Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	the uac dilemma
Date:	Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:19:50 +0100

Message no. 1 Hi!
Did you ever notice that in shadowrun unarmed combat the fight is
over after 5 seconds... the one who scores the first hit wins the
fight since with the higher target number due to the injury, the
other one stands no chance... so what does the smart player? through
anything he has... all the pools, combat and karma, into the first
attack... then he either has won or lost... its all over after the
first combat turn. Really makes me sick...
In order to develope a cool fistfight that lasts for a few minutes, I
have to break the rules several times.
Does anyone out there know a solution/does anyone share the same
experiences? If not, why not?

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Mon, 21 Jul 1997 04:44:18 -0400

Message no. 2 At 10:19 AM 7/21/97 +0100, Simon T. Sailer wrote these timeless words:
>Hi!
>Did you ever notice that in shadowrun unarmed combat the fight is
>over after 5 seconds... the one who scores the first hit wins the
>fight since with the higher target number due to the injury, the
>other one stands no chance... so what does the smart player? through
>anything he has... all the pools, combat and karma, into the first
>attack... then he either has won or lost... its all over after the
>first combat turn. Really makes me sick...
>In order to develope a cool fistfight that lasts for a few minutes, I
>have to break the rules several times.
>Does anyone out there know a solution/does anyone share the same
>experiences? If not, why not?
>
Roleplay out combat, making the players tell exactly what they're doing,
and determine the outcome that way... That's probably the only way to do
it without completely coming up with a new set of combat rules...

Also, I have strentched out the "Combat Round" more than the 3-5 seconds
that are supposed to elapse. tehre are simply too many things that happen
in the normal turn, and I still imagine my fight scenes as cinimatic in
nature. Lots of bullets flying that never hit anyone, and hand to hand
combat that involves a lot of attacks and parries before anyone hits. That
sort of thing... So I stretch each round out to anywhere from 10 seconds
to 30 seconds, dependiong on how much happens in a single turn.

Also, I don;t keep track of ammo, and don;t make my players do that either,
except in extreme situations... Thus going for the John Woo Automatic
Reloads in less than a second...;]

Bull-who-plays-fast-and-loose-with-rules-quite-often-for-the-sake-of-trhe-story
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Gen Con, here I come!"
-- Me

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:07:20 -0600

Message no. 3 Simon T. Sailer wrote:
|
| Hi!
| Did you ever notice that in shadowrun unarmed combat the fight is
| over after 5 seconds... the one who scores the first hit wins the
| fight since with the higher target number due to the injury, the
| other one stands no chance... so what does the smart player? through
| anything he has... all the pools, combat and karma, into the first
| attack... then he either has won or lost... its all over after the
| first combat turn. Really makes me sick...

Have you ever been in a real fight (one where either or both sides
now how to fight)? It is over that quickly.

| In order to develope a cool fistfight that lasts for a few minutes, I
| have to break the rules several times.
| Does anyone out there know a solution/does anyone share the same
| experiences? If not, why not?

If you want to make it more cinamatic here's a couple things you can
do. Allow the target of an attack to use as much of his combat pool
as he wants to defend. Award ties to the target. If the target gets
more successes, he doesn't hit the attacker, it just results in the
attack being a failure.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:26:54 -0700

Message no. 4 Bull wrote:
> Also, I don;t keep track of ammo, and don;t make my players do that either,
> except in extreme situations... Thus going for the John Woo Automatic
> Reloads in less than a second...;]

Hmmm...I think that running out of ammo makes it waaaayy more fun. :)

Caric-the-*click*-frag!!!-shaman

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:26:10 EST

Message no. 5 > Did you ever notice that in shadowrun unarmed combat the fight is
> over after 5 seconds... the one who scores the first hit wins the

My worst expeiences were when the team I was GM'ing ran into a bug
nest....mostly a firefight, but one trueform materialized to do hand
to hand (well, pincer to sword in this case).

Players action: Fires handgun then readies sword (gun is in off hand)
Bugs action: Attacks player and gets hurt
Players action: Fires with off-hand (he doesn't hit anything well
though)
Bugs action: attacs again and dies.

Now this was not such a great player, but he did have Willpower 6 (he
was a mage-killer). I think he only had Armed 3 and Strength 3. THe
Bug was only a force 4, and wasn't all that bright, but I couldn't
see how the BUG not only LOST, but lost on ITS OWN ACTION. IT was
disgusting.

From:	Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 01:15:39 +1000

Message no. 6 At 10:19 21/07/97 +0100, Simon T. Sailer wrote:
>Hi!
>Did you ever notice that in shadowrun unarmed combat the fight is
>over after 5 seconds... the one who scores the first hit wins the
>fight since with the higher target number due to the injury, the
>other one stands no chance... so what does the smart player? through
>anything he has... all the pools, combat and karma, into the first
>attack... then he either has won or lost... its all over after the
>first combat turn. Really makes me sick...
>In order to develope a cool fistfight that lasts for a few minutes, I
>have to break the rules several times.
>Does anyone out there know a solution/does anyone share the same
>experiences? If not, why not?
>
Nope. You see, both characters enter the melee combat with full combat
pools (unless one is surprised). Character A wins initiate and goes on 15,
the second, character B, goes on 13. So A attacks on 15 and B counter
attacks. They both have their skills and their full pools and so the best
man wins this attack.

The clock counts down to 13. Now B, who lost initiative, goes on 13 and
joy-oh-joy has his combat pool refreshed. He attacks A with all of his
refreshed combat pool dice. A only has combat pool dice, if any, he did not
use on 15. Needless to say, A is screwed. This only happens on the first
turn of melee combat.

Lesson: if you win initiative on the first turn of melee combat, hold your
action until the same phase as your opponent.

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.

From:	Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:04:36 -0400

Message no. 7 > From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: the uac dilemma
> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 1997 9:26 AM

> > Did you ever notice that in shadowrun unarmed combat the fight is
> > over after 5 seconds... the one who scores the first hit wins the

> My worst expeiences were when the team I was GM'ing ran into a bug
> nest....mostly a firefight, but one trueform materialized to do hand
> to hand (well, pincer to sword in this case).

<Snip>

> Now this was not such a great player, but he did have Willpower 6 (he
> was a mage-killer). I think he only had Armed 3 and Strength 3. THe
> Bug was only a force 4, and wasn't all that bright, but I couldn't
> see how the BUG not only LOST, but lost on ITS OWN ACTION. IT was
> disgusting.

Are you sure you were playing things out correctly? I mean, bug spirits
are NOT that easy to kill. They have threat ratings equal to their force
(which means your force 4 true form should have 8 dice to roll with every
attack/counter attack it makes), they have immunity to normal weapons (2 x
essence in armor vs. guns, arrows, explosions, etc.), and if they are hurt,
they can up and leave (in the case above, involving a true form anyway).

I just don't see how a character with a willpower of 6 can whoop so much
butt...I mean, he doesn't get to use his Combat Pool, because he's using
Willpower, NOT Armed Combat to attack the bug. Thus, the PC should be
rolling 6 dice for Armed Combat, and the Bug should be rolling 8. Not to
mention, the bug's armor against the sword...the PC should be toast.

Justin :)

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:49:40 +0100

Message no. 8 In message <5CFDEF756D@**.opp.psu.edu>, Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
writes
>Now this was not such a great player, but he did have Willpower 6 (he
>was a mage-killer). I think he only had Armed 3 and Strength 3. THe
>Bug was only a force 4, and wasn't all that bright, but I couldn't
>see how the BUG not only LOST, but lost on ITS OWN ACTION. IT was
>disgusting.

Reminds me of when I used to fence. The first time I took on the
instructor, and typically I lost the point on almost every lunge: he'd
parry and riposte and get me. So, I always "lost on my action".

If you're good, the enemy attacking gives you an opening to attack into.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:04:26 +0100

Message no. 9 > The clock counts down to 13. Now B, who lost initiative, goes on 13 and
> joy-oh-joy has his combat pool refreshed. He attacks A with all of his
> refreshed combat pool dice. A only has combat pool dice, if any, he did not
> use on 15. Needless to say, A is screwed. This only happens on the first
> turn of melee combat.

Why would the combat pool be refreshed? It is refreshed at the
beginning of a new combat turn... and that woud be BEFORE anyone of
the two combatants acts... If you let the two refresh their combat
pools at different times, well, the outcome is what you described...
The one with the lower initiative (which should be a drawback)
effectively doubles his pool for the turn. Doesn't make sense, does
it?

> Lesson: if you win initiative on the first turn of melee combat, hold your
> action until the same phase as your opponent.
> Chris

ss

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:11:14 +0100

Message no. 10 > Have you ever been in a real fight (one where either or both sides
> now how to fight)? It is over that quickly.

Well, I never had to fight for my life, but yes, I have been in a
couple of fights up to now...
And I disagree totally. Sure, A fight COULD be over that soon, I one
of the two scores a lucky hit, or gets to hold his opponent in a
position where he can't escape, but chances are, especially if both
use rather strike and kick techniques than grabs and chokes, that the
fight will last about half a minute at last. Just wach boxing...
They fight for several minutes... even in Judo, the fight lasts
longer than just a few seconds.

