Char A declares an attack on Char B. 100% activity action on the attack.
By the core rules, actions are resolves in 2 steps, at the 50% mark, and then above, but actually actions are resovled in 5% or 10% increments (first) and then in initiative order.
Say CharB uses a short action of some sort (50% activity action to move away as fast as possible). This is resolved at the 50% activity point.
Char A, decides to cancel his swing and give chase. 50% of the round HAS elapsed, so that is gone. Char A loses 10% activity (for a total of 60% activity of the round being gone), leaving him 40% activity in which to act.
Canceling that 100% activity attack does NOT leave him with 90% activity to act, not when half the round has already gone past.
I am not arguing whether the rules are good bad or indifferent. What I am saying is that what Rasyr quoted above is (imho) not supported by the rules in arms law.
Specifically, here is what Arms law has to say about canceling an action:
Canceling an Action: There may be times when a player, after declaring their action, may decide that they need to cancel their declared action and declare a different action. There are several guidelines to be followed when canceling actions.
? Actions may only be canceled only during the player?s turn.
? Only actions that have not been resolved may be canceled.
? The character loses 10% of their remaining activity for canceling an action.
? The character may declare a new action, so long as they have enough percentage of activity to complete the new action.
To me this is saying the character who cancels their action lose 10% of their remaining activity. The word 'their' implies the activity the specific character has, not the amount of 'activity' that has passed for the round.
This interpretation is reinforced by the example give on pp. 34-36. It gives an example of canceling. Here is the portions I found relevant to this discussion:
Example: Our three heroes, Gauth the Fighter, Athlon the Rogue, and Aurin the Magician, exit a small canyon into a mountain pass, only to find themselves confronted by two Lesser Orcs, led by a Greater Orc, blocking their path. Two Goblins with short bows crouch on a ledge 30? above and to the left of the Orc position. The Greater Orc bellows and points, and Combat time starts.
Declare Initial Actions Step:
Aurin: I?ll cast Sleep VII on those
goblins, then wait.
Athlon: I?ll fire on lesser Orc 1, then reload.
Gauth: I advance on the orcs 50%
activity and attack 50%. (90/20 OB/DB)
Greater Orc: Throws a spear at the one
with the bow (Athlon)
...
Aurin has cast his spell, and depleted 75% of his activity, leaving him with 25%. The Greater Orc cancels his attack on Athlon, and re-directs it on Aurin. (The mod causes him to loose initiative to Athlon.) The Greater Orc has expended 10% activity in canceling his previous action, and has 90% activity left.
...
The Greater Orc Declares he will throw his spear (50% activity) at the nasty spell caster (Aurin), despite the extreme range.
In this example, it strongly suggests that canceling an action simply means a loss of 10% activity. Despite the round being '75% over', the greater orc in the example lost only 10% for redirecting his attack against the spell caster. He still had 90% action left. If instead the rules for canceling were "10% + activity spent so far in the round" then wouldn't the greater orc in the example have used 85% action (10% + 75% since that is the point at where he canceled his action during turn) to cancel and thus he would not have been able to throw his spear?
Again note that I am not debating what ther rules should be or any of that. I am questioning how accurate the rules are in regards to the current discussion on canceling actions.
Bob
