Topic: React and Melee RMSS vs Canceling action in MA companion

[MariusH]

Thanks again!

I DO like that you get a penalty for having done some action before your cancelled action - but I DON'T like that this penalty applies to melee and manouvers only, and not movement. However, I guess that's how I'm gonna play it.

As for full melee or not full melee: I see that there is not an agreement here. I think I'll go for the version of melee after cancel action being a 4th type of melee - a melee where you state your target when you cancel your action, and get -40 (and NOT +10 for full melee).

However THIS I will not even try:

I would say it depend on the archer. Missile fire is 30-60% action meaning that even if the archer went as fast possible you must at least devote 10% of the round to parry. Remember that the orc are not standing around waiting to be hit but making attacks (even through we know none of the attacks really connected...but that is only true if you do parry).

If you don't parry or dodge then the orc should be able to hit you with his first strike. This means you would have between 70% and 40% activity left of the round. If you can do melee or not depend on the activity left.

If you're gonna go down that path, where actions happen simultaneously, I say choose a different system - possibly a second-based system. I don't think that even if a spell-caster spent 75% action in normal phase casting a spell before I made my 20% movement the same phase, I'm supposed to have made some of that movement during his spell casting. I say if you haven't had your turn, and if you haven't used any parry, you're free to cancel your ENTIRE action.

[pastaav]

However THIS I will not even try:

I would say it depend on the archer. Missile fire is 30-60% action meaning that even if the archer went as fast possible you must at least devote 10% of the round to parry. Remember that the orc are not standing around waiting to be hit but making attacks (even through we know none of the attacks really connected...but that is only true if you do parry).

If you don't parry or dodge then the orc should be able to hit you with his first strike. This means you would have between 70% and 40% activity left of the round. If you can do melee or not depend on the activity left.

If you're gonna go down that path, where actions happen simultaneously, I say choose a different system - possibly a second-based system. I don't think that even if a spell-caster spent 75% action in normal phase casting a spell before I made my 20% movement the same phase, I'm supposed to have made some of that movement during his spell casting. I say if you haven't had your turn, and if you haven't used any parry, you're free to cancel your ENTIRE action.

I do seriously think the phases-init system is a second-based system unless you add houserules about each phase being a combat round of its own. In essence the phases aim to solve the problem of having freedom of doing complex actions without the upkeep of track every second.

There are some issues that might arise during play, like the question is if the 75% spell activity really mean that the spell goes off at the end of the interval or if some of the activity is recovery. On the other hand the number of such questions is limited. Make a few decisions and then it become obvious how to match activity in upcoming situations.

[MariusH]

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one. I suppose the rules can be interpreted in many ways, but personally I think the following supports the view of "sequential" actions (RMSS, s. 73):

While each action takes a percentage of a
character’s activity for a round, it is important to keep in
mind that when an action is resolved is not determined by
the percentage activity it requires. Rather, the sequencing
of an action is based upon how fast the character is
attempting to accomplish the action and the character’s
initiative roll.
How fast the character is attempting to accomplish his
action is abstracted into a simple decision for each character
— Is the action:
A snap action? ............................ resolved earlier with
a -20 modification
A normal action? ............................ resolved normally
A deliberate action?....................... resolved later with
a +10 modification

Of course, I'm sure it's possible to find passages supporting other views as well. I'd like to have some examples of how you actully play that way during real gaming sessions, though - if you have the time to come up with some. It would be interresting to see how it works in practice.

[pastaav]

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one. I suppose the rules can be interpreted in many ways, but personally I think the following supports the view of "sequential" actions (RMSS, s. 73):

While each action takes a percentage of a
character’s activity for a round, it is important to keep in
mind that when an action is resolved is not determined by
the percentage activity it requires. Rather, the sequencing
of an action is based upon how fast the character is
attempting to accomplish the action and the character’s
initiative roll.
How fast the character is attempting to accomplish his
action is abstracted into a simple decision for each character
— Is the action:
A snap action? ............................ resolved earlier with
a -20 modification
A normal action? ............................ resolved normally
A deliberate action?....................... resolved later with
a +10 modification

Of course, I'm sure it's possible to find passages supporting other views as well. I'd like to have some examples of how you actually play that way during real gaming sessions, though - if you have the time to come up with some. It would be interresting to see how it works in practice.

Ummm...I can't see that your quote actually talking about any certain way to handle partial or aborted actions. The quote is clearly talking about resolve order for actions that are actually performed and not aborted actions or partial actions.

Anyway I think that is vital for the game experience to make the world consistent with the real world expectations of the players. A movement that happen before an action should translate into that some reasonable part of the time period is spent moving. If two characters are bashing each other they do spend time trading blows even if both fail to cause any damage.