> -David

From:	Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 02:37:20 -0600

Message no. 11 At 09:11 7/23/97 +0100, you wrote:
>> Have you ever been in a real fight (one where either or both sides
>> now how to fight)? It is over that quickly.
>
>Well, I never had to fight for my life, but yes, I have been in a
>couple of fights up to now...
>And I disagree totally. Sure, A fight COULD be over that soon, I one
>of the two scores a lucky hit, or gets to hold his opponent in a
>position where he can't escape, but chances are, especially if both
>use rather strike and kick techniques than grabs and chokes, that the
>fight will last about half a minute at last. Just wach boxing...
>They fight for several minutes... even in Judo, the fight lasts
>longer than just a few seconds.

Boxing = Fighting? Not in my opinion..

Its punching, and every real fight I've seen and been in has included more
than punching. Knee's, elbows, grappling, are all common.
Grab a guy quickly and knee him in the head. I've seen several fights end
after a few seconds with that, or even a simple punch to the nose.

Two guys with rules and gloves isn't even close to real fighting, as far as
I'm concerned.

-Adam
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ WildAngle@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
-
GC3.1 GO d-- s--:-- a--- C++++ UL+ P+ L+@ E? W-- N++ o? K- w O- M- V-- PS+
PE++ Y+ PGP- t+@ 5 X R+++>$ tv- b++(+++) DI+ D---- G++ e- h! r y-

From:	Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:07:21 +1000

Message no. 12 At 09:04 23/07/97 +0100, Simon T. Sailer wrote:
>Why would the combat pool be refreshed? It is refreshed at the
>beginning of a new combat turn... and that woud be BEFORE anyone of
>the two combatants acts... If you let the two refresh their combat
>pools at different times, well, the outcome is what you described...
>The one with the lower initiative (which should be a drawback)
>effectively doubles his pool for the turn. Doesn't make sense, does
>it?

Ummm, because that's the way the BBB describes it. On pg 84:
"Dice Pools initially become available for use at full values as the first
step of the first Combat Turn of any encounter. Characters can then draw
from them, as appropriate for the type of pool, during the Combat Turn.
Once dice are drawn from the pool, those dice are no longer available for
use until the pool refreshes at the beginning of the character's next action."

So the combat pool refreshes on character's actions not at the start of
each turn. If a character has multiple actions in a turn then that
character has multiple combat pool refreshes that turn. Yes, it doesn't
make sense that the initiative winner is disadvantaged and we have a house
rule for it, but if discussing the base rules that's the situation you get.

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 06:20:15 -0400

Message no. 13 At 02:37 AM 7/23/97 -0600, Adam J wrote these timeless words:
>At 09:11 7/23/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>> Have you ever been in a real fight (one where either or both sides
>>> now how to fight)? It is over that quickly.
>>
>>Well, I never had to fight for my life, but yes, I have been in a
>>couple of fights up to now...
>>And I disagree totally. Sure, A fight COULD be over that soon, I one
>>of the two scores a lucky hit, or gets to hold his opponent in a
>>position where he can't escape, but chances are, especially if both
>>use rather strike and kick techniques than grabs and chokes, that the
>>fight will last about half a minute at last. Just wach boxing...
>>They fight for several minutes... even in Judo, the fight lasts
>>longer than just a few seconds.
>
While I agree several seconds can be far too short, have you ever watched
anyone who is really a skilled fighter go at it? usually it doesn't take
more than a few blows to end a fight.

Also, keep in mind a couple things...

A) Characters in SR tend to get to take several actions in a single round
(3-5 seconds), whereas your nrmal human only gets 1. thus, what takes a
cybered up sammy to do in 5 seconds, it may take a normal human 15-20
second, just to take the same number of actions...

B) Combat is HEAVILY simplified, for speed of play, not for realism.
Combat can already take forever, especially when there's a lot of
participants.

C) One really good blow to the head or genitals will normally end a fight
immediatly, as will a single sword/knife/cyberblade blow.

D) Anyone with more than 2 in Armed/Unarmed combat is considered well
skilled. Anyone with 4 or more is highly skilled, and someone with 6 or
more is a master. Most martial arts/weapons master can end a fight in
seconds, when they need to.

E) Smashing a face against a concrete wall ends the fight in seconds, and
is messy. I know this one from experience. :]:]

F) Mocking the person trying to fight you will also end a fight, usually
with them giving up in disgust or embarassment, but it takles more than a
few seconds...

G) ok, no more... i'm done now... reallly I am...:]

Bull-the-3-second-wonder-just-ask-my-wife-Ork-Decker
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Gen Con, here I come!"
-- Me

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:54:22 +0100

Message no. 14 Simon T. Sailer said on 9:04/23 Jul 97...

> Why would the combat pool be refreshed? It is refreshed at the
> beginning of a new combat turn... and that woud be BEFORE anyone of
> the two combatants acts...

It's refreshed at the very start of combat, and after that it only
refreshes for a character when that character has an action. IOW: the
first turn, everyone starts with a full pool, but the second turn they
don't (unless they didn't use any CP dice since their last action).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Rudely awakened by the telephone.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 07:02:22 -0600

Message no. 15 Chris Maxfield wrote:
|
| Yes, it doesn't
| make sense that the initiative winner is disadvantaged and we have a house
| rule for it...

I'd like to see that house rule.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."

From:	"Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:16:39 -0500

Message no. 16 You wrote:
> Why would the combat pool be refreshed? It is refreshed at the
> beginning of a new combat turn... and that woud be BEFORE anyone of
> the two combatants acts... If you let the two refresh their combat
> pools at different times, well, the outcome is what you described...
> The one with the lower initiative (which should be a drawback)
> effectively doubles his pool for the turn. Doesn't make sense, does
> it?
Combat Pool refreshes:
1) at the beginning of a combat, for all participants
2) on each phase in which a character is eligible for an action (other than the
automatic Free Actions that everyone gets in every phase)

And yes, you give up something by acting first, but when what you gain by
acting first is the ability to pump half or more of your Combat Pool into a
powerful attack and then shift back behind cover, it's worth it. The other
guy, when his turn comes, prolly has wound modifiers, a big disadvantage.

losthalo

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 07:22:00 -0600

Message no. 17 Adam J wrote:
|
| >And I disagree totally. Sure, A fight COULD be over that soon, I one
| >of the two scores a lucky hit, or gets to hold his opponent in a
| >position where he can't escape, but chances are, especially if both
| >use rather strike and kick techniques than grabs and chokes, that the
| >fight will last about half a minute at last. Just wach boxing...
| >They fight for several minutes... even in Judo, the fight lasts
| >longer than just a few seconds.
|
| Boxing = Fighting? Not in my opinion..
|
| Its punching, and every real fight I've seen and been in has included more
| than punching. Knee's, elbows, grappling, are all common.
| Grab a guy quickly and knee him in the head. I've seen several fights end
| after a few seconds with that, or even a simple punch to the nose.
|
| Two guys with rules and gloves isn't even close to real fighting, as far as
| I'm concerned.

Ditto with the Judo. The point is in a structured environment fights
can last a while. On the street where there are no rules fights are
usually over with pretty quickly. Even in a structured environment
I've seen a fight end in less then a second. During one of the
olympics in the Tae Kwan Do competition, right off the bat, one
opponent tagged the other opponent in the head with a spin kick and
dropped the guy, and he was wearing protective gear.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."

From:	"Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:22:07 -0500

Message no. 18 You wrote:
> Boxing = Fighting? Not in my opinion..

> Its punching, and every real fight I've seen and been in has included more
> than punching. Knee's, elbows, grappling, are all common.
> Grab a guy quickly and knee him in the head. I've seen several fights end
> after a few seconds with that, or even a simple punch to the nose.

> Two guys with rules and gloves isn't even close to real fighting, as far as
> I'm concerned.
True, but by the same token, when a fight ends quickly and abruptly, it's
usually a sign that one or the other was really superior in skill or position.

losthalo

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:03:01 EST

Message no. 19 > explosions, etc.), and if they are hurt, they can up and leave (in
> the case above, involving a true form anyway).

Granted. I had the spirit not leave because I
1) Wanted to hurt the players
2) Wanted to see a bug in melee

> I just don't see how a character with a willpower of 6 can whoop so
> much butt...I mean, he doesn't get to use his Combat Pool, because
> he's using Willpower, NOT Armed Combat to attack the bug. Thus, the
> PC should be rolling 6 dice for Armed Combat, and the Bug should be
> rolling 8. Not to mention, the bug's armor against the sword...the
> PC should be toast.

What Armor? Immunity doesn't apply to melee weapons.

PC rolling 6 die versus Bug rolling 8. PC has superior Reach
(sword). PC has superior damage (sword). He had no trouble at all
squishing the bug.

Am I missing a vital stat here? I mean I know I can "modify" the
bugs to make them stronger, but the stats as listed didn't seem too
threatening.

