" as long as they have enough activity.

The D&D style round will always be the simplest, but it had too many issues that involve movement for out taste.

[Cory Magel]

I should clarify something...

When a LIC moves (shows it's full intended movement) and a HIC responds to it that LIC's movement is done at this point, they don't get to move again.  So in a large open area this pretty much self resolves, but as I point out above, if you are intercepting them from reaching a specific point you may leave them with leftover % they can use.  Keep in mind this isn't much different from how things would resolve anyhow in most cases.  If you're trying to grab an item in the room, we're both going to end up in front of the item, HIC between it and the LIC.  But if there's a bottleneck (the doorway situation) then the HIC could potentially be opening themselves up to the repercussions of their intercepting the LIC.

Above I said in my replies you could (if you want) let them go back and forth, but I don't think that ends up with any better overall results and will draw out the round, so I'd just avoid allowing that.

[Merkir]

Ok, interesting. I note in particular your description of the LIC 'rewinding a bit', and also opportunity attacks. They seem reasonable and I'll ponder those further.

It appears your rules are closest to my point 2c., but as you say it's often best to allow the LIC to reveal as much of her move as possible before interrupting. I'll just point out that the point at which the HIC wishes to intercept can be a very tactical choice. It may very well be an advantage to intercept the LIC half way to the door, in that way allowing the HIC a 60% attack (or whatever) rather than no attack.

Also do you allow the HIC to "intercept" but not engage the LIC?  By this I mean to intercept to a hex 10' away (presumably in front of) the LIC, purposely not engaging so that the LIC is forced to choose where to move from there, which may in fact be straight ahead to engage the HIC.

Note by "engage" I mean in the formal melee sense, being next to a melee combatant, which requires a Disengage 30% action to disengage from that opponent.

I still have a few follow up questions, later...

[Cory Magel]

Also do you allow the HIC to "intercept" but not engage the LIC?  By this I mean to intercept to a hex 10' away (presumably in front of) the LIC, purposely not engaging so that the LIC is forced to choose where to move from there, which may in fact be straight ahead to engage the HIC.

That is completely possible and I could see using this tactic if you're trying to 'herd' the LIC somwhere.

Note by "engage" I mean in the formal melee sense, being next to a melee combatant, which requires a Disengage 30% action to disengage from that opponent.

This is where I'm curious if the idea of not having movement use action %, but rather just impose a penalty might be useful.

Right now if two foes run a full 100% (assuming they run the same rate too - I don't have differing movement rates unless the critter is not your 'normal' humanoid) and end up next to each other then the next round the HIC could make an attack of opportunity on the LIC (if the LIC continues to move) instead of just following it... so they'd be letting the LIC 'get away' in order to make an attack since an 'attack of opportunity' for us is just getting to make your attack then and there instead of waiting and does use your action for the round (however much of it you want to use).

[Merkir]

Also do you allow the HIC to "intercept" but not engage the LIC?  By this I mean to intercept to a hex 10' away (presumably in front of) the LIC, purposely not engaging so that the LIC is forced to choose where to move from there, which may in fact be straight ahead to engage the HIC.

That is completely possible and I could see using this tactic if you're trying to 'herd' the LIC somwhere.

Precisely the way I envisaged it, and expanding that idea to allow multiple HICs to "herd" the LIC even more efficiently. It creates a wonderful narrative/vision of multiple chars moving to block/herd the LIC, quite realistically IMO, at the expense of a little complexity, since each char has to remember how much movement they have had so far. It's not something that would happen often (except perhaps in our group ) so the added complexity may be worth it, depending on your gaming group style.

[Merkir]

Note by "engage" I mean in the formal melee sense, being next to a melee combatant, which requires a Disengage 30% action to disengage from that opponent.

This is where I'm curious if the idea of not having movement use action %, but rather just impose a penalty might be useful.

Right now if two foes run a full 100% (assuming they run the same rate too - I don't have differing movement rates unless the critter is not your 'normal' humanoid) and end up next to each other then the next round the HIC could make an attack of opportunity on the LIC (if the LIC continues to move) instead of just following it... so they'd be letting the LIC 'get away' in order to make an attack since an 'attack of opportunity' for us is just getting to make your attack then and there instead of waiting and does use your action for the round (however much of it you want to use).

