Movement and attacking

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

To put it another way, unengaged movement happens before SR0.

Yes and no. The rules text also strongly indicates that if you spend what would have been 6 SRs to reach an archer, then said archer can get off a shot at you in SRs 1-5, but not on SR 6+.

[Barak Shathur]

51 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Except that if you start close to the archer, he may not get his second shot off under RQiG rules.  But in the sequence just proposed above, he will get all his shots off even if you start right next to him.  With a high DEX, that is three arrows at point blank range before you can spear him.   I have a harder time accepting that that I have counting strike ranks.

Fair enough. Scratch that. I guess ideally then, to be consistent, one ought to add SR for moving to both the mover and the movee, so that all that needs to take place before contact can happen. So, Larry Longspear (MSR 6) charges 12m at Stevie Short sword (MSR 7). Archie Archer fires at Larry on his DEX SR 3, and again at 8. If Larry survives, he reaches Stevie and melees him on SR 10, while Stevie melees at SR 11. If Larry starts only 3m away from Steve, Archie doesn't get his second shot in before contact. A little crunchy, but kind of fun!

Edited January 24, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[Akhôrahil]

14 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Fair enough. Scratch that. I guess ideally then, to be consistent, one ought to add SR for moving to both the mover and the movee, so that all that needs to take place before contact can happen. So, Larry Longspear (MSR 6) charges 12m at Stevie Short sword (MSR 7). Archie Archer fires at Larry on his DEX SR 3, and again at 8. If Larry survives, he reaches Stevie and melees him on SR 10, while Stevie melees at SR 11. If Larry starts only 3m away from Steve, Archie doesn't get his second shot in before contact. A little crunchy, but kind of fun!

An even more simplified RQ combat round would only allow one "main action" (although you could potentially make split attacks in that one). It is kinda weird that you get more actions outside melee than in it - my players love to use "tank and spank" - get one PC into melee to lock up that enemy (taking away multiple spellcasting, for instance, or stopping it from going for anyone else), while the rest pour it on (even with missile weapons if the tank has a sufficiently huge Shield up... which has occasionally misfired with a crit, but hey...) and heal.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[radmonger]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

Yes and no. The rules text also strongly indicates that if you spend what would have been 6 SRs to reach an archer, then said archer can get off a shot at you in SRs 1-5, but not on SR 6+.

 

In RQ:G, if the archer is going to fire at you, you are engaged, and so don't get to use unengaged movement. This is a change from RQ2 rules-as-written, though it was a common house rule.

The full round sequence is:

1. statement of intent: decides who is engaged with who.
2. unengaged characters move (i.e. don't leave nearby enemies unengaged; they will kill the healer)
3. main phase: run through players one by one, in any order you like. For each player, resolve the actions from all characters in that engagement, in strike rank order.

Done properly, this is faster than a typical d&d-style initiative system. You simply go round the table, you don't need to roll any dice, or to decide who's turn it is next.

 

 

 

 

[Akhôrahil]

33 minutes ago, radmonger said:

In RQ:G, if the archer is going to fire at you, you are engaged, and so don't get to use unengaged movement.

That's not my reading at all - "engaged" means "in melee", surely? Otherwise you would be unable to move as soon as an archer fires at you, unless you disengage first. 🙂

[radmonger]

30 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

That's not my reading at all - "engaged" means "in melee", surely? Otherwise you would be unable to move as soon as an archer fires at you, unless you disengage first. 🙂

No, 'engaged in melee' means engaged in melee. For once, the RQ:G rules do actually seem to be consistent on that wording. So you can move while engaged by spells or missiles; it just happens during the resolution phase. As such, it cuts into your SR budget, both limiting how far you can move and delaying your attack.

You can increase consistency, at the cost of a bit of fiddliness, by instead of everyone getting half of their normal  unengaged movement, each unengaged character get 12 - SR if they want to attack, or the full 12 if not.

But I doubt anyone not playing on a computer knows where the characters are precisely enough for that to matter.

Edited January 24, 2023 by radmonger

[Akhôrahil]

48 minutes ago, radmonger said:

No, 'engaged in melee' means engaged in melee.

