| From: | Fastjack <uc298@*****.unican.es> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Unarmed combat |
| Date: | Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:05:38 +0100 (GMT+0100) |
I dont know if this is the correct place to make a question,but ill
try...
> I've found many rules about unarmed combat:Martial arts,special kicks...
> they are many interesting,but i have little problems.
> All the rules speaks about Counterattack,dodge,etc .Ok,is easy understand=
> what they means :-) ,but in the SW II edition i dont see nothing about
> they.(I know that dodge pool dissapears in the second edition).
> And also we made our little changes:According to the II edition rules,in=
> a unarmed combat,both opponents only have one action.We think that is an=
> error,because if a samurai has initiative 26,and combat with a citizen
> who has initiative 3...they have the same opportunities!! (of course the=
> samurai roll more dices).Then we make this:
>
> The samurai has 3 actions,and the citizen only 1.When they
> battle,the first action is like the rules:both opponents roll dice,net
> succes etc.
> But after the first action we see that the samurai has two actions
> more,and the cityzen 0.Thats ok!The samurai will make 2 more attacks,an=
> as is more quickly than the cityzen,the cityzen only can resist with body=
> and the remainder combat pool.
> The samurai is more quickly,so it must be a difference in combat!they
> can't have the same opportunities!.
>
> Well,that is our changes.But when i see the martial rules,attacks...i see=
> that all of you plays with the 1ø edition
> rules!(dodge,counterattack,...),and i must say that i found very useless=
> the dodge,block attacks and similars...Why may i dodge an attack if i
> could counterattack more easyly?Ok,if you dodge an attack,you haev more=
> net success than the opponent an you dodge the attack,block it...but if=
> you counterattack,with the same success you hit your enemy!i see a very=
> big difference;so i think that the counterattack is the most usefull
> tactic ( when i say to my players that they can block an attack instead=
> of counterattack,they look me as i were crazy :-) )
>
> I suppose that may be something i cant see with that kind of
> maniobres,perhaps they are explained on the first edition,but i dont.
>
> The main problem is that without these rules,many of the martial arts are=
> useless,or are less interesting,because if you have 3 differents
> maniobres,and 2 are useless (from my point of view)...
>
> So i decided to ask you about this problem.Could you help me?
>
> Thank you in advance
>
>