Going with houserules about the phases being mini rounds leads us into madness like the following: Suppose one character face one melee enemy and one archer enemy. He must choose which enemy to block. Suppose he decide to focus on the enemy that is close, but that the archer wins initiative and gets a killing shoot. With a house rule that the melee fighter has not participated in any combat and thus can cancel his action and attack somebody else things get really weird. The problem here is that if he is not really attacking the person that is one the way to get shoot that character is free to block the arrow. It is quite possible in a real game play end in a situation when a character dies because an action that has not been reached in resolve order, but that logic dictates should already be on the way of happening if it happened in the real world.

There are very little rules to handle these actions that real world logic demand should happen partially, but after years of using the the phases init system I also firmly believe there is little need. Just about every situation can be handled by just applying some common sense. It happen that you get down in a argument with the players about how much action that reasonably should be recovered from some aborted action, but IMHO that is way better than arguing about how to handle a character that suddenly without warning is "teleported" to another part of the battle. Of course it is possible to run RM combat in manner when you don't care about tactics, positions, what directions people looking at or who can attack who. In such game groups the mini-round assumption will not matter much, but such playstyle is IMHO quite far from "Get Real, Get Rolemaster"   

[Dreven1]

More news from the initial post!!

We tried to play with the "React and Melee" and "Full Melee" attack this weekend.

It didn't go smoothly...we got into one situation and it went south!

Fighter #1 declares - "Full Melee attack the Evil Mage"
Fighter #2 declares - "Full Melee attack the Evil Mage"
Evil Mage declares - "Run from everybody since I am outgunned!”

The Evil mage rolls 20 for init
Fighter #1 rolls 15 for init
Fighter #2 rolls 8 for init

What happens!?
Does the Evil mage get away?
Does she have to make a conflicting action roll?
Does she simply move 10’ and break combat?

Does Fighter #1 have to “change action” with a -40 to then “Press and Melee”? if he can’t outrun the Evil mage and still have 80% action left to pursue the Mage does he simply declare a run/sprint/dash or whatever to catch up?
Same with Fighter #2? Does the Evil mage make 2 conflicting action rolls? Or is one sufficient? Can the second fighter change to “Press and Melee” with no consequences?

This was VERY difficult for us trying this out for the first time…

[MariusH]

This is how _I_ would handle it:

If the evil mage was not in melee (that is, attacked the previous round), he would indeed get away. Since the fighters were so incredibly stupid as to declare "full melee" rather than "press and melee", they will NOT get any opportunity to attack. They CAN cancel action, and EITHER move up to 50% activity, OR attack against another, adjecent target. Assuming no other adjecent target, they spoiled their attack by being greedy and going for the +10 offered by "full melee". USE "full melee" WITH CAUTION!

If the evil mage WAS "in melee", it would essentially be the same situation as above, except that the evil mage would have to use "break from melee" with 25% to move 10' as his first action. The stupid fighters still don't get to attack.

No conflicting rolls, and no "cancel action" to move and attack. "Press and melee" should be your ordinary attack type, except for special situations.

[markc]

  IMHO once you decide if he was in melee or not you would do a chase scene. With people rolling sprinting rolls for movement % or rates.
MDC

[Dreven1]

If the mage WAS considered in Melee and he has to do a "Break from Melee" and move 10' with 25% action...can he still then move another 75% with his remaining movement? or is that it for his movement that round? 

[Kristen Mork]

I agree with Marius.  However, we're missing some key data.  So, I'll assume the following:

Fighter #1: Normal speed Full Attack the Evil Mage
Fighter #2: Normal speed Full Attack the Evil Mage
Evil Mage: Snap Disengage (25%), then 50% Move, then 25% Move

After the snap phase, the mage is 10' away.
After the mage's action in the normal phase he's 50' away (assuming Run pace with 50' BMR).
The fighter's actions are no longer possible.
After the Deliberate phase, the mage is 85' away (10' disengage + 50' move + 25' move).
The fighters can now move 50' towards the mage.

Simply put, the fighters foolishly wasted time looking for an optimal opening while the mage scampered.

Now, consider a different declaration:
Fighter #1: Snap speed Pressing Attack the Evil Mage
Fighter #2: Normal speed Pressing Attack the Evil Mage
Evil Mage: Snap Disengage (25%), then 50% Move, then 25% Move

In the snap phase, the mage moves 10'.  Then, the first fighter presses 10' (with a -5 penalty for movement on top of the -20 penalty for snap).

In the normal phase, the mage is still in melee, so his movement action is canceled.  The second fighter presses 10' (with a -5 penalty for movement).  Finally, the mage's third move action is canceled.

At this point, the mage can choose 50% movement.  I might be kind and allow that to be treated as a 25% disengage, but I'm all for running away to fight another day (from either party).

In short, a mage might be able to evade a single fighter in pursuit, if the dice are kind.  But, he's not going to avoid being cut down by a pair of pursuers.

[Dreven1]

Ah... so... you CAN NOT move in a phase where you are still engaged in melee? so the move is simply canceled? or can the Mage do a conflicting action roll?