But this is the only "engaged" that exists, as far as I can tell. 

"2. Movement of Non-Engaged
Characters
Any adventurer or monster actively taking part in melee
combat, whether attacking or defending, is engaged in
melee combat. All characters and monsters not directly
engaged in melee combat may move up to their total
movement rate (MOV)."

I don't see anything anywhere about "non-melee engaged" even being a thing that exists (apart from engaged in Spirit Combat, which is something else)? Explicitly only "engaged in melee combat" stops non-engaged movement.

[radmonger]

53 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

But this is the only "engaged" that exists, as far as I can tell. 

The text of the rules itself never explicitly _says_ 'engagement' is different from 'melee engagement', or defines exactly what non-melee engagement is. But by using the two different phrases, it presumably intends them to be different.

And then if you look at the Q&A;

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-qa-by-chapter/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-chapter-08-combat/#ib-toc-anchor-2

 

Quote

I pull out my bow and fire an arrow at an opponent 20m away. He Dodges it. Are we, thus, engaged?

Yes. One is preparing to shoot the other. The other is watching waiting to dodge. You were engaged at the moment in the statement of intent where you said you would fire an arrow at an opponent 20m away and the GM said that the target would try and dodge.

 

 

[Akhôrahil]

39 minutes ago, radmonger said:

The text of the rules itself never explicitly _says_ 'engagement' is different from 'melee engagement', or defines exactly what non-melee engagement is. But by using the two different phrases, it presumably intends them to be different.

And then if you look at the Q&A;

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-qa-by-chapter/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-chapter-08-combat/#ib-toc-anchor-2

Huh - that makes no sense to me. What could the actual effects of this possibly be? If it blocks non-engaged movement, then it blocks all movement, as this is the only movement that exists (apart from post-disengagement move), but explictly only melee engagement has any effects in the rules. So what even is this supposed "ranged engagement"?

39 minutes ago, radmonger said:

But by using the two different phrases, it presumably intends them to be different.

Where do you find non-melee, non-Spirit-Combat engagement in the rulebook?

Edited January 24, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[radmonger]

p192, section 2

[Akhôrahil]

17 minutes ago, radmonger said:

p192, section 2

Do we have different editions or something? I can only see engaged in melee here.

[SDLeary]

18 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Do we have different editions or something? I can only see engaged in melee here.

Agreed... all I see in section 2 is about Melee combat:

Quote

Any adventurer or monster actively taking part in melee combat, whether attacking or defending, is engaged in melee combat.

and:

Quote

Any adventurer or monster actively taking part in melee combat, whether attacking or defending, is engaged in melee combat.

It's issues like these which have kept me using RQ3 as the core, and then pulling things over as I feel need. RQ3 is simply the better at skirmish combat (IMO). Especially if your group is using minis, but also in my brain as I can visualize it better.

SDLeary

[radmonger]

It is in the section name:  'movement of non-engaged characters'. 

 

 

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

It is in the section name:  'movement of non-engaged characters'. 

That obviously just refers to the text under the header.

[DreadDomain]

On 1/21/2023 at 2:08 AM, Barak Shathur said:

Do you do double damage on slash specials? Because this destroys the perfect balance between weapons that RQ3 (and RQG, if not for this rule) achieved.

Good point. The potential of incapacitating is probably enough for slashing as a special.

18 hours ago, radmonger said:

The text of the rules itself never explicitly _says_ 'engagement' is different from 'melee engagement', or defines exactly what non-melee engagement is. But by using the two different phrases, it presumably intends them to be different.

And then if you look at the Q&A;

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-qa-by-chapter/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-chapter-08-combat/#ib-toc-anchor-2

17 hours ago, radmonger said:

p192, section 2

Unfortunately, the Q&A muddies the water but the section you point to clearly and strongly implies that "engaged" and "engaged in melee" is one and the same.

16 hours ago, SDLeary said:

RQ3 is simply the better at skirmish combat (IMO). Especially if your group is using minis, but also in my brain as I can visualize it better.

Agreed, RQ3 manages MOV a lot better than RQG does. There are a few things that RQG changes that I like much better than RQ3. Movement is not one of them.

