Topic: Initiative

[Widukind]

If we are rolling dice`s for initiative, there are only a few modifiers for weapons and for to be encumbered.

why not for the ranges of moving?

A char, with a ini result of 10, will attack the enemy (ini result 10). He run`s 12` into the battle without substraction from his ini?

[RandalThor]

You are getting to the gist of why RM (the 'Big Daddy' of HARP) has it's combat rounds broken up into segments: Snap, Normal, & Deliberate. And it is why I go for more flowing combat styles, not the: on my initiative I do items 1 thru 14, style.

It is very easy to institute initiative mods for actions, or just do it on the fly. Say you have 2 fighters (A and B) and they are 18 feet apart. Fighter A gets a 17 iniative, while Fighter B gets only a 6. Fighter A says he will rush and attack, which means he has to move about 15 feet (assuming he is using a broad/long sword) You say that moving that distance makes his attack go later, say with a -10. Well, luckily for him he was 11 over in initiative verses Fighter B so he still attacks first.

Of course, you could easily say that the distance has to be covered no matter what for the 2 fighters, so the initiative is there saying: "when they get close, the one with the higher initiative goes first." In this case, the movement modifier to initiative would only apply to someone not directly involved in the attack/defend between Fighters A and B. (Say, an archer wants to help his buddy Fighter B by shooting Fighter A before B gets attacked by A.

I suggest is that you imagine the fight in your head and "watch" it as it unfolds, and then go with what feels/seems right to you.

[Thom @ ICE]

If you want to apply this type of adjustment you need to consider pace, BMR and distance to move.

Example 1
Distance between combatants is 25 feet.
A has a BMR of 12' and is moving at a fast run of 36'.
B is drawing his bow and not moving.

A wins init 18 vs B's init of 9.

A will reach B 2/3 of the way through their actions - or when their init has dropped from 18 to 6.
B attacks at 9 and therefore fires the arrow in advance of A reaching him.


Example 2 = Distance is only 12' between them.
A will reach B after 1/3 of his total movement - therefore his init drops by 1/3 - 18 becomes 12.
B is prepared to attack at 9, but A gets to him first.

You could use this methodology to determine distance at time of attack for example 1.
Consider B is throwing a dagger instead of shooting a bow.  25' range is at RI(4) -40,  but since halfway through the round he threw the dagger and his foe was running at 36' per round, the guy had moved 18' and closed to only 7' when the dagger was thrown - RI(1) for -10 on the attack.

NOTE: This is entirely off the top of my head.  It does not consider the penalty for Fast Run (Very Hard difficulty) nor does it make reference to the significant OB penalties from Move & Attack.

[Widukind]

Oh, thanks. Or its more realistic/playable -1 Ini per 1feet movement and -1 per pace level.
Have Rolemaster simarly rules?

[Marc R]

In RM all actions take % activity, a round normally is 100%. . .and depending on the version, multiple phases of action. . .so in a simplistic sense.

If I have init over you.

I declare move, then Melee, you declare throw dagger then draw.

short/snap phase, I move, you throw.

Long/normal, I attack, you draw.

So your first action will go off before my 2nd, despite my winning initiative (It gets more complicated with combined actions, like a charging attack which combines move and strike, but that's the simple answer)

[Kristen Mork]

Technically, RM includes a penalty to initiative of -1 for each 10% activity devoted to movement, but I don't know anyone that uses that modifier.  As LM noted, if you move in the snap phase, your attack is necessarily delayed until the normal phase.  If you take a penalty to initiative for moving while charging, the defender will usually get to attack first.  Seems counter-intuitive to me.

[jasonbrisbane]

I played rm with the action point system (with house rules) years ago and it was the most realistic combat system I have ever played!

[Cory Magel]

Technically, RM includes a penalty to initiative of -1 for each 10% activity devoted to movement, but I don't know anyone that uses that modifier.  As LM noted, if you move in the snap phase, your attack is necessarily delayed until the normal phase.  If you take a penalty to initiative for moving while charging, the defender will usually get to attack first.  Seems counter-intuitive to me.