[MariusH]

You CAN move, but only as a "disengage from melee". That requires 25% activity, and you get to move up to 10'.

However, this raises the question of what it means to be "in melee", and how to disengage. I think that calls for a new topic.

[Dreven1]

I have full rules for what "engaged in Melee" is, however...

if in a later phase the mage chooses to "flee" and they already did a "Disengage Melee" (Move 10' and use 25% activity) then can the Mage still go the rest of the 75% activity/Movement?? 

I am still WAY confused...

[yammahoper]

I have full rules for what "engaged in Melee" is, however...

if in a later phase the mage chooses to "flee" and they already did a "Disengage Melee" (Move 10' and use 25% activity) then can the Mage still go the rest of the 75% activity/Movement?? 

I am still WAY confused...

Yes.  You could resolve it all in the deliberate phase, but technically the mage in question would move 55% in the deliberate and resolve the remaining 20% movement after the deliberate phase (in the rairly mentioned recovery phase).

If the diengage takes place in the deliberate phase, you could allow the full movemnt in the recovery, however a strict interpretation would probably only allow 20% in the recovery, and the rest of the possible movemnt is simply lost (i.e. not enough time).

[pastaav]

Ah... so... you CAN NOT move in a phase where you are still engaged in melee? so the move is simply canceled? or can the Mage do a conflicting action roll?

Well...I would not say that you can't move if you engaged in melee.

If the player want to gamble on that the attacker will not use press and melee and expect to beat the initiative he should get the option to make the escape-or-die maneuver. You don't want to be in the situation that the enemy makes gets flank and rear bonus. Myself I would also I assign a surprise bonus since the mage stops trying to defend himself and just run. If the attack cause stuns then the upcoming movements will be affected by the stun rules and so on...the situation must be pretty bad for this to be a good idea.

The benefit of using disengage melee is IMHO that you get an attempt to escape combat without giving the enemy positional bonuses. The trade off is that you move less distance so it it easier for the enemy to catch up. If the enemy declared press and melee he will follow you, perhaps forcing you to do something else or try yet another disengage combat maneuver. If he missed that you intend to disengage you get the needed space to run from combat more safely. In that situation it becomes an issue of sprinting and similar skills.

I also disagree about press and melee being the standard option. In most situations full melee is better since you expect the enemy to stay since he would not be fighting you unless he wanted to kill you. The exception would be fighters closing in on a mage...if they don't get that the mage will try to run instead of getting butchered they are...like very ignorant about tactics. Support line characters should always try to escape if two melee attackers close in on them or they deserve to be slain. Actually any character should consider escape if he encounter two enemies.

A final notice is that I would say the rules for movement and disengage is probably one of the areas that is most often houseruled. Just about everyone has their idea about how to handle pursuit scenarios and what disengage really means. It is not like the rules give good explanations.

[Kristen Mork]

if in a later phase the mage chooses to "flee" and they already did a "Disengage Melee" (Move 10' and use 25% activity) then can the Mage still go the rest of the 75% activity/Movement??

Assuming that "Disengage" is an action, the mage has three basic options:

• Snap Disengage, Normal Move at 50%, Deliberate Move at 25%
• Snap Disengage, Deliberate Move at 75%
• Normal Disengage, Deliberate Move at 75%

Actually 1) and 2) are just variants of the same basic pattern: Normal at 0-50 and Deliberate at 75-25.  Option 3) might make sense if you expect your opponent to attack pressing, and want to deny him the opportunity to reengage if you disengaged before the attack (perhaps you know you can rely on a Bladeturn from another mage?).

[Dreven1]

Great tips all!

We are implementing a house rule that stats if an Attacker is using "Press and Melee" then a "fleeing" opponent must make a "Conflicting Actions" roll to break Melee against EACH attacker. That way it gets harder and harder to flee if more than one opponent is on you. 

Also, if full Melee attacks are made and someone wins init then they can basically flee using the 25% action for "Disengage Melee" and 75% action to run like hell.

Thanks all for the input!!!
Drev

[MariusH]

I'm all for house rules. However, if the attacker uses "press and melee" against someone using "disengage from melee", he DOES get to follow. Why the need for "conflicting actions"? The combat is just moved 10' away. Also, it sometimes can be advantageous to disengage from melee even if your opponent can follow you - just so you can move those 10' and get around the corner, out of harms way from those nasty arrows.

I'm actually considering house rules with the opposite effect: I'll not demand a "disengage from melee" if you're in combat with two opponents, and move so that you stay in melee with only one of them (if you're gonna break from both, you'll have to disengage). This is in order to make it harder to completely surround a target. By using "press and melee" or attacking with only 90-95% activity and maintain som % for movement, I think this will make a "melee dance" between the involved . I just think surrounding a target is too easy, and want some way to reduce the effect of that. Am I being "too kind" to the surrounded person?