And this is where I think RMC falls down, because with the above scenario all the fleeing char has to do is Disengage 10' at the start of each round, which is automatically successful using the RAW, then continue fleeing with their remaining 70%. The attacker can't attack. All they can do is chase and end up next to the opponent at the end of the round. That's why our group needed to house rule that Disengage is not automatically successful - we use competing M&M actions to resolve.

[Merkir]

In the following, LIC=Lower Initiative Character, HIC=Higher Initiative Character.

3. Disengage. I assume this is resolved during the Movement step? However I see an issue here in that if Disengage is still a 30% Activity to move up to 10', that leaves only 70% Activity to flee. Does that then mean the opponent can use a full 100% Activity to chase, therefore always catching up? Or do you assume the opponent has already used the 30% the disengager used as part of the melee/disengagement process and therefore only has 70% to use for movement to chase?

This is an interesting one.  A combatant could take their full 100% attack at a fleeing foe and not follow, or they could instead choose to follow them (ending up with whatever % is left after movement).  This is where I'm thinking of adopting jdales idea of simply giving a penalty for the amount of movement used, rather than saying it uses up action.

It may work like this in RMSS but not RMC. As mentioned above, all the fleeing char has to do is Disengage at the start of each round and the attacker cannot attack.

4. I assume the Charge action is resolved during the Action Resolution step rather than the Movement step? This would make it one of the only actions that allow char movement during the Action Resolution step?

Good question.  What if the charging attacker is the LIC?  I ask the HIC if they want to move before or after the LIC and let them deal with the repercussions.  So they can 'give up' the movement initiative and run out of range (if possible) or let the charging foe catch them and get an 'attack of opportunity' if they then try to move away.  Seems the simplest way to handle without getting overly detailed.  (Generally they are going to flee or fight, so it's usually fairly self).

Still doesn't quite seem resolved, but will ponder that some more.

Actually on second thought, I can see the movement part of the Charge action taking place in the movement step, then being resolved in the Action step. In that way if the charging char is the HIC, they will succeed in their charge (at least they will get an an attack roll), whereas if the charging char is the LIC they may or may not be successful, since the HIC would be allowed to move away from the charge if they so wish. I think I'm comfortable with that thinking. Then the only other question is, should the charging character always resolve their attack first during the Action step, regardless of initiative? Or should attacks be resolved in initiative order as usual, even if that's a little unrealistic (ie. realistically a charge should be resolved at the point in time the charge ends - at the end of the charge movement). I'm inclined to go with initiative order though, which would make the HIC character more inclined to "accept" the charging character without dodging, in the hope that their own attack succeeds before the charging char.

5. With separate Move and Action steps, if an (unengaged) enemy flees, presumably 100% activity at Run pace, shouldn't a PC with a hand axe ready at the start of the round be able to attempt to throw it at him (min 30% Activity in RMU)?  It appears the only possibility for the PC woudl be to Run 70% Activity then throw, which is probably much less desirable if the PC doesn't want to run that far away from the rest of the party?

That's a good question.  Does the LIC get to move away and eventually potentially run out of range?  I think I'd allow the HIC to make their attack using the range both combants started at from each other.  So the HIC will need to decide if they way to follow before they throw.  They could close 40% and throw for 60%  This is another example of where I think I would like to try the idea of not having movement remove %, but simply impose a penalty.

Yes I think it would need to be GM's call. Unfortunately the rule nazis wouldn't like it - the ones that need everything in writing - but I would hope that most players agree the GM has to step in sometimes.

[Cory Magel]

It may work like this in RMSS but not RMC. As mentioned above, all the fleeing char has to do is Disengage at the start of each round and the attacker cannot attack.

I don't recall the exact rule in RMSS, but what we've always done is when you are trying to disengage you either give your foe the opening to attack (attack of opportunity) or the foe is able to immediately follow you as you move (even if it's not their initiative).  I've never liked the 30% to disengage scott free either... such a disengage gives your foe the opportunity to follow you in my opinion (which is why we do it the way we do).