From:	Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:17:53 -0500

Message no. 20 At 09:11 AM 7/23/97 +0100, Simon T. Sailer wrote:

>Sure, A fight COULD be over that soon, I one
>of the two scores a lucky hit, or gets to hold his opponent in a
>position where he can't escape, but chances are, especially if both
>use rather strike and kick techniques than grabs and chokes, that the
>fight will last about half a minute at last. Just wach boxing...
>They fight for several minutes... even in Judo, the fight lasts
>longer than just a few seconds.
>

Well, the two styles you mentioned (judo and american boxing) are both from
tournament format. While I'll admit that fights can/will last about 30
seconds or so, they aren't _usually_ going to go beyond that. Boxing and
judo, in tournament, aren't designed to kill your opponent. I'm not
harshing them for that, it's just true. But take a non-tournament fighting
art (Silat, Wing Chun Kung Fu, Gracie style Jujitsu, Kali, etc.) where one
fighter is either better than the other or gets an advantage, and you will
have a short, painful fight.

My problem with the current Sr uac is the fact that specializing in a
specific martial arts style has no drawback. If you've only fought one
style, practised one style, studied one style, and never really contacted
another style, you're going to have some serious problems when you
encounter someone who knows a different style. Example, how does a boxer
counter a pak sao lap sao? If all you've ever done is box, you won't know
what to do when someone throws a weird manuever at you. My current Gm
(Topcat) is the guy who convinced me of this (luckily, not by slapping me
around:). The house rule we use is that if you specialize, you can only
use your specilization when you fight someone fighting in the same style.
Works well, and reduces the powergaming potentials of specializing in a
style (actually gives it a drawback.)

Rasputin-the-going-to-GenCon-for-free-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
http://www.blackhand.org/

The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
when you kill them. -- William Clayton

Gencon count down: 15 days

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:10:34 -0600

Message no. 21 Michael Broadwater wrote:
|
| My problem with the current Sr uac is the fact that specializing in a
| specific martial arts style has no drawback.
|
| My current Gm
| (Topcat) is the guy who convinced me of this (luckily, not by slapping me
| around:). The house rule we use is that if you specialize, you can only
| use your specilization when you fight someone fighting in the same style.
| Works well, and reduces the powergaming potentials of specializing in a
| style (actually gives it a drawback.)

I rule that Concentrating/Specializing only applies to either Attacking or
Defending (chosen at the time of Concentration/Specialization).

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."

From:	Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:26:58 +1000

Message no. 22 At 07:02 23/07/97 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
>| Yes, it doesn't
>| make sense that the initiative winner is disadvantaged and we have a house
>| rule for it...
>
>I'd like to see that house rule.

It's very simple: the character that loses initiative on the first turn of
melee combat does not have their combat pool refreshed on their first
action but instead has it refreshed on their second action (even if that
second action is in the next turn) . Thereafter, pools refresh on every
action as per normal.

This means the two opponents start with full pools (starting anyone with
less is almost always deadly for that character, as the initiator of this
thread commented) but then grants an advantage to the initiative winner.

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:43:03 GMT

Message no. 23 Chris Maxfield writes
>
> It's very simple: the character that loses initiative on the first turn of
> melee combat does not have their combat pool refreshed on their first
> action but instead has it refreshed on their second action (even if that
> second action is in the next turn) . Thereafter, pools refresh on every
> action as per normal.
>
> This means the two opponents start with full pools (starting anyone with
> less is almost always deadly for that character, as the initiator of this
> thread commented) but then grants an advantage to the initiative winner.
>
Um but if firearms become involved?

I have been wondering, what about banning people from adding combat
pool to skills until they have had an action in combat?
Therefore whoever wins the initative gets to add combat pool to the
attack while thier opponent does not. Ok the target may still use
full defence but. This avoids the problems affecting dice pool
refresh timing causes if a third person decides to interfer in the
melee (especially if its with a gun). Assuming the guy that lost the
initiative isn't wearing so much armour that the attacks going to
bounce off, the person that wins should now get a big advantage as
theres no more 'well i'm going second so pour my pool into melee
combat at low TN because it will refresh before my action'.

Still not perfect. You could always simply ban combat poolmfrom being
used against attacks made using 'melee combat' until the person has
had an action, it's not as if they are difficult to identify as the
'cannot use combat pool on both the skill roll and dodge' rule
already uses this identifier to track it's applicability.

comments?

Mark

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:35:33 GMT

Message no. 24 Michael Broadwater writes
>
> Well, the two styles you mentioned (judo and american boxing) are both from
> tournament format. While I'll admit that fights can/will last about 30
> seconds or so, they aren't _usually_ going to go beyond that. Boxing and
> judo, in tournament, aren't designed to kill your opponent.
exactly!
A lot of people seem to be thinking fights should last a long time
based on films (Hollywood etc make money by keeping you in the
cinema, difficult to enjoy watching the fight scene if its over
before you realised it started) and styles designed for competion
fighting which ban moves that really knock the poor target down so
folks can practice them without spending all thier time in hospitals
and building themselves back up from injuries.

> I'm not
> harshing them for that, it's just true. But take a non-tournament fighting
> art (Silat, Wing Chun Kung Fu, Gracie style Jujitsu, Kali, etc.) where one
> fighter is either better than the other or gets an advantage, and you will
> have a short, painful fight.
>
The answer all the well informed sources i have heard have produced.
There are quite a few things you can do to someone that will
effectively take them out of it in a second of so, but most are fatal
(or stand a decent chance of being) or break bones (leaving the
target in a cast for 6 weeks +) niether of which are very compatible
with practice (difficult to learn something if the instuctor keeps
breaking your arm in the first 5 seconds) or a tournament where doing
serious harm to someone is going to be most unpopular (you only need
to beat him).

> My problem with the current Sr uac is the fact that specializing in a
> specific martial arts style has no drawback.
Why they get banned so often.
There are ways to make something that both works and is balanced but
they either require both GM and player know a lot (which some of us
don't) or tend to get complicated. e.g. i converted the stuff in the
Ultimate martial artist for 2nd edition (there are 1sted SR rules in
the system conversion charts) but it gets too complex for most
players to bother with.

Mark

From:	Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:09:30 -0400

Message no. 25 > From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 1997 11:03 AM

<Snip>

> > I just don't see how a character with a willpower of 6 can whoop so
> > much butt...I mean, he doesn't get to use his Combat Pool, because
> > he's using Willpower, NOT Armed Combat to attack the bug. Thus, the
> > PC should be rolling 6 dice for Armed Combat, and the Bug should be
> > rolling 8. Not to mention, the bug's armor against the sword...the
> > PC should be toast.

> What Armor? Immunity doesn't apply to melee weapons.

I wasn't talking about immunity to normal weapons, I was talking about
natural armor. Check out their Body stat again (for true forms). That
second number (on the right side of the slash) is natural armor
(exoskeleton, etc.). Thus, in addition to having immunity to normal
weapons (via manifestat) affecting ranged attacks, they also have some
armor against melee attacks. Understand why they are so brutal now?

> PC rolling 6 die versus Bug rolling 8. PC has superior Reach
> (sword). PC has superior damage (sword). He had no trouble at all
> squishing the bug.

> Am I missing a vital stat here? I mean I know I can "modify" the
> bugs to make them stronger, but the stats as listed didn't seem too
> threatening.

Yes, you are forgetting all about Threat Rating for the True Form. IIRC,
the Threat Rating for ANY spirit is equal to its force. I can't find this
in writing anywhere, so I am just going on memory. (If someone has a page
number for this or has conflicting information, please let me know!) Thus,
your Force 4 true form would roll 8 dice for skill due to its Reaction PLUS
4 more dice for its Threat Rating. This comes to a total of 12 dice for
all Unarmed Combat attacks, for example. The damage rating for a standard
sword is Strength +2 (M). Most true forms have Strength (M) damage codes.
However, keep in mind that the strength of a True Form is generally equal
to anywhere from Force +2 to Force +5. Thus, with a force 4 or so True
Form, the spirit would have at least a 6 Strength. That's the maximum
non-cybered rating for a human.

I think your players should thank their lucky stars that you didn't know
all about what makes an Insect Spirit just plain harsh! Just think what
would have happened if I GMed that session....Muwahahahaha!

Justin :)

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:26:49 -0400

Message no. 26 On Wednesday, July 23, 1997 04:04, Simon T.
Sailer[SMTP:Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT] wrote:
> > The clock counts down to 13. Now B, who lost initiative, goes on 13 and
> > joy-oh-joy has his combat pool refreshed. He attacks A with all of his
> > refreshed combat pool dice. A only has combat pool dice, if any, he did
not
> > use on 15. Needless to say, A is screwed. This only happens on the
first
> > turn of melee combat.
>
> Why would the combat pool be refreshed? It is refreshed at the
> beginning of a new combat turn... and that woud be BEFORE anyone of
> the two combatants acts... If you let the two refresh their combat
> pools at different times, well, the outcome is what you described...
> The one with the lower initiative (which should be a drawback)
> effectively doubles his pool for the turn. Doesn't make sense, does
> it?

