EpicureanDM Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 14 hours ago, g33k said: But in the end... I don't think it matters. No world-simulating ruleset can be 100% complete, or it would be the size of the world. Players will always find exceptions and loopholes, and the GM will always need to issue rulings. So, we have resolutions (at least 2, I may have missed some) that don't violate either RAW or (imho) common-sense / verisimilitude. Pick one and play! Discuss after-session if your group wants to HR the issue. Agreed. I've got no problem making calls in the middle of play. My players are friends and don't sweat it if I get something wrong. Like most people who post on forums, I like kicking around the edge cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 2 hours ago, EpicureanDM said: Agreed. I've got no problem making calls in the middle of play. My players are friends and don't sweat it if I get something wrong. Like most people who post on forums, I like kicking around the edge cases. Doing the latter actually helps you when you do the former. There have been quite a few times where "pushing the envelope" on a fourm with other GMs has helped me to figure out a similar but less extreme version of the same thing in play. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joerg Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 On 3/22/2019 at 6:14 PM, g33k said: The ordering CAN matter, because someone with a low SR may bypass a defender and get an attack on another party, due to their low SR. As a rules artefact, yes. As a combat situation - only if the intruder is part of a general rush and the defender concentrating on another incoming opponent. A bit like defensive play in handball, only with a lot less restrictive rules regarding how to deal with the opposition. On 3/22/2019 at 6:14 PM, g33k said: What if the later-SR attack of the bypassed defender proves disabling -- that is, the low-SR attacker got dropped by the defender, short of the target? Basically the defender who didn't get to hit the intruder when coming in gets to attack him from his rear as he engages someone else further back. Doing a penetration attack without trusty wingmen to cover one's rear is suicide in a combat system like any incarnation of RQ. But then, any combat situation where there is no fixed formation (such as a shield wall or a phalanx) will involve lots of footwork and in-combat movement. A single warrior holding a bridge won't remain in one spot all the time (making it harder to harpoon him from below). Quote Telling how it is excessive verbis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHibbs Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 19 minutes ago, Joerg said: Basically the defender who didn't get to hit the intruder when coming in gets to attack him from his rear as he engages someone else further back. Doing a penetration attack without trusty wingmen to cover one's rear is suicide in a combat system like any incarnation of RQ. Whilst there are no specific rules for flanking or rear attacks, or for parrying against them, I wouldn't have any hesitation in spot-ruling if someone were to do that. I'd warn them about it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 24 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said: Whilst there are no specific rules for flanking or rear attacks, or for parrying against them... Yeah; I find the lack of such tactical options an odd pairing with the generally "simulationist" bent of RQ's rules. 1 Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.