Actually on second thought, I can see the movement part of the Charge action taking place in the movement step, then being resolved in the Action step. In that way if the charging char is the HIC, they will succeed in their charge (at least they will get an an attack roll), whereas if the charging char is the LIC they may or may not be successful, since the HIC would be allowed to move away from the charge if they so wish. I think I'm comfortable with that thinking. Then the only other question is, should the charging character always resolve their attack first during the Action step, regardless of initiative? Or should attacks be resolved in initiative order as usual, even if that's a little unrealistic (ie. realistically a charge should be resolved at the point in time the charge ends - at the end of the charge movement). I'm inclined to go with initiative order though, which would make the HIC character more inclined to "accept" the charging character without dodging, in the hope that their own attack succeeds before the charging char.

I've tinkered with Charging a lot.  I favor the charger quite a bit.  Firstly, I give the charger with the longest weapon automatic attack initiative (i.e. if you're on the ground with a sword and a knight is charging you with a lance you DO NOT have attack initiative).  You can still win the movement initiative, but that lance is going to get first crack at you if the charger catches you.  Also, on mounted charging attacks, I implemented secondary unbalancing criticals and increased damage by 1% per foot charged... so if you are an expert at: Riding, Mounted Combat, and Lance and you are able to get a lot of movement in without reducing your attack your target is going to really regret getting hit.

Yes I think it would need to be GM's call. Unfortunately the rule nazis wouldn't like it - the ones that need everything in writing - but I would hope that most players agree the GM has to step in sometimes.

I always remind the players that it goes both ways.  If they don't like something that is happening to them and want it overruled they'll need to remember that when they are on the other.  This eliminates a lot of the "They shouldn't be able to do that!"  But, easy for me to say... our groups newest member has been with us since the late 90's, so we don't have much arguments.

[Merkir]

Well, I think on paper at least this combat sequence looks good. I don't see any glaring issues, and I see improvements over the various RAW. I'll try to play test and see how it holds up.

[markc]

 I use something very close to this so to new players, I allow full movement during the move phase that does not affect the OB/DB split. After a few games I will change the rules as they have the hang of things.


 As to some of the other things such as disengage, charge, etc I plan on having some base rules but then have some additional rules in the fighting arts section where I design the combat arts that will modify the actions.


MDC

[Merkir]

Last night I play tested a little, trying to replicate some of our group's previous encounters. It was quite good. Character facing arose immediately, amongst other things. Here's my summary:

Again, in the following, LIC=Lower Initiative Character, HIC=Higher Initiative Character.

A)  End of movement phase:
All chars are allowed to change facing in order lowest initiative to highest.
Any character having performed the move portion of a Charge action must remain facing one of the three front hexes in order to resolve the Charge, otherwise the Charge action is voided.

B)  When a HIC "intercepts" a LIC, forcing the LIC to "rewind" their move, it was unknown where the LIC should rewind to. I decided 10' (2 hexes) from the HIC. This then allows the LIC to either continue moving forward to engage the HIC, or turn and move off in a different direction (also allowing the HIC to intercept again if desired and if they have enough movement left).

There are a few edge cases on this point. Eg.

   i. What if the LIC started their move 10' (2 hexes) away from their intended destination?
      (suggested answer: make the LIC move 5' towards the destination, thus always engaging with the intercepting HIC)

   ii. What if the LIC started their move 5' (1 hex) away from their intended destination?
     (suggested answer: the LIC doesn't move. The HIC intercepts and they both engage)

   iii. What if the LIC started their move already very close to their intended destination (eg. 5 or 10') and the HIC is far away, eg. 50'. Should the HIC still be allowed to intercept?
     (suggested answer #1: Yes. Use the KISS principle even if it seems a little unrealistic. Of course the RAW would give this result regardless)
     (suggested answer #2: I also toyed with the idea of allowing the HIC to intercept only if they are no further than double the distance to the destination hex compared to the LIC. This also seems quite workable, and certainly more realistic.)