Combat pool refreshes *every action.* The fact that it appears to refresh
at the beginning of the *first* turn of combat is a sloppy way of saying
that everybody starts combat with a full combat pool (unless surprised.)

Yes, that means that Quicksilver, (my NPC namesake) with an initiative roll
of 25, refreshes his pool at 25, 15, and 5. *if* this is the first round,
and *if* someone beats him on initiative, and *if* that person attacks him
in HtH, he does (sorta) get to refresh his pools in less than 10 phases.
That is the only situation where he gets an advantage to going second. (And
as everyone else pointed out, the faster guy is probably going to hold his
action until Quicksilver's...)

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:32:43 -0400

Message no. 27 On Wednesday, July 23, 1997 04:11, Simon T.
Sailer[SMTP:Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT] wrote:
> > Have you ever been in a real fight (one where either or both sides
> > now how to fight)? It is over that quickly.
>
> Well, I never had to fight for my life, but yes, I have been in a
> couple of fights up to now...
> And I disagree totally. Sure, A fight COULD be over that soon, I one
> of the two scores a lucky hit, or gets to hold his opponent in a
> position where he can't escape, but chances are, especially if both
> use rather strike and kick techniques than grabs and chokes, that the
> fight will last about half a minute at last. Just wach boxing...
> They fight for several minutes... even in Judo, the fight lasts
> longer than just a few seconds.

Boxing is a bad example. I dunno about judo. But I fence, and a touch, even
in foil or saber, where a touch is considered to be a lethal or
debilitating strike, the first touch will often occur within a few seconds.
(The touch might be disallowed because of right-of-way, which is the judges
way of saying you're *both* dead, but I digress.) Or Japanese-style sword
dueling. Basically, the opponents stare at each other until they think they
see an opening, and strike. Since striking creates an opening, the other
strikes as well. The faster hits, the slower *dies.*

In any martial contest where killing/crippling blows are not disallowed,
fights are over with the first or second successful strike.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:42:03 -0600

Message no. 28 Mark Steedman wrote:
|
| Chris Maxfield writes
| >
| > It's very simple: the character that loses initiative on the first turn of
| > melee combat does not have their combat pool refreshed on their first
| > action but instead has it refreshed on their second action (even if that
| > second action is in the next turn) . Thereafter, pools refresh on every
| > action as per normal.
| >
| > This means the two opponents start with full pools (starting anyone with
| > less is almost always deadly for that character, as the initiator of this
| > thread commented) but then grants an advantage to the initiative winner.
| >
| Um but if firearms become involved?
|
| I have been wondering, what about banning people from adding combat
| pool to skills until they have had an action in combat?
| Therefore whoever wins the initative gets to add combat pool to the
| attack while thier opponent does not. Ok the target may still use
| full defence but. This avoids the problems affecting dice pool
| refresh timing causes if a third person decides to interfer in the
| melee (especially if its with a gun). Assuming the guy that lost the
| initiative isn't wearing so much armour that the attacks going to
| bounce off, the person that wins should now get a big advantage as
| theres no more 'well i'm going second so pour my pool into melee
| combat at low TN because it will refresh before my action'.
|
| comments?

It'd be easier to say: Pools refresh at the beginning of combat.
After combat starts a character's dice pools refresh at the *end* of
that character's action phase.

Several GMs allready do the same thing with Karma Pools (refresh at
the end of an encounter, or after the PCs find time to rest and
recover their wits) and that works great.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."

From:	Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:56:10 -0500

Message no. 29 At 12:32 PM 7/23/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Boxing is a bad example. I dunno about judo. But I fence, and a touch, even
>in foil or saber, where a touch is considered to be a lethal or
>debilitating strike, the first touch will often occur within a few seconds.

True, but that's not unarmed combat, now is it? And you're proving my
point. Fights end quickly, and the only reason that no one dies is because
of padding, dulled tips, face masks, etc.

>(The touch might be disallowed because of right-of-way, which is the judges
>way of saying you're *both* dead, but I digress.) Or Japanese-style sword
>dueling.

In your example, again, the only thing that keeps the competitors from
being killed is a suit of armor and non-live blade, other wise, the fight
would be over very quickly.

Oh, btw, I fence as well, and the weight that the tips of foils are set for
isn't necessarily enough to cause a serious wound, or even penetrate heavy
clothe.

Rasputin-the-going-to-GenCon-for-free-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
http://www.blackhand.org/

The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
when you kill them. -- William Clayton

Gencon count down: 14 days

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:35:12 -0400

Message no. 30 On Wednesday, July 23, 1997 12:56, Michael
Broadwater[SMTP:mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM] wrote:
> At 12:32 PM 7/23/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >Boxing is a bad example. I dunno about judo. But I fence, and a touch,
even
> >in foil or saber, where a touch is considered to be a lethal or
> >debilitating strike, the first touch will often occur within a few
seconds.
>
> True, but that's not unarmed combat, now is it? And you're proving my
> point. Fights end quickly, and the only reason that no one dies is
because
> of padding, dulled tips, face masks, etc.
>
> >(The touch might be disallowed because of right-of-way, which is the
judges
> >way of saying you're *both* dead, but I digress.) Or Japanese-style
sword
> >dueling.
>
> In your example, again, the only thing that keeps the competitors from
> being killed is a suit of armor and non-live blade, other wise, the fight
> would be over very quickly.
>
> Oh, btw, I fence as well, and the weight that the tips of foils are set
for
> isn't necessarily enough to cause a serious wound, or even penetrate
heavy
> clothe.
>

I was agreein that fights are over very shortly. And, yes, fencing touches
aren't usually heavy enough to penentrate cloth. But I've seen people break
blades against anther people.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

From:	Gossamer <kajohnson@*******.TEC.WI.US>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:04:40 -0500

Message no. 31 >> Well, I never had to fight for my life, but yes, I have been in a
>> couple of fights up to now...

When you're in hth combat, death is on the line, and the combatants are a
disparate levels, a fight usually lasts 2, maybe 3 blows...

When death is not on the line, but you really want to hurt someone (most of my
fights are in this category), again, they last 2 or 3 blows... The martial art
that I studied (Koppo) focuses on accupressure, nerve strikes, joint locks, and
bone breaking techniques. I've been in 5 fights in this category, and they
were not pretty. They were very fast. Again, combatants are of disparate
levels. My usual targets are elbows and eyes. (In case anyone's curious, I
was in the US Marine infantry for 4 years, and that is a wierd realm... I'm
much healthier now)

When you're not seek to damage someone permanently, it gets a lot tougher.
When I am faced with this type of fight, I utilize Rabbit style Kung Fu (turn
and run, really fast).

>Boxing is a bad example. I dunno about judo. But I fence, and a touch,
>even in foil or saber, where a touch is considered to be a lethal or
>debilitating strike, the first touch will often occur within a few seconds.
>(The touch might be disallowed because of right-of-way, which is the judges
>way of saying you're *both* dead, but I digress.) Or Japanese-style sword
>dueling. Basically, the opponents stare at each other until they think they
>see an opening, and strike. Since striking creates an opening, the other
>strikes as well. The faster hits, the slower *dies.*

I agree with all this, now I'd like to add my own gift to the discussion:

Perspective.

Please keep in mind that in SR, if you have a 6 in a skill, that means you're
an expert. If you have an 8 you're Awesome!!!! And above that level of skill,
the game mechanic goes a bit wierd.

If you've got a 4, you're decent and something, and with a 3, you could make a
living at it...

If a Grand Master of OOlong-Poo (skill 8) who has been perfecting his art for
over a decade fights with Joe Commando who knows how to fight (skill 5). Joe
should get his ass handed to him...

I think that if you keep in mind the *intended meaning* of the numbers
involved, the outcomes of these hth combats is perfectly reasonably, IMNSHO.

When fighters of disparate skill levels are fighting in a desparate situation,
the fights will be over very quickly with the more highly skilled fighter
prevailing...

I think that that's horribly realistic.