House Rule: If someone on horseback is charging someone on foot and they are both using melee weapons the person with the longest weapon reach automatically gets initiative.  So, lance on horseback vs two handed sword on foot, lancer gets to attack first.  However if the horseback attacker has, say, a big morning star and the one on foot has a spear, then the spear gets to attack first.

[Thom @ ICE]

If everything else was equal I would agree that the weapon length determines initiative, however there are also concerns such as piercing weapons vs. slashing (slashing does not take advantage of the full reach of the weapon), and quickness of the attacker (a foot soldier with a 2-handed sword against a horseman with a mace, the foot soldier SHOULD get the strike in first, but may not have his timing down right).

[Cory Magel]

A charging attacker on horseback coming at someone on foot is a very dangerous thing.  I believe the first known instance of a front line on foot holding against a cavalry charge was depicted in Braveheart.  The primary reason?  Because someone thought to make 'spears' that were longer than the attackers lances and plant the butt end of them in the ground.

Some of the rules we implemented for charging were a result of our opinion that it lacked any real advantage in RM.  I mean, you have to learn multiple skills, you have to have the right situation in combat to attempt it, and you have to spend time setting up the attack/approach to have any real chance to perform it... and you end up with a top result similar to someone on foot with a two handed sword?  That just sucks.

The auto initiative depending on weapon length, a damage multiplier depending on the amount of room and speed the charger had, and a secondary unbalancing critical are my own personal modifications.  It's not very often that a group is going to be confronted with a fully armored knight with a lance coming at them, but when they are they need to understand it's a serious threat and not just stand there waiting to take their swing.

If everything else was equal I would agree that the weapon length determines initiative, however there are also concerns such as piercing weapons vs. slashing (slashing does not take advantage of the full reach of the weapon), and quickness of the attacker (a foot soldier with a 2-handed sword against a horseman with a mace, the foot soldier SHOULD get the strike in first, but may not have his timing down right).

The way I describe it the 2-hander user would have the initiative and the idea of not having his timing down would just be simulated as a miss.  He would get to swing first, he just might not hit.

[masque1223]

A charging attacker on horseback coming at someone on foot is a very dangerous thing.  I believe the first known instance of a front line on foot holding against a cavalry charge was depicted in Braveheart.  The primary reason?  Because someone thought to make 'spears' that were longer than the attackers lances and plant the butt end of them in the ground.

While that is indeed an effective strategy against cavalry, it didn't actually happen during the real battle.  The historical battle is the battle of Stirling Bridge, and Wallace won because the cavalry had to cross a narrow bridge, and the Scots simply attacked before they had time to form up.  The Scots didn't have to actually withstand a full charge.

The spear tactic shown in the movie was actually used by Robert the Bruce's forces at the Battle of Bannockburn.

-masque, wearing his kilt.

[Widukind]

I played rm with the action point system (with house rules) years ago and it was the most realistic combat system I have ever played!

Oh realy? Where are this rules?

[Cory Magel]

While that is indeed an effective strategy against cavalry, it didn't actually happen during the real battle.  The historical battle is the battle of Stirling Bridge, and Wallace won because the cavalry had to cross a narrow bridge, and the Scots simply attacked before they had time to form up.  The Scots didn't have to actually withstand a full charge.

The spear tactic shown in the movie was actually used by Robert the Bruce's forces at the Battle of Bannockburn.

-masque, wearing his kilt.

Bannockburn is what I was actually referring to.  I guess it depends on that historians perception, but I don't consider the battle of Stirling the first time since it wasn't actually a full charge by an organized line of cavalry.

[masque1223]

Bannockburn is what I was actually referring to.  I guess it depends on that historians perception, but I don't consider the battle of Stirling the first time since it wasn't actually a full charge by an organized line of cavalry.

Yeah, the movie just got it wrong.  They used the tactic for their version of Stirling (with no bridge).  We don't get to see the actual battle of Bannockburn in the movie, as the flick ends right after Hamish throws the sword and the charge begins.