   iv. Should "zones of control" (ZOC) be enforced during movement for melee-ready chars? The ZOC could be the 3 front hexes of any melee-capable char. Should opportunity attacks be allowed during movement against chars attempting to enter and then leave a foe's ZOC?
     (suggested answer #1 (preferred): Yes, and the char making the attack forgoes any further movement in order to resolve the attack immediately during the movement phase.)
     (suggested answer #2: No. Keep it simple. They attack only during the Action Resolution step. The drawback is that there would never be opportunity attacks)

Btw, to those cringing at the use of the term "zone of control", an obvious wargame term, please note that they already exist in the RAW, even if not explicitly named. Ie. the rules say you can't flee from a foe in melee combat without a free attack against you, unless you use the Disengage action. Ie. you're in their ZOC.

C)  For use with the RMC rules, the movement step occurs during Phase 1 (0-50% Activity) of the round. If chars wish to continue movement in Phase 2, of course they may. They will continue with a second movement Action (same as RMC RAW after all). This means that most chars will have at most about 50' movement (at Run pace, give or take for quickness/height) during the Movement step. While some will say Phases (whether 2 in RMC or 3 in RMU) become irrelevant in the new round sequence described here, I think it's important to limit the amount of movement, if only for reasons of realism. Eg. a HIC moving 100' to intercept a LIC wanting to move only 5' is very unrealistic. Importantly, all the various RAW do not allow this to happen due to phases.

D)  Disengage action. Our group already has a house rule that this is not automatically successful. This new round sequence probably doesn't change our thinking. There are two cases:

   i. Disengager is the HIC:
     Since the LIC moves first, and is engaged with the HIC, it is likely that the LIC will say "no move" in the expectation of a 100% activity attack against the defender. The RMC RAW would allow the HIC to automatically Disengage then flee. The new rules work exactly the same as the RAW with, in our opinion, the same flaws as the RAW, so we would still want the house rule that Disengage requires a Maneuver roll. There is a small issue with the new rules in that because the LIC has already said "no move", then they will have to wait until all other chars have moved before being able to move during the Action Resolution phase (assuming that's allowed in these new rules, which we would probably assume is the case). Alternatively, I think there's scope in the new rules to allow the LIC to abort their "no move" announcement, much like the RAW allows to cancel an action at 10% penalty. In effect everything works the same as the RAW in that case.

   ii. Disengager is the LIC:
     Since the LIC moves first, they would announce the 30% activity Disengage, and the HIC could automatically react to that by intercepting. In this instance there's not as much reason to house rule Disengage not being automatic, but due to case 1. above, we would probably keep the house rule that Disengage needs a Maneuver roll to be successful.


In summary, I think the new round sequence is definitely worth considering. The introduction of a dedicated movement step appears to solve some of the anomalous situations which arise when actions and movement are mixed up during the normal RAW round. 

I would strongly suggest that the RMU designers at least consider it, hopefully with their own play testing.

[Merkir]

I use something very close to this so to new players...

That being the case, do you think the RMU designers should consider it?

[Cory Magel]

Ok, I see where our use of "attacks of opportunity" are more important than I may have realized.

All chars are allowed to change facing in order lowest initiative to highest.

Facing is just completely free with us, we figure in a moving/evolving combat you're going to continually adjust to your surrounding in terms of facing.  This, however, can result in "Oh! He's going to face me? Then I'm facing him." readjustments, but this doesn't bother us.  Doing it in order of movement initiative seems a good way to avoid that if you want to.

Any character having performed the move portion of a Charge action must remain facing one of the three front hexes in order to resolve the Charge, otherwise the Charge action is voided.

Good rule.  We've just not really had this come up yet... the people that were charging, charged.

B)  When a HIC "intercepts" a LIC, forcing the LIC to "rewind" their move, it was unknown where the LIC should rewind to. I decided 10' (2 hexes) from the HIC. This then allows the LIC to either continue moving forward to engage the HIC, or turn and move off in a different direction (also allowing the HIC to intercept again if desired and if they have enough movement left).

There are a few edge cases on this point. Eg.