Gossamer

From:	"Steven A. Collins" <scollins@**.UML.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:41:33 -0400

Message no. 32 On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Jonathan Hurley wrote:

->On Wednesday, July 23, 1997 04:11, Simon T.
->Sailer[SMTP:Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT] wrote:
->> > Have you ever been in a real fight (one where either or both sides
->> > now how to fight)? It is over that quickly.
->>
->> Well, I never had to fight for my life, but yes, I have been in a
->> couple of fights up to now...
->> And I disagree totally. Sure, A fight COULD be over that soon, I one
->> of the two scores a lucky hit, or gets to hold his opponent in a
->> position where he can't escape, but chances are, especially if both
->> use rather strike and kick techniques than grabs and chokes, that the
->> fight will last about half a minute at last. Just wach boxing...
->> They fight for several minutes... even in Judo, the fight lasts
->> longer than just a few seconds.
->
->Boxing is a bad example. I dunno about judo. But I fence, and a touch, even
->in foil or saber, where a touch is considered to be a lethal or
->debilitating strike, the first touch will often occur within a few seconds.
->(The touch might be disallowed because of right-of-way, which is the judges
->way of saying you're *both* dead, but I digress.) Or Japanese-style sword
->dueling. Basically, the opponents stare at each other until they think they
->see an opening, and strike. Since striking creates an opening, the other
->strikes as well. The faster hits, the slower *dies.*
->
->In any martial contest where killing/crippling blows are not disallowed,
->fights are over with the first or second successful strike.
->
->--
->Quicksilver rides again
->--------------
->Those who would give up a little freedom for security
->deserve neither freedom nor security
->-Benjamin Franklin
->Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
->Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
->
The key here is definately skill levels. I have recently taken up
fighting in the SCA. For those of you who don't know it the SCA is a
medieval recreation group. By fighting i mean dressing up in a fairly
clode replica of medieval westers european armor and engaging in
combat with other similarly clad folks using weapons made out of
Rattan poles. In general if there is even the slightest difference in
ability then the better fighter will land his first or second shot for
a killing blow. Elapsed time 2-3 seconds. If they're very closely
matched then it can last as long as several minutes. where things
change is in a group meele it will only take 2-3 seconds to kill an
opponent but it will probably take you 10 to 20 seconds before you can
get a shot on them because you cannot leave yourself open to attack
from his friends. So far in about 20 meeles i have been killed
everytime and only killed 1 person. He was a knight (that mean he is
in the top 1% of fighters in the world) but it was a lucky shot he
threw a shot at someone else in my line and didn't notice me lining
him up with my pole arm. 1 on 1 with the same guy i think i have hit
him only once when he didn't let me and he can hit me at will.

From:	Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:45:19 -0500

Message no. 33 At 01:35 PM 7/23/97 -0400, Jonathan Hurley wrote:

>I was agreein that fights are over very shortly. And, yes, fencing touches
>aren't usually heavy enough to penentrate cloth. But I've seen people break
>blades against anther people.

True. And it seems I was just argueing your point for no apparent reason.
:) Sorry.

Rasputin-the-going-to-GenCon-for-free-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
http://www.blackhand.org/

The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
when you kill them. -- William Clayton

Gencon count down: 14 days

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:10:09 EST

Message no. 34 .> > What Armor? Immunity doesn't apply to melee weapons.
>
> I wasn't talking about immunity to normal weapons, I was talking
> about natural armor. Check out their Body stat again (for true

Okay,without a book infront of me, but I doubt that armor is enough
to shrug off every PC's attack (I did have the book during the
combat). I know it wasn't enough to shrug THIS PC's attack.

> Yes, you are forgetting all about Threat Rating for the True Form.
> IIRC, the Threat Rating for ANY spirit is equal to its force. I

BUg spirits break a lot of rules....I'm pretty sure I saw a Force/4
rating, but again, no book (but then, you're in the same boat)

> or so True Form, the spirit would have at least a 6 Strength.
> That's the maximum non-cybered rating for a human.

It doesn't matter if the bug's strength never came into the picture,
which it didn't.

> I think your players should thank their lucky stars that you didn't
> know all about what makes an Insect Spirit just plain harsh! Just
> think what would have happened if I GMed that
> session....Muwahahahaha!

Well, that depends on which rules are right. The only ones that
matters is the Threat Rating.

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:23:47 +0100

Message no. 35 In message <01BC9764.854BEA80@********.u96.stevens-tech.edu>, Jonathan
Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU> writes
>Boxing is a bad example. I dunno about judo. But I fence, and a touch, even
>in foil or saber, where a touch is considered to be a lethal or
>debilitating strike, the first touch will often occur within a few seconds.
>(The touch might be disallowed because of right-of-way, which is the judges
>way of saying you're *both* dead, but I digress.) Or Japanese-style sword
>dueling. Basically, the opponents stare at each other until they think they
>see an opening, and strike. Since striking creates an opening, the other
>strikes as well. The faster hits, the slower *dies.*

Knife fighting. The version I was taught (by a psycho RGJ sergeant
major) was that you waited for your enemy to attack, or feinted to
provoke a counter: when he tried to attack you, you retreated and cut
across the back of his knife hand.

Repeat as necessary. When he staggers (because a good cut across the
back of the hand will cause a man exerting himself to pass out in a
frighteningly short time) close and cripple or kill him.

Ten, fifteen seconds tops: less if the enemy clutches his wound and
cries out in pain, rather than fighting (if he does that kill him right
away).

If you're down to hacking at the enemy with a knife, you're probably
outnumbered, and time favours him rather than you (his reinforcements
will get there first, and they might still have ammunition). You win
fast, or not at all.

>In any martial contest where killing/crippling blows are not disallowed,
>fights are over with the first or second successful strike.

Yep. Any time you involve blades, close-up fights get very fast and
decisive.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:25:41 +0100

Message no. 36 In message <01BC976D.3FF85500@********.u96.stevens-tech.edu>, Jonathan
Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU> writes
>I was agreein that fights are over very shortly. And, yes, fencing touches
>aren't usually heavy enough to penentrate cloth. But I've seen people break
>blades against anther people.

I once had someone break a foil over my head during a match. Mostly
because I was so surprised at what he was doing, I didn't counter...
>

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 20:59:06 -0700

Message no. 37 ---Brett Borger wrote:
>
>
> BUg spirits break a lot of rules....I'm pretty sure I saw a Force/4
> rating, but again, no book (but then, you're in the same boat)

<snip>

> Well, that depends on which rules are right. The only ones that
> matters is the Threat Rating.

I know I covered this in another reply as well, but here goes:

The listing of Force/4 is in the format of Threat Pool/Professional
Rating. Which means Threat is equal to Force and the Professional
Rating is 4 (meaning a usual fight to the death).

Thus a Force 5 Ant Warrior would have a listing of 5/4. Meaning a
Threat Pool of 5 dice, and and Professional rating of 4 (either he
drops you or you drop him).

===
@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

"You're being held up by a stim patch, Loki's almost a pile of ashes
thanks to that fire elemental, and we've got the Baron running around
screaming assassins...assassins...oh eek, assassins!"
--> Caric to Ook during the Harlequin Campaign
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:15:31 -0700

Message no. 38 ---"Simon T. Sailer" wrote:
>
>
> Why would the combat pool be refreshed? It is refreshed at the
> beginning of a new combat turn... and that woud be BEFORE anyone of
> the two combatants acts... If you let the two refresh their combat
> pools at different times, well, the outcome is what you described...
> The one with the lower initiative (which should be a drawback)
> effectively doubles his pool for the turn. Doesn't make sense, does
> it?

OK, going back to the rules on this one (maybe you should read them
more closely):

BBB, page 84, under Dice Pools:

"Dice pools initially become available for use at full value as the
first step of the first Combat Turn of any encounter. Characters can
then draw from the as appropriate for the type of pool, during the
Combat Turn. Once dice are drawn from the pool, those dice are no
longer available for use until the pool refreshes at the beginning of
the character's next action."

It also explains this in BBB, page 78, under the heading of Combat
Turn Sequence.

===
@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

"You're being held up by a stim patch, Loki's almost a pile of ashes
thanks to that fire elemental, and we've got the Baron running around
screaming assassins...assassins...oh eek, assassins!"
--> Caric to Ook during the Harlequin Campaign
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:51:25 +0100

Message no. 39 > While I agree several seconds can be far too short, have you ever watched
> anyone who is really a skilled fighter go at it? usually it doesn't take
> more than a few blows to end a fight.

Yes, but it can take very long to be able to deliver the blows..

> A) Characters in SR tend to get to take several actions in a single round
> (3-5 seconds), whereas your nrmal human only gets 1. thus, what takes a
> cybered up sammy to do in 5 seconds, it may take a normal human 15-20
> second, just to take the same number of actions...

Ok, thats a point.

> B) Combat is HEAVILY simplified, for speed of play, not for realism.
> Combat can already take forever, especially when there's a lot of
> participants.

Ok another one.

> C) One really good blow to the head or genitals will normally end a fight
> immediatly, as will a single sword/knife/cyberblade blow.

Nope. totally wrong. If somebody has to fight for his life, even a
broken arm won't take him out. A kick in the genitals will end most
show-streetfights, but never a REAL fight. and a blow in the face
wont do anything but hurt the hand of the one who striked most of the
time... believe me, I know from RL experience. (ouch)

> D) Anyone with more than 2 in Armed/Unarmed combat is considered well
> skilled. Anyone with 4 or more is highly skilled, and someone with 6 or
> more is a master. Most martial arts/weapons master can end a fight in
> seconds, when they need to.

They can against a inferior opponent, but there is no chance to end
the fight against a equally skilled opponent.

> E) Smashing a face against a concrete wall ends the fight in seconds, and
> is messy. I know this one from experience. :]:]

see point C

> F) Mocking the person trying to fight you will also end a fight, usually
> with them giving up in disgust or embarassment, but it takles more than a
> few seconds...