[Barak Shathur]

18 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Good point. The potential of incapacitating is probably enough for slashing as a special.

Especially since slashing weapons on the whole already have higher damage dice than others. 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

RQ3 is to my mind a better choice for movement if you play a more focused tactical game, and positions are mapped out on some kind of grid. 
 

RQG/RQ2 is to my mind more deliberately abstract with movement to suite a faster more ‘theatre of the mind’ type game.  It leaves itself open to rulings on movement by the GM, rather than relying on rules to account for everything. 

Lots of guidance from past editions to borrow from and suite a wide spectrum of players - One of the strengths of RuneQuest as a solid BRP system…but hey I’m preaching to the converted 😅

 

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

RQ3 is to my mind a better choice for movement if you play a more focused tactical game, and positions are mapped out on some kind of grid. 

Agreed.

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

RQG/RQ2 is to my mind more deliberately abstract with movement to suite a faster more ‘theatre of the mind’ type game.  It leaves itself open to rulings on movement by the GM, rather than relying on rules to account for everything. 

Also agreed.

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Lots of guidance from past editions to borrow from and suite a wide spectrum of players - One of the strengths of RuneQuest as a solid BRP system…but hey I’m preaching to the converted 😅

Same.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Has anyone used the RQ3 rule for closing in on an opponent with a long hafted weapon in RQG? 
 

Is it satisfactory? 
 

I was thinking of something like this: 

Manoeuvring to close in on opponent with long hafted weapon

• Add one SR to attempt to close on opponent
• Make an opposed Dex roll 
• If successful you attack on the SR before your opponents. Your opponent will need to perform the same manoeuvre to regain the advantage. 
• If unsuccessful your opponent has +10% chance to hit you on next attack, which represents the risk of attempting the manoeuvre.

Too crunchy? Unbalanced? 
The RQ3 version seems a bit easy to cancel with a simple step back instead of opposed Dex roll, but maybe that works ok in game? 

 

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 1/19/2023 at 10:45 AM, Barak Shathur said:

So in essence, I charge in MR1, the individual I charge gets to attack me, and in the next MR I attack him? Even though my lance tip reaches him way before he can physically reach me? This can’t be right. 

To simplify you could just say the charger with the longer hafted weapon automatically attacks first if they’re charging into melee combat situation. 
 

Which is kind of the same thinking in the older RQ3 rule for closing in against an opponent with a long hafted weapon. After which you could try opposed dex rolls to close in/keep distance against opponent. Though it adds a bit more complexity to combat.

…or follow the RQ3 rule having a 1 SR penalty to close in/step away from an opponent to gain/keep advantage of attacking first.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Akhôrahil]

Doesn't Mythras have a good solution for this, with optimal distance for various weapons, and maneuvering for it?

Edited February 3, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

I still don’t have mythras. Would their solution work well with RQG or does RQG need something more bespoke? 

[radmonger]

For me, following the rules as written, or at least as intended, works fine. 

Problems only really come if you look at the (to be fair, often very loose and informal) wording and think 'taking a strict reading, that could be read as implying this ludicrous thing'. 

Ideally chaosium would publish a 1.1 edition with cleaned up language, for example consistently using either  'engaged in combat' and 'engaged in melee' at the appropriate points. Meanwhile, the workaround is to understand how it is _supposed to_ work, and read the rules based on that knowledge. 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Musing on the idea of allowing a Rune or Passion roll to reduce Strike Rank.

Feels like it fits thematically and would help inject a bit more unpredictability to combat and order of attacks.

Maybe a bonus of -3 SR on a standard success, special -5, critical go first on SR1

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Beoferret]

8 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Musing on the idea of allowing a Rune or Passion roll to reduce Strike Rank.

Feels like it fits thematically and would help inject a bit more unpredictability to combat and order of attacks.

Maybe a bonus of -3 SR on a standard success, special -5, critical go first on SR1

 

That's an interesting idea. Are you thinking that it'd be a roll just for improving SR for an entire combat or would that effect be combined with augmenting weapon skill? I could see a successful augment for a melee weapon skill (for example) including your suggested SR improvement for the first strike after the augment.