So, in my earlier replies I was pretty much just speculating on how you could handle multiple 'interceptions' because we just don't treat it that way (much).  We have the LIC make their full move and when the HIC responds to it in a situation where the HIC will be blocking them from a goal (doorway, object, etc) we simply end up with the HIC between the LIC and their goal and the LIC has however much action left over due to the 'block' (go back do the doorway situation).  They do not get to try shooting off in another direction.  The 'herding' can still happen, it just happens over multiple rounds.

We haven't tinkered with repeated adjustments like you're thinking of.  I'm not sure if we want to go into that much detail.  While it isn't a bad idea to have rules worked out for it this complicates movement quite a bit more and I don't see us adopting it.

i. What if the LIC started their move 10' (2 hexes) away from their intended destination?
      (suggested answer: make the LIC move 5' towards the destination, thus always engaging with the intercepting HIC)

ii. What if the LIC started their move 5' (1 hex) away from their intended destination?
     (suggested answer: the LIC doesn't move. The HIC intercepts and they both engage)

iii. What if the LIC started their move already very close to their intended destination (eg. 5 or 10') and the HIC is far away, eg. 50'. Should the HIC still be allowed to intercept?
     (suggested answer #1: Yes. Use the KISS principal even if it seems a little unrealistic. Of course the RAW would give this result regardless)
     (suggested answer #2: I also toyed with the idea of allowing the HIC to intercept only if they are no further than double the distance to the destination hex compared to the LIC. This also seems quite workable, and certainly more realistic.)

We rule it as the HIC can, due to having the better initiative, move between the LIC and their destination assuming there is a space between the LIC and destination.  I know that seems 'powerful' if the HIC was 11 hexes away... but that's the importance of initiative in this setup.  We are assuming that the HIC is paying attention the LIC (you may want to make the player roll a Combat Awareness check here) and that the rounds are a seemless series of actions and reactions, so the HIC didn't just SUDDENLY become aware of what the LIC is doing... it is assumed they were keeping an eye out (again, potentially good place for Combat Awareness).  Also, keep in mind the HIC, if moving a significant amount, is putting themselves in harms way if the LIC is VERY close to their destination and is probably going to get attacked (unable to parry on top of that) if the LIC does not abandon their effort to get to their destination.

iv. Should "zones of control" (ZOC) be enforced during movement for melee-ready chars? The ZOC could be the 3 front hexes of any melee-capable char. Should opportunity attacks be allowed during movement against chars attempting to enter and then leave a foe's ZOC?
     (suggested answer #1 (preferred): Yes, and the char making the attack forgoes any further movement in order to resolve the attack immediately during the movement phase.)
     (suggested answer #2: No. Keep it simple. They attack only during the Action Resolution step. The drawback is that there would never be opportunity attacks)

If two foes are engaged in melee and one moves away then (in our games) the one not moving away can choose to make whatever allowable percentage attack they want to at that time instead of waiting for their normal attack initiative.  So, they could attack the one moving away with 60-100% action (assuming melee), then move with any remaining amount, or they can let them go (not attack and keep their activity %) and follow them if they want to or abandon the whole thing and just do something else.

If someone is passing you buy in an adjacent hex the same holds true.  If someone runs right past you you can use the opportunity to attack, but again that IS your attack for the round and you may now be getting attacked by someone you were already engaged in melee with.  This is important for our combats because a good number of them with be on board a ship.  (You can't just run up and down the ship-deck while a fight is going on without potentially drawing attacks).

i. Disengager is the HIC:
     Since the LIC moves first, and is engaged with the HIC, it is likely that the LIC will say "no move" in the expectation of a 100% activity attack against the defender. The RMC RAW would allow the HIC to automatically Disengage then flee. The new rules work exactly the same as the RAW with, in our opinion, the same flaws as the RAW, so we would still want the house rule that Disengage requires a Maneuver roll. There is a small issue with the new rules in that because the LIC has already said "no move", then they will have to wait until all other chars have moved before being able to move during the Action Resolution phase (assuming that's allowed in these new rules, which we would probably assume is the case). Alternatively, I think there's scope in the new rules to allow the LIC to abort their "no move" announcement, much like the RAW allows to cancel an action at 10% penalty. In effect everything works the same as the RAW in that case.