Ok... but ... where is the connection to the topic? ;-)

> Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:57:39 +0100

Message no. 40 > Combat Pool refreshes:
> 1) at the beginning of a combat, for all participants
> 2) on each phase in which a character is eligible for an action (other than the
> automatic Free Actions that everyone gets in every phase)

Of course I COULD be wrong... but... IMHO the combat pol is
refreshed at the beginning of a new turn...

> And yes, you give up something by acting first, but when what you gain by
> acting first is the ability to pump half or more of your Combat Pool into a
> powerful attack and then shift back behind cover, it's worth it. The other
> guy, when his turn comes, prolly has wound modifiers, a big disadvantage.
>
> losthalo

ss

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:08:13 +0100

Message no. 41 > Well, the two styles you mentioned (judo and american boxing) are both from
> tournament format. While I'll admit that fights can/will last about 30
> seconds or so, they aren't _usually_ going to go beyond that. Boxing and
> judo, in tournament, aren't designed to kill your opponent. I'm not
> harshing them for that, it's just true. But take a non-tournament fighting
> art (Silat, Wing Chun Kung Fu, Gracie style Jujitsu, Kali, etc.) where one
> fighter is either better than the other or gets an advantage, and you will
> have a short, painful fight.

If one of the combatants is by far better, the fight will of course
be much shorter.
But I once had the opportunity to fight a tae-kwon-do blackbelt... I
didn't stand a chance, granted, but even if he had liked to, it had
taken him at least 30 seconds to fully take me out.

> My problem with the current Sr uac is the fact that specializing in a
> specific martial arts style has no drawback. If you've only fought one
> style, practised one style, studied one style, and never really contacted
> another style, you're going to have some serious problems when you
> encounter someone who knows a different style. Example, how does a boxer
> counter a pak sao lap sao? If all you've ever done is box, you won't know
> what to do when someone throws a weird manuever at you. My current Gm
> (Topcat) is the guy who convinced me of this (luckily, not by slapping me
> around:). The house rule we use is that if you specialize, you can only
> use your specilization when you fight someone fighting in the same style.
> Works well, and reduces the powergaming potentials of specializing in a
> style (actually gives it a drawback.)

I see the problem, but your solution is not the best, imho. (I hope
topcat won't read this) You CAN use a different style to fight
another. maybe working out the different styles with all their
drawbacks and advantages would help..

BTW, there are drawbacks... if you concentrate on a special martial
arts style, you can no longe use cyberweapons or subduing at the high
level. If you specialize, you have to specialize on a certain
technique, lets say spinkicks. Sometimes the gamemaster might rule
that there is not enough space to use a spinkick...
see?

> Rasputin

ss

From:	Caun Haskins <caun@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:58:05 -0600

Message no. 42 > If one of the combatants is by far better, the fight will of course
> be much shorter.
> But I once had the opportunity to fight a tae-kwon-do blackbelt... I
> didn't stand a chance, granted, but even if he had liked to, it had
> taken him at least 30 seconds to fully take me out.
>
HU!! i'v had the oportunity to see some blackbelts fight and against
each other they didn't take 30 sec. and unles you have a substantial
belt, are fighting dirty or with weapons (?) or he doesn't want to injur
you he could dispach of you easily and quickly. no 30 sec. bs (no ofese
just stateing facts :o))

> I see the problem, but your solution is not the best, imho. (I hope
> topcat won't read this) You CAN use a different style to fight
> another. maybe working out the different styles with all their
> drawbacks and advantages would help..
>
> BTW, there are drawbacks... if you concentrate on a special martial
> arts style, you can no longe use cyberweapons or subduing at the high
> level. If you specialize, you have to specialize on a certain
> technique, lets say spinkicks. Sometimes the gamemaster might rule
> that there is not enough space to use a spinkick...
> see?
>
IMO you are correct. in all your assesments here! great way of puting
it!

Caun :}

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:45:14 +0100

Message no. 43 > OK, going back to the rules on this one (maybe you should read them
> more closely):
>
> Loki

It looks like as if I should reread these rules... I always refreshed
the combat pool at the beginning of a new combat turn... And now I'm
seriously confused. Maybe it has something to do with the translation
of the english version of the BBB... I use the German one... and it
tends to be a bit messy about combat turn, combat phase, and players
actions..
but anyway.. it's about time somebody told me how it should be
done...

Thanks..
ss

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:58:52 +0100

Message no. 44 > HU!! i'v had the oportunity to see some blackbelts fight and against
> each other they didn't take 30 sec. and unles you have a substantial
> belt, are fighting dirty or with weapons (?) or he doesn't want to injur
> you he could dispach of you easily and quickly. no 30 sec. bs (no ofese
> just stateing facts :o))

I have already given up... ok, maybe I underestimated him.
(and maybe you underestimate me;)

> > I see the problem, but your solution is not the best, imho. (I
> > hope topcat won't read this) You CAN use a different style to
> > fight another. maybe working out the different styles with all
> > their drawbacks and advantages would help..
>
> > BTW, there are drawbacks... if you concentrate on a special martial
> > arts style, you can no longe use cyberweapons or subduing at the high
> > level. If you specialize, you have to specialize on a certain
> > technique, lets say spinkicks. Sometimes the gamemaster might rule
> > that there is not enough space to use a spinkick...
> > see?
> >
> IMO you are correct. in all your assesments here! great way of puting
> it!
>
> Caun :}

Hmmm... are you serious or trieng to make fun of me?

ss

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:57:55 +0100

Message no. 45 Brett Borger said on 10:03/23 Jul 97...

> What Armor? Immunity doesn't apply to melee weapons.
>
> PC rolling 6 die versus Bug rolling 8. PC has superior Reach
> (sword). PC has superior damage (sword). He had no trouble at all
> squishing the bug.
>
> Am I missing a vital stat here? I mean I know I can "modify" the
> bugs to make them stronger, but the stats as listed didn't seem too
> threatening.

Insect spirits also have mundane armor, by means of their outer shell.
This is usually in the order of Force - 1 or Force - 2, and it applies
against all attacks.

Although I'll have to add here that FASA doesn't put it in that many
words...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Rudely awakened by the telephone.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Fri, 25 Jul 1997 01:15:53 +1000

Message no. 46 At 16:43 23/07/97 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:
>Um but if firearms become involved?

Yes. I see what you mean. It's not a problem of had to deal with yet. I'd
probably allocate the initiative loser some dodge pool dice versus range
attacks if he's in that waiting for refresh period.

>I have been wondering, what about banning people from adding combat
>pool to skills until they have had an action in combat?

Same result. The Initiative loser puts all his combat pool into full
defence when the initiative winner attacks and then on his action, when his
pool refreshes, he gets to attack with all of his dice while the initiative
winner has little or no dice left in his combat pool. Or do you mean the
initiative loser can only attack with skill and no pool dice until his
second action?

>Therefore whoever wins the initative gets to add combat pool to the
>attack while thier opponent does not. Ok the target may still use
>full defence but. This avoids the problems affecting dice pool

I'm starting to like this solution.

>refresh timing causes if a third person decides to interfer in the
>melee (especially if its with a gun). Assuming the guy that lost the
>initiative isn't wearing so much armour that the attacks going to
>bounce off, the person that wins should now get a big advantage as
>theres no more 'well i'm going second so pour my pool into melee
>combat at low TN because it will refresh before my action'.

I agree that this means the initiative winner will be the only one having
any chance of doing damage initially and is also protected from the
initiative loser's pool refresh but I don't see this as a large advantage
.... hang on, damn it, it is a big advantage. You know, I like this rule.
I'm introducing it into my games.

>Still not perfect. You could always simply ban combat poolmfrom being
>used against attacks made using 'melee combat' until the person has
>had an action, it's not as if they are difficult to identify as the

No. If one side has combat pool and the other doesn't then the initiative
winner is almost always guaranteed to win the combat. He just has to high a
net advantage in dice. And he only needs it for the first strike to be
successful and then it's all down hill for his opponent.

>'cannot use combat pool on both the skill roll and dodge' rule
>already uses this identifier to track it's applicability.

Which rule is this. Do you mean that in full defence you cannot use any
combat pool dice in the skill test but only in the defence test?

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.

From:	Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:17:06 -0500

Message no. 47 At 08:51 AM 7/24/97 +0100, Simon T. Sailer wrote:

>> C) One really good blow to the head or genitals will normally end a fight
>> immediatly, as will a single sword/knife/cyberblade blow.
>
>Nope. totally wrong. If somebody has to fight for his life, even a
>broken arm won't take him out. A kick in the genitals will end most
>show-streetfights, but never a REAL fight. and a blow in the face
>wont do anything but hurt the hand of the one who striked most of the
>time... believe me, I know from RL experience. (ouch)

Um...it all depends on how you hit. If you hit wrong (which it seems
you're doing) then it'll hurt. If you hit correctly, it's not going to
hurt _and_ it can be extremely devastating. How hard and how you hit is
more important. This is wear training (read: skill level) becomes
important in the fight. A better skilled opponent will hit correctly, and
harm the lesser skilled opponent.

But you are right on one thing: a kick to the groin's not going to stop a
fight. That's why you follow it up.

Rasputin-the-going-to-GenCon-for-free-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
http://www.blackhand.org/

The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
when you kill them. -- William Clayton

Gencon count down: 13 days

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:39:39 -0400

Message no. 48 At 11:17 AM 7/24/97 -0500, Michael Broadwater wrote these timeless words:
>At 08:51 AM 7/24/97 +0100, Simon T. Sailer wrote:
>
>>> C) One really good blow to the head or genitals will normally end a fight
>>> immediatly, as will a single sword/knife/cyberblade blow.
>>
>>Nope. totally wrong. If somebody has to fight for his life, even a
>>broken arm won't take him out. A kick in the genitals will end most
>>show-streetfights, but never a REAL fight. and a blow in the face
>>wont do anything but hurt the hand of the one who striked most of the
>>time... believe me, I know from RL experience. (ouch)
>
Heh... It depends on where, how, and how hard you hit them...:] I had one
dork hit me in the head as hard as he could once... The only thing he did
was make a red mark on my forhead for about 5 minutes, and break his hand
in 4 places. Then again, he hit me dead center in the forhead...
>Um...it all depends on how you hit. If you hit wrong (which it seems
>you're doing) then it'll hurt. If you hit correctly, it's not going to
>hurt _and_ it can be extremely devastating. How hard and how you hit is
>more important. This is wear training (read: skill level) becomes
>important in the fight. A better skilled opponent will hit correctly, and
>harm the lesser skilled opponent.
>
>But you are right on one thing: a kick to the groin's not going to stop a
>fight. That's why you follow it up.
>
>
>Rasputin-the-going-to-GenCon-for-free-magekin
>http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
>http://www.blackhand.org/
>
>The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
> when you kill them. -- William Clayton
>
>Gencon count down: 13 days
>
>
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Gen Con, here I come!"
-- Me

From:	Gossamer <kajohnson@*******.TEC.WI.US>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:06:13 -0500

Message no. 49 At 08:51 AM 7/24/97 +0100, Simon T. Sailer wrote:

>> C) One really good blow to the head or genitals will normally end a fight
>> immediatly, as will a single sword/knife/cyberblade blow.
>
>Nope. totally wrong. If somebody has to fight for his life, even a
>broken arm won't take him out.

That depends how it's broken... I have ended a couple of fights, (one
was going to be pretty brutal) by breaking an arm at the elbow. If you
want to piss someone off, break there are at the elbow. It hurts. If
you want the fight to cease, hang on to the arm and twist it like wringing
out a wash cloth. And shake it like you were a dog playing tug-o-war.
Hang on with both hands and avoid his patheitc attempt to get you off.
The fight will end...

>A kick in the genitals will end most show-streetfights, but never a
>REAL fight.

This I can confirm, but I can't explain it.

>and a blow in the face wont do anything but hurt the hand of the
>one who striked most of the time... believe me, I know from RL
>experience. (ouch!)

I agree with Mike B on this one. The skill of the attacker will tell.
Anytime I would need to strike to the face area, my targets are
eyes, throat, and nose. I have only hit one person in the face, and
that was in high school. It is definitely not high on my list of
targets, but when the opportunity presents itself...

Gossamer, who detests violence

From:	"Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:19:45 -0500

Message no. 50 You wrote:
> Of course I COULD be wrong... but... IMHO the combat pol is
> refreshed at the beginning of a new turn...
cf. pp. 84 BBB:
dice pools refresh on a character's actions, the refresh at the start of a
combat is an exception to this (i.e. everybody starts a combat with full pools,
before their first action).

losthalo

Message no. 51 Gossamer said on 12:06/25 Jul 97...

> >A kick in the genitals will end most show-streetfights, but never a
> >REAL fight.
>
> This I can confirm, but I can't explain it.

Maybe the buzz-word "adrenalin" applies? If you're fighting for your life,
I imagine you put a lot more into it than if you're fighting for an
abstract concept like honor or the money in your wallet.

> I agree with Mike B on this one. The skill of the attacker will tell.
> Anytime I would need to strike to the face area, my targets are
> eyes, throat, and nose. I have only hit one person in the face, and
> that was in high school. It is definitely not high on my list of
> targets, but when the opportunity presents itself...

How many movie fights do you see where people go for the throat or eyes?
Usually they punch opponents in the jaw, and since nearly everybody gets
their ideas on how to fight from movies and TV, that's what they'll go
for...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And you can try and you just might...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 52 Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 said on 17:19/24 Jul 97...

> dice pools refresh on a character's actions, the refresh at the start of a
> combat is an exception to this (i.e. everybody starts a combat with full pools,
> before their first action).

It's not really an exception, if you look at it. Presumably you can also
do things before a combat starts, at which time your pool refreshes too.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And you can try and you just might...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 53 Chris Maxfield writes

> At 16:43 23/07/97 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:
> >Um but if firearms become involved?
>
> Yes. I see what you mean. It's not a problem of had to deal with yet. I'd
> probably allocate the initiative loser some dodge pool dice versus range
> attacks if he's in that waiting for refresh period.
>
> >I have been wondering, what about banning people from adding combat
> >pool to skills until they have had an action in combat?
>
> Same result. The Initiative loser puts all his combat pool into full
> defence when the initiative winner attacks and then on his action, when his
> pool refreshes, he gets to attack with all of his dice while the initiative
> winner has little or no dice left in his combat pool. Or do you mean the
> initiative loser can only attack with skill and no pool dice until his
> second action?
No. This version merely banned the slower erson from using combat
pool on thier skill untill their action so use they can still use
full defence. However the faster person will assuming equal skill now
have twice as many attack dice and will hit. If the defender (slow
character) has lots of armour compared to the attack (defnse TN <5)
then yes the first guy now gets creamed, if the defender needs 6's to
dodge however he gets hurt big time and TN penalties will more
than offset his dice advantage (unless he's a physical adept with
enhanced centring, but given what that costs thats fair/ pain
resistance / pain editor).

>
> >Therefore whoever wins the initative gets to add combat pool to the
> >attack while thier opponent does not. Ok the target may still use
> >full defence but. This avoids the problems affecting dice pool
>
> I'm starting to like this solution.
>
> >refresh timing causes if a third person decides to interfer in the
> >melee (especially if its with a gun). Assuming the guy that lost the
> >initiative isn't wearing so much armour that the attacks going to
> >bounce off, the person that wins should now get a big advantage as
> >theres no more 'well i'm going second so pour my pool into melee
> >combat at low TN because it will refresh before my action'.
>
> I agree that this means the initiative winner will be the only one having
> any chance of doing damage initially and is also protected from the
> initiative loser's pool refresh but I don't see this as a large advantage
> .... hang on, damn it, it is a big advantage. You know, I like this rule.
> I'm introducing it into my games.
I haven't tested this as the final refinement is recent and it would
be a house rule, see comments on full defence above.

>
> >Still not perfect. You could always simply ban combat poolmfrom being
> >used against attacks made using 'melee combat' until the person has
> >had an action, it's not as if they are difficult to identify as the
>
> No. If one side has combat pool and the other doesn't then the initiative
> winner is almost always guaranteed to win the combat. He just has to high a
> net advantage in dice. And he only needs it for the first strike to be
> successful and then it's all down hill for his opponent.
Very true. However unless the faster guy is a lot better or delays
till his opponents action the present SR system goes.

guy 1 attacks
target blocks parries etc with full pool
if guy 1 used his pool not a lot happens, if he didn't he get
riposted and hurt.

the slower combatent now goes again full attack, the fast guy being
either hurt or low on dice gets totally creamed unless he is either a
lot better or has enough armour plus body to shrug off the slower
guys attacks.

As SR2 stands you wait for he other to attack and cream him when he
gives you an oppening (realistic, but it fails to reward the higher
intiative guy doing a fient to draw out his opponent and then using
speed to cream him when he uses a fake oppening)
This idea gives the faster person that huge advantage.

From everything i have heard niether is realistic but given te SR
combat system if the faster person uses a feint (not covered by SR)
the outcome at least rewards speed.

it would now go.

Fast person throws a feint.
slow guy tries to take advantage
fast guy uses the oppening offered and creams Mr slow.

Rules wise though all three of the above now happen at Mr fasts first
action.

Comments

>
> >'cannot use combat pool on both the skill roll and dodge' rule
> >already uses this identifier to track it's applicability.
>
> Which rule is this. Do you mean that in full defence you cannot use any
> combat pool dice in the skill test but only in the defence test?
Thats the one, or nearly.
'You cannot spend pool dice on both the attack test and the damage
resistance test at the same time'
You could spend some to hit A with your sword and some to dodge B's
knife but not some to parry C's axe AND some to roll with the blow
when you don't quite manage to parry.