I think I see an area of confusion between us.  The way we do it there is movement, then actions.  Movement does not occur during the action phase.  We do let people 'use up' extra action % at the end of the round for movement (and if you are trying to flee an melee engagement you're probably going to draw a FREE attack of opportunity).  So a LIC doesn't get to stand still, get attacked by a HIC, then move away during the action phase or at the end of the round scott-free (there's really little difference between them moving during the action phase or using up left over movement at the end of the round).  So if the LIC is trying to get away they need to do it before an incoming melee attack, otherwise they are just going to give the attacker a second opening at the end of the round.

[Cory Magel]

It seems we have a decent amount of GM judgement calls when intercepting is taking place.  Generally when someone is chasing someone else, or trying to block them, overall movement available is taken into consideration.  So two characters just running along in an open environment don't have a 'leap-frog' effect, if one is ahead and has more movement available they stay ahead.  But this can change in a closed environment when combatants are trying to intercept or block each other.

So, there's two ways you can handle a part of the movement.
If someone is running for a door, is closer to it AND has more movement available, you can say they 'win the race'.  Initiative becomes less important.
If someone is running for a door, is closer to it AND has more movement available, you can say they 'sorry, you lost initiative'. Initiative becomes much more important.

Now that I think on this we've handled it slightly differently in different situations... meaning, it has (at points) been a judgement call (which is not really a good idea for a core setup - the rules need to be consistent if it was to be used as an official process).

[Merkir]

i. Disengager is the HIC:
     Since the LIC moves first, and is engaged with the HIC, it is likely that the LIC will say "no move" in the expectation of a 100% activity attack against the defender. The RMC RAW would allow the HIC to automatically Disengage then flee. The new rules work exactly the same as the RAW with, in our opinion, the same flaws as the RAW, so we would still want the house rule that Disengage requires a Maneuver roll. There is a small issue with the new rules in that because the LIC has already said "no move", then they will have to wait until all other chars have moved before being able to move during the Action Resolution phase (assuming that's allowed in these new rules, which we would probably assume is the case). Alternatively, I think there's scope in the new rules to allow the LIC to abort their "no move" announcement, much like the RAW allows to cancel an action at 10% penalty. In effect everything works the same as the RAW in that case.

I think I see an area of confusion between us.  The way we do it there is movement, then actions.  Movement does not occur during the action phase.  We do let people 'use up' extra action % at the end of the round for movement (and if you are trying to flee an melee engagement you're probably going to draw a FREE attack of opportunity).  So a LIC doesn't get to stand still, get attacked by a HIC, then move away during the action phase or at the end of the round scott-free (there's really little difference between them moving during the action phase or using up left over movement at the end of the round).  So if the LIC is trying to get away they need to do it before an incoming melee attack, otherwise they are just going to give the attacker a second opening at the end of the round.

Yes, I extrapolated your method to what I thought was an appropriate way of dealing with the "maximum movement" issue to make it similar to the RAW. Interestingly, assuming RMU is moving to a 5 second round as already announced, this will no longer be an issue, and the maximum movement a char can make before an opponent can respond is the same as the 50% Phase 1 in RMC - ie. 5 seconds.

Also, when I read your new rules, I thought it more along the lines of a normal % Activity round, with the condition that if a char wants to move, it must be performed at the start of the round (ignoring for the moment "leftover" % activity movement at the end of the round - quite ok). After all, each char must still keep a tally of the % Activity spent moving so that they know what remains for the Action Resolution step. I have no difficulty with that thinking.

But getting back to the Disengage situation described above, how would you resolve it?  Ie. We have a LIC not wanting to move in order to continue melee attacking a defender, thus announcing "no move" (I assume?), then the HIC defender deciding to disengage and flee? Doesn't your rules (without modification) mean the LIC gets no movement at all during the round? Or perhaps what applies is your rule that any leftover activity is allowed to be taken as movement, which in this case the LIC simply moves during (or after) the Action phase anyway?