[terms used for description of real event rather than game mechanics
here]

Mark

Message no. 54 At 11:34 25/07/97 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:
>No. This version merely banned the slower erson from using combat
>pool on thier skill untill their action so use they can still use
>full defence. However the faster person will assuming equal skill now
>have twice as many attack dice and will hit. If the defender (slow
>character) has lots of armour compared to the attack (defnse TN <5)
>then yes the first guy now gets creamed, if the defender needs 6's to
>dodge however he gets hurt big time and TN penalties will more
>than offset his dice advantage (unless he's a physical adept with
>enhanced centring, but given what that costs thats fair/ pain
>resistance / pain editor).

Don't forget though, if the initiative loser (the defender) can place all
of his combat pool into full defense for the initiative winner's attack
there's a good chance, with all else equal, that the defender will not take
any damage. And then we're back to the original problem. Unless, of course,
the defender has no armour or the power of the attack is high. Even then,
this initial damage to the initiative loser may not be enough to off set
his pool refresh advantage. Oops, I see you discuss this below. Mmmm. I'll
have to think further about this. For the moment I'd still prefer mandating
the initiative loser to not be able to use combat pool on his skill rolls
until his second action.

>Very true. However unless the faster guy is a lot better or delays
>till his opponents action the present SR system goes.
>
>guy 1 attacks
>target blocks parries etc with full pool
> if guy 1 used his pool not a lot happens, if he didn't he get
>riposted and hurt.
>
>the slower combatent now goes again full attack, the fast guy being
>either hurt or low on dice gets totally creamed unless he is either a
>lot better or has enough armour plus body to shrug off the slower
>guys attacks.

Which is why I suggested that the initiative loser could not add pool dice
to skill until his second action. I know its a klunky work-around but I
suppose SR rules just don't reflect the tactics of battle too well. It's
why we GMs have to be good story tellers. :-)

>
>As SR2 stands you wait for he other to attack and cream him when he
>gives you an oppening (realistic, but it fails to reward the higher
>intiative guy doing a fient to draw out his opponent and then using
>speed to cream him when he uses a fake oppening)
>This idea gives the faster person that huge advantage.

I just don't like huge advantages merely because of a quicker initiative of
just a phase or two. It sought of makes the combat pointless when the two
opponents are otherwise so equal. Just declare the initiative winner the
victor and move on to the next scene. However, if the initiative winner has
a truly significant initiative advantage (ie. the opponents are not equal)
such that he has two (or even more) actions before the loser has an action
then we have an interesting situation that accurately (as far as SR rules
can) reflects what you are asking for with feints - and just using the base
rules:
1. First guy attacks with max combat pool dice
2. Second guy defends/counter-attacks using all his combat pool to avoid
being creamed.
3. First guy attacks again with a refreshed combat pool.
4. Second guy has not yet had an action and so his combat pool has not been
refreshed. He is mince meat.

>> Which rule is this. Do you mean that in full defence you cannot use any
>> combat pool dice in the skill test but only in the defence test?
>Thats the one, or nearly.
>'You cannot spend pool dice on both the attack test and the damage
>resistance test at the same time'
>You could spend some to hit A with your sword and some to dodge B's
>knife but not some to parry C's axe AND some to roll with the blow
>when you don't quite manage to parry.

No, you're right, this is not the full defence rule. I can't find your rule
anywhere in the BBB. Could you give me a page reference please?

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.

Message no. 55 Chris Maxfield writes
> >
> >As SR2 stands you wait for he other to attack and cream him when he
> >gives you an oppening (realistic, but it fails to reward the higher
> >intiative guy doing a fient to draw out his opponent and then using
> >speed to cream him when he uses a fake oppening)
> >This idea gives the faster person that huge advantage.
>
> I just don't like huge advantages merely because of a quicker initiative of
> just a phase or two. It sought of makes the combat pointless when the two
> opponents are otherwise so equal. Just declare the initiative winner the
> victor and move on to the next scene.
ok i can see that, though given unaugmented combatents that would be
a significant achievement.

> However, if the initiative winner has
> a truly significant initiative advantage (ie. the opponents are not equal)
> such that he has two (or even more) actions before the loser has an action
> then we have an interesting situation that accurately (as far as SR rules
> can) reflects what you are asking for with feints - and just using the base
> rules:
Yes. I will therefore rebuild the example for 1 action before and
your no dice on first attack for the slower character.

1. First guy attacks with max combat pool dice
2. Second guy defends/counter-attacks using all his combat pool to avoid
being creamed.
All even.

3. Second guy attacks again with no pool.
and the first defends with none either (unless he had a lot compared
to his skill but such is not the result unless folks have serious
bonuses that should affect matters) again even.

4. first guy attacks with full pool, and yes his target also has a
full pool (because he wasn't allowed to use it), again standoff.

Second guy gets to his second action if he rolled 11 or more
he has a full combat pool the fast guy doesn't, OUCH!

And if you ban the slow guy from using it on skill rolls to defend
either he gets creamed or just usues full defence instead depending
on power level vs armour.

> >> Which rule is this. Do you mean that in full defence you cannot use any
> >> combat pool dice in the skill test but only in the defence test?
> >Thats the one, or nearly.
> >'You cannot spend pool dice on both the attack test and the damage
> >resistance test at the same time'
> >You could spend some to hit A with your sword and some to dodge B's
> >knife but not some to parry C's axe AND some to roll with the blow
> >when you don't quite manage to parry.
>
> No, you're right, this is not the full defence rule. I can't find your rule
> anywhere in the BBB. Could you give me a page reference please?
>
Page refs are not easy as book is not near email account. It is
amongst the stuff about the full defence rule though, it that you may
not use full defence if you spend any combat pool on the skill roll
against the melee attack that just hit you.

Mark

Message no. 56 I mentioned this before, but I think I got blown off.

Refresh everyone's pools at the beginning of combat. From that point
on the characters' pools refresh at the *end* of their action
phases.

Character A attacks first, using all of his combat pool. Character B
defends, also using all of his combat pool. Everything being even, B
successfully defends. Niether side takes any damage. A's pool
refreshes.

B attacks, but he doesn't have a combat pool. A defends with some of
the dice from his combat pool and comes out on top. B's pool
refreshes.

A attacks using what's left of his combat pool. B can use all of his
combat pool to make sure he doesn't get hit, or try to hedge it and
save dice for his attack on his next action.

And so on. The advantage that B had is removed, and the players have
to start doing some serious thinking when the allocate pool dice to
tests.

Please, give this some thought, then let me know what's wrong with it
:)

BTW, in my game successful defense results in the failure of the
attack, not a counter-attack. But even with counter-attacks, A's
initiative bonus is just that, a bonus, not a detriment.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."

Message no. 57 On Thursday, July 24, 1997 12:17, Michael
Broadwater[SMTP:mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM] wrote:

> But you are right on one thing: a kick to the groin's not going to stop a
> fight. That's why you follow it up.

A kick to the kneecap, on the other hand. Or a good stomp to the foot. Both
ways to slow down the opponent, maybe cripple him, without exposing
yourself.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

Message no. 58 At 09:42 25/07/97 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
>Refresh everyone's pools at the beginning of combat. From that point
>on the characters' pools refresh at the *end* of their action
>phases.
<<<snip>>>

Yep. I saw this the first time you posted but somehow I lost it. I've just
replied, privately, to Mark Steedman discussing the points he made in his
last post. As I said to Mark I feel this problem of the initiative loser
refreshing his combat pool to soon is a conundrum. Or - I thought it was
until I just discussed your suggestion with a friend. I like your idea.

A question, though I think you mentioned it in your first post. Do you have
this refreshing take place in all SR combat eg. ranged, DM spells, etc...
and do you have all pools refreshing this way eg. magic, control, hacking,
etc... ?

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.

Message no. 59 Chris Maxfield wrote:
|
| At 09:42 25/07/97 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
| >Refresh everyone's pools at the beginning of combat. From that point
| >on the characters' pools refresh at the *end* of their action
| >phases.
| <<<snip>>>
|
| Yep. I saw this the first time you posted but somehow I lost it. I've just
| replied, privately, to Mark Steedman discussing the points he made in his
| last post. As I said to Mark I feel this problem of the initiative loser
| refreshing his combat pool to soon is a conundrum. Or - I thought it was
| until I just discussed your suggestion with a friend. I like your idea.

Well, that's one :)

| A question, though I think you mentioned it in your first post. Do you have
| this refreshing take place in all SR combat eg. ranged, DM spells, etc...
| and do you have all pools refreshing this way eg. magic, control, hacking,
| etc... ?

I would suggest applying it to all pools.

BTW, this is an idea in the playtest stage. Send the PCs to a
paintball competition and try it out under non-lethal conditions
before you use it for real.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."

Message no. 60 on 25.07.97 jhurley1@************.EDU wrote:

j> > But you are right on one thing: a kick to the groin's not going to stop a
j> > fight. That's why you follow it up.
j>
j> A kick to the kneecap, on the other hand.

Kick the knee of the leg carrying his weight. If you hit it right, the
lower bone (what's its english name?!) will shoot right out of the back of
the knee. Most people (except those with 'regeneration') will stop
fighting, once there bones start leaving their body...nasty...

bye

## CrossPoint v3.1 ##

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer