Forums of the Megaverse®

Does this apply at raange as well or is this just melee attacks? And referances for ethier side of the argument would be helpful.

gelidus wrote:Does this apply at raange as well or is this just melee attacks? And referances for ethier side of the argument would be helpful.

I asked Kevin at an open house, and he said something like "Sure. Why wouldn't they?"

Which is really the key question.
The books NEVER say that simultaneous attacks are melee-only.
Some people point out that simultaneous attacks are described in the "melee combat" section, but so are dodges and parries, so there's nothing about that that means that the move is restricted to melee.

Also, the move is described in the general "Combat Terms & Moves" section of RUE, not specifically in a "melee only" section.

RUE 347 states:
Instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle, a character can choose to do a simultaneous attack.

What this means is that instead of a dodge, parry, or entangle, a character may do a simultaneous attack.
Since you can dodge in ranged combat, you can simultaneously attack in ranged combat.
Because you can simultaneous attack instead of a dodge.

in melee can a charcter with paired weapons parry and simo-strike at the same time? IRL wing chun has several effective moves that do exactly that just wondering if its possible in the game.

yes, that ability is explicitly in the paired weapons skill if you look at it. note that if both parties have paried weapons it cancels out.

Can you Simultaneously Attack when you aren't the target of the attack?

Giant2005 wrote:Can you Simultaneously Attack when you aren't the target of the attack?

technically no. unless you get a dodge, parry, or entangle, as per killer cyborg's quote above.

that said, i'd allow it, provided of course you're able to tell what's happening and you have an attack available. but i would also say that the next time an attack is made against you (provided it happens before your initiative comes around again), you don't get to use your usual defense options (unless you have paired weapons and only made the simultaneous attack with one of them, of course, in which case you could attempt a parry or entangle).

I think the canon answer is "yes".

Personally, I don't allow simultaneous attacks at all.

--flatline

flatline wrote:I think the canon answer is "yes".

Personally, I don't allow simultaneous attacks at all.

--flatline

That is pretty much what I did as well I really disliked the mechanic of it.

Thirded. Simultaneous attacks are the worst.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:yes, that ability is explicitly in the paired weapons skill if you look at it. note that if both parties have paried weapons it cancels out.

so two fencers using rapier and main guache would roll normally, but if one got disarmed the guy with two weapons could parry and simo-strike the other guy to death.

say652 wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:yes, that ability is explicitly in the paired weapons skill if you look at it. note that if both parties have paried weapons it cancels out.

so two fencers using rapier and main guache would roll normally, but if one got disarmed the guy with two weapons could parry and simo-strike the other guy to death.

correct.

a four armed creature like Rahu-Men are even worse, they can have two pairs of paired weapons, which means they can use one weapon to parry and simul-attack three times.

they can simultaneously attack 3 times -- at the same target (the target who initiated the attack which could be parried) -- during the same combat turn, provided he has the "actions" to do so?

*groan*

Azazel wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Can you Simultaneously Attack when you aren't the target of the attack?

technically no. unless you get a dodge, parry, or entangle, as per killer cyborg's quote above.

I might be misunderstanding the question, but what prevents someone from using Twin, simultaneous strikes even if they are not the target of the attack? I don't believe there is anything preventing them from doing this with small thrown melee weapons either. What am i missing here?

You can only perform a Simultaneous Attack when you could normally dodge, parry, etc.
Which you can only do if you're the target, and a successful attack roll has been made against you.
Therefore, if no successful attack roll has been made against you, you cannot dodge/parry/etc., which means you cannot perform a Simultaneous Attack.

Witchcraft wrote:they can simultaneously attack 3 times -- at the same target (the target who initiated the attack which could be parried) -- during the same combat turn, provided he has the "actions" to do so?

*groan*

Yep! but it only costs 1 attack per melee for all 3 simultanious attacks on the same guy.

Just be glad rahu-men are barred from being gunslingers.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Azazel wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Can you Simultaneously Attack when you aren't the target of the attack?

technically no. unless you get a dodge, parry, or entangle, as per killer cyborg's quote above.

I might be misunderstanding the question, but what prevents someone from using Twin, simultaneous strikes even if they are not the target of the attack? I don't believe there is anything preventing them from doing this with small thrown melee weapons either. What am i missing here?

You can only perform a Simultaneous Attack when you could normally dodge, parry, etc.
Which you can only do if you're the target, and a successful attack roll has been made against you.
Therefore, if no successful attack roll has been made against you, you cannot dodge/parry/etc., which means you cannot perform a Simultaneous Attack.

Which becomes nonsensical when dealing with ranged attacks. If Bob shoots at Phil, Phil can make a simultaneous attack and shoot back at Bob. But if Bob shoots at Phil's brother, Phil has to wait until he would normally be able to make an attack before he can shoot at Bob.

What if Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire when he was trying to shoot at Phil? Would Phil still be able to simultaneous attack Bob even though Bob's attack never materialized?

--flatline

That's why the rules are only a mechanical representation of how to resolve combat using dice and not a realistic guide to physics or all the complexities of real battle. it's a simplification, so of course fine details like that get lost.

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Azazel wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Can you Simultaneously Attack when you aren't the target of the attack?

technically no. unless you get a dodge, parry, or entangle, as per killer cyborg's quote above.

I might be misunderstanding the question, but what prevents someone from using Twin, simultaneous strikes even if they are not the target of the attack? I don't believe there is anything preventing them from doing this with small thrown melee weapons either. What am i missing here?

You can only perform a Simultaneous Attack when you could normally dodge, parry, etc.
Which you can only do if you're the target, and a successful attack roll has been made against you.
Therefore, if no successful attack roll has been made against you, you cannot dodge/parry/etc., which means you cannot perform a Simultaneous Attack.

Which becomes nonsensical when dealing with ranged attacks. If Bob shoots at Phil, Phil can make a simultaneous attack and shoot back at Bob. But if Bob shoots at Phil's brother, Phil has to wait until he would normally be able to make an attack before he can shoot at Bob.

How's that any different than with melee, if everybody's standing in sword/pike reach?
If Bob stabs at Phil, Phil can make a simultaneous attack and stab back at Bob. But if Bob shoots at Phil's brother, Phil has to wait until he would normally be able to make an attack before he can shoot at Bob.

And, of course, it's the same way with dodge.
If Bob stabs at Phil, then Phil can jump to the side. But if Bob stabs at Phil's brother, Phil has to wait until he would normally be able to make an attack before he can jump to the side.

What if Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire when he was trying to shoot at Phil? Would Phil still be able to simultaneous attack Bob even though Bob's attack never materialized?
--flatline

If Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire, then he'd have one heck of a time making a successful strike roll, unless he threw the thing.
And without a successful strike roll against you, you can't react.

Talavar wrote:Thirded. Simultaneous attacks are the worst.

Nah, it's great!

"Draw!"

"Ha, I got better initiative, I win the fast draw!"

"Simultanious attack!"

Or actually yeah, I agree! Fourthed!

Killer Cyborg wrote:

What if Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire when he was trying to shoot at Phil? Would Phil still be able to simultaneous attack Bob even though Bob's attack never materialized?
--flatline

If Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire, then he'd have one heck of a time making a successful strike roll, unless he threw the thing.
And without a successful strike roll against you, you can't react.

Why can't he make a successful strike roll for zero damage? Surely laser tag people do it all the time?

Noon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

What if Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire when he was trying to shoot at Phil? Would Phil still be able to simultaneous attack Bob even though Bob's attack never materialized?
--flatline

If Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire, then he'd have one heck of a time making a successful strike roll, unless he threw the thing.
And without a successful strike roll against you, you can't react.

Why can't he make a successful strike roll for zero damage? Surely laser tag people do it all the time?

Strike with WHAT though? if you dont shoot anything your laser just lays there There isnt anything to react TOO. With lasertag you make a strike roll....for your little laser, it doesnt have to do damage or have an effect other than 'lights up target' but you dont make a strike roll when you point your finger at someone and say 'bang' since you dont actually DO anything.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire, then he'd have one heck of a time making a successful strike roll, unless he threw the thing.
And without a successful strike roll against you, you can't react.

where does it say you can only react to a successful strike roll?

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire, then he'd have one heck of a time making a successful strike roll, unless he threw the thing.
And without a successful strike roll against you, you can't react.

where does it say you can only react to a successful strike roll?

RUE 339-341
Step 3: Defender May Parry, Dodge or Entangle
Any time an attacker rolls a successful strike to hit, the defender can choose to parry, dodge or entangle.

that's a non-exclusive phrasing. it dosn't say the strike roll must be successful to choose to do so, it it simply states if it is, you may choose to do so. presumably because if the strike roll is not successful, no one would want to waste their time defending aginst it. but that dosn't mean parrying, dodging, or entangling a non-successful strike roll is impossible.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:that's a non-exclusive phrasing. it dosn't say the strike roll must be successful to choose to do so, it it simply states if it is, you may choose to do so. presumably because if the strike roll is not successful, no one would want to waste their time defending aginst it. but that dosn't mean parrying, dodging, or entangling a non-successful strike roll is impossible.

Yeah, you go with that.
It makes as much sense as saying that when the rules say, "If the roll to strike is successful, it hits and does damage," that it means "if the roll to strike is successful, it hits and does damage... but hey, maybe it hits and does damage even if you miss! Who knows? we're not being exclusive here...."

Noon wrote:

Talavar wrote:Thirded. Simultaneous attacks are the worst.

Nah, it's great!
"Draw!"
"Ha, I got better initiative, I win the fast draw!"
"Simultanious attack!"
Or actually yeah, I agree! Fourthed!

it does tend to make hash of the initiative order at times yes.
but it does add a nice dramatic elements to combat.

personally i could see a simo attack being a case of a rushed attack. using the quickdraw example, your draw is slower.. so you just point the barrel in the rough direction the moment you clear the holster, instead of trying to aim properly. similarly in a melee you might try to slash or stab your opponent anyway possible, not necessarily with any skill or plan.

so perhaps all Simo attacks should be treated as wild shots? no bonuses?
then you'd have to weigh getting an attack off right away, vs waiting and being more sure you'll hit.

IMO, a Simo attack should use up your action that round, even if the initiative order hasn't reached you yet. even if your not a fan of the "one action per round" approach to record keeping, such a limit to Simo attacks would help balance them out. there would then be no way to attack twice in one round, which is something the system usually prevents except in rare (usually multi-limbed) cases.

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Azazel wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Can you Simultaneously Attack when you aren't the target of the attack?

technically no. unless you get a dodge, parry, or entangle, as per killer cyborg's quote above.

I might be misunderstanding the question, but what prevents someone from using Twin, simultaneous strikes even if they are not the target of the attack? I don't believe there is anything preventing them from doing this with small thrown melee weapons either. What am i missing here?

You can only perform a Simultaneous Attack when you could normally dodge, parry, etc.
Which you can only do if you're the target, and a successful attack roll has been made against you.
Therefore, if no successful attack roll has been made against you, you cannot dodge/parry/etc., which means you cannot perform a Simultaneous Attack.

Which becomes nonsensical when dealing with ranged attacks. If Bob shoots at Phil, Phil can make a simultaneous attack and shoot back at Bob. But if Bob shoots at Phil's brother, Phil has to wait until he would normally be able to make an attack before he can shoot at Bob.

What if Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire when he was trying to shoot at Phil? Would Phil still be able to simultaneous attack Bob even though Bob's attack never materialized?

--flatline

that's why i said that technically no, you can't do it.

and then went on to say that i would allow it, even though technically the rules don't allow you to do it, provided you have some legitimate means of pulling off a simultaneous attack.

standing 10 feet away with your weapon drawn, pointed, and waiting: sure, go ahead.
standing 500 feet away with no scope and no enhanced vision: nope, you're not sure when to make the attack because you aren't close enough to see clearly.
standing 2000 feet away with a laser rifle and a scope pointed at your target: sure, go ahead... although frankly, the target probably had no idea you were shooting at them and likely wouldn't be able to react anyways.
standing 2000 feet away with a hunting rifle and a scope pointed at your target: nope, the bullet's travel time means you'd have to be seeing a short amount of time into the future to pull it off.
standing 10 feet away, in a fight against another opponent: probably not, you're going to be pretty busy keeping yourself alive in most cases. on the other hand, for something like a juicer or crazy or something else with enhanced senses and/or reflexes, sure.

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Noon wrote:

Talavar wrote:Thirded. Simultaneous attacks are the worst.

Nah, it's great!
"Draw!"
"Ha, I got better initiative, I win the fast draw!"
"Simultanious attack!"
Or actually yeah, I agree! Fourthed!

it does tend to make hash of the initiative order at times yes.
but it does add a nice dramatic elements to combat.

personally i could see a simo attack being a case of a rushed attack. using the quickdraw example, your draw is slower.. so you just point the barrel in the rough direction the moment you clear the holster, instead of trying to aim properly. similarly in a melee you might try to slash or stab your opponent anyway possible, not necessarily with any skill or plan.

so perhaps all Simo attacks should be treated as wild shots? no bonuses?
then you'd have to weigh getting an attack off right away, vs waiting and being more sure you'll hit.

IMO, a Simo attack should use up your action that round, even if the initiative order hasn't reached you yet. even if your not a fan of the "one action per round" approach to record keeping, such a limit to Simo attacks would help balance them out. there would then be no way to attack twice in one round, which is something the system usually prevents except in rare (usually multi-limbed) cases.

It is my understanding that it does cost an action... It is an attack after all. And attacks cost at least one action.

glitterboy2098 wrote:it does tend to make hash of the initiative order at times yes.
but it does add a nice dramatic elements to combat.

personally i could see a simo attack being a case of a rushed attack. using the quickdraw example, your draw is slower.. so you just point the barrel in the rough direction the moment you clear the holster, instead of trying to aim properly. similarly in a melee you might try to slash or stab your opponent anyway possible, not necessarily with any skill or plan.

so perhaps all Simo attacks should be treated as wild shots? no bonuses?

Currently, unless you were already Aiming at the target, it would be a normal shot- no Aimed bonuses, just WP bonuses.
Which works for me.

IMO, a Simo attack should use up your action that round, even if the initiative order hasn't reached you yet. even if your not a fan of the "one action per round" approach to record keeping, such a limit to Simo attacks would help balance them out. there would then be no way to attack twice in one round, which is something the system usually prevents except in rare (usually multi-limbed) cases.

Yeah... we tried allowing multiple simo-attacks once, and the Glitter Boy killed like 6 people in the first round of attacks.
So it's best to limit it to one per round, even though technically dodging isn't limited that way.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Noon wrote:

Talavar wrote:Thirded. Simultaneous attacks are the worst.

Nah, it's great!
"Draw!"
"Ha, I got better initiative, I win the fast draw!"
"Simultanious attack!"
Or actually yeah, I agree! Fourthed!

it does tend to make hash of the initiative order at times yes.
but it does add a nice dramatic elements to combat.

personally i could see a simo attack being a case of a rushed attack. using the quickdraw example, your draw is slower.. so you just point the barrel in the rough direction the moment you clear the holster, instead of trying to aim properly. similarly in a melee you might try to slash or stab your opponent anyway possible, not necessarily with any skill or plan.

so perhaps all Simo attacks should be treated as wild shots? no bonuses?
then you'd have to weigh getting an attack off right away, vs waiting and being more sure you'll hit.

IMO, a Simo attack should use up your action that round, even if the initiative order hasn't reached you yet. even if your not a fan of the "one action per round" approach to record keeping, such a limit to Simo attacks would help balance them out. there would then be no way to attack twice in one round, which is something the system usually prevents except in rare (usually multi-limbed) cases.

It is my understanding that it does cost an action... It is an attack after all. And attacks cost at least one action.

it does cost an action. but a lot of people use a flexible record keeping approach, where you can use actions whenever you wish, as long as you have actions to spend. so in one round you could Simo aganst one attack, dodge an attack from someone else, then shoot when your point in the initiative order comes up. you could easily spend 3-4 actions in the span of what should be only 3-4 seconds. and if your init order shot is an aimed or called shot, you could spend even more.

on the otherhand some people limit actions to one each round, regardless of what that actions is. so if you dodge or simo, you have to give up your init order action to do so. after that one action, you'd have to use responses that don't cost an action (autododge, parry, etc).

i'm just suggesting that with Simo attacks, you should only be allowed one regular or simo attack per round, regardless of which approach you use. to prevent people from just Simo-attacking everyone who attacks them, and getting off 4-5 seperate attacks in the span of only a few seconds.

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Noon wrote:

Talavar wrote:Thirded. Simultaneous attacks are the worst.

Nah, it's great!
"Draw!"
"Ha, I got better initiative, I win the fast draw!"
"Simultanious attack!"
Or actually yeah, I agree! Fourthed!

it does tend to make hash of the initiative order at times yes.
but it does add a nice dramatic elements to combat.

personally i could see a simo attack being a case of a rushed attack. using the quickdraw example, your draw is slower.. so you just point the barrel in the rough direction the moment you clear the holster, instead of trying to aim properly. similarly in a melee you might try to slash or stab your opponent anyway possible, not necessarily with any skill or plan.

so perhaps all Simo attacks should be treated as wild shots? no bonuses?
then you'd have to weigh getting an attack off right away, vs waiting and being more sure you'll hit.

IMO, a Simo attack should use up your action that round, even if the initiative order hasn't reached you yet. even if your not a fan of the "one action per round" approach to record keeping, such a limit to Simo attacks would help balance them out. there would then be no way to attack twice in one round, which is something the system usually prevents except in rare (usually multi-limbed) cases.

It is my understanding that it does cost an action... It is an attack after all. And attacks cost at least one action.

it does cost an action. but a lot of people use a flexible record keeping approach, where you can use actions whenever you wish, as long as you have actions to spend. so in one round you could Simo aganst one attack, dodge an attack from someone else, then shoot when your point in the initiative order comes up. you could easily spend 3-4 actions in the span of what should be only 3-4 seconds. and if your init order shot is an aimed or called shot, you could spend even more.

on the otherhand some people limit actions to one each round, regardless of what that actions is. so if you dodge or simo, you have to give up your init order action to do so. after that one action, you'd have to use responses that don't cost an action (autododge, parry, etc).

i'm just suggesting that with Simo attacks, you should only be allowed one regular or simo attack per round, regardless of which approach you use. to prevent people from just Simo-attacking everyone who attacks them, and getting off 4-5 seperate attacks in the span of only a few seconds.

ah... Ok I see what you mean now.

I have always played that anything that costs an action burns your current or next action. The action point concept just doesn't work for me.

Damian Magecraft wrote:I have always played that anything that costs an action burns your current or next action. The action point concept just doesn't work for me.

That's how it (and dodging) used to be. Then Kevin put out a rule change that allows you to do it as long as you have attacks left that round.

And this is why things get so much simpler if you get rid of attacks per melee.

--flatline

flatline wrote:And this is why things get so much simpler if you get rid of attacks per melee.

--flatline

It's called turn based combat for a reason.
Realtime is difficult to duplicate at the table.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

gelidus wrote:Does this apply at raange as well or is this just melee attacks? And referances for ethier side of the argument would be helpful.

I asked Kevin at an open house, and he said something like "Sure. Why wouldn't they?"

Which is really the key question.
The books NEVER say that simultaneous attacks are melee-only.
Some people point out that simultaneous attacks are described in the "melee combat" section, but so are dodges and parries, so there's nothing about that that means that the move is restricted to melee.

Also, the move is described in the general "Combat Terms & Moves" section of RUE, not specifically in a "melee only" section.

RUE 347 states:
Instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle, a character can choose to do a simultaneous attack.

What this means is that instead of a dodge, parry, or entangle, a character may do a simultaneous attack.
Since you can dodge in ranged combat, you can simultaneously attack in ranged combat.
Because you can simultaneous attack instead of a dodge.

Thanks KC your logic is always refreshing in the storm of trolls flinging there feces

Nekira Sudacne wrote:yes, that ability is explicitly in the paired weapons skill if you look at it. note that if both parties have paried weapons it cancels out.

I wouldn't say it cancels out, it just means that if the first attacker has it, he can still auto-parry the counter-attack, and if the defender has it, they can still auto-parry in spite of doing it simultaneously.

What this doesn't cover however, is paired weapon attacks. If someone does a duo-weapon strike (say, slashing at the guy's neck with 2 swords at once) if you had paired weapons and were trying to simultaneously attack, you may only be able to defend against ONE of those swords.

Reason being: another specific ability of auto-parry is often specified as being able to parry 2 attacks at once. This is actually a bit confusing, because auto-parry otherwise gives the impression you can auto-parry as many opponents as you like (later limitations make this 3 opponents max, 4 and on can't be defended) so the purpose of being able to used paired WP to defend against 2 attacks isn't very clear.

I take it as: if a single opponent attacks with 2 weapons, you must use both your paired WP to defend against it, this is still done automatically but you can't simultaneously attack without losing the use one one of those weapons and being unable to auto-parry both weapons at once.

Of course, the introduction of auto-dodges I am not sure if it complicates issues. Someone (initial target) initiating a simultaneous attack could not auto-dodge because to do a simultaneous attack you MUST forgo a defense (the ability to strike/parry from paired WP seems to be the exception to this...?) but a the target of a simultaneous attack (initial aggressor) also could not use it, since the only defense you can use if targetted is presumably the simultaneous strike/parry allowed by paired WP?

Although this begs the question: if someone had paired WP and simultaneously attacked with both of them, is there ANY defense by the aggressor (turned target) of a SA? They've already launched at least 1 attack so they can't do a double-parry, so isn't responding to any attack with a double-sword attack pretty much a guaranteed undefensible hit?

Damian Magecraft wrote:It is my understanding that it does cost an action... It is an attack after all. And attacks cost at least one action.

In b4 'automatic kick attack'

TBH if someone had both an automatic back flip and the automatic kick attack, I'd let them combine them at no cost

gelidus wrote:KC your logic is always refreshing in the storm of trolls flinging there feces

Even though you don't name names I find that insulting and inappropriate to our board members

Azazel wrote:

Tor wrote:In b4 'automatic kick attack'

TBH if someone had both an automatic back flip and the automatic kick attack, I'd let them combine them at no cost

I was told a while back that "An automatic kick attack at first level" simply meant that you automatically gained the use of kick attacks at first level even if your character doesn't have any Hand to Hand skills. Is this incorrect?

While I'm not aware of anyone with no HtH having access to Automatic Kick, the highlighted portion is correct.

in N&SS, there was/is a blanket automatic-attack mechanic and certain martial arts get a specific callout (kick, palm strike, punch, whatever)... it is rare and can be used for free usually when paired with another automatic defense (parry, auto-dodge, auto-backflip, whatever) - there are also combo maneuvers (combo parry/attack, combo dodge/kick, etc)

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:in N&SS, there was/is a blanket automatic-attack mechanic and certain martial arts get a specific callout (kick, palm strike, punch, whatever)... it is rare and can be used for free usually when paired with another automatic defense (parry, auto-dodge, auto-backflip, whatever) - there are also combo maneuvers (combo parry/attack, combo dodge/kick, etc)

i don't recall any such "automatic <strike>" attacks in N&SS, though it has been a while. plenty of automatic dodge, sure, but that's about it.

anyways, the automatic kick attack in question comes from either gymnastics or acrobatics, can't remember which. it is not an advanced martial art form of any sort, and definitely shouldn't let anyone become a kung fu master of face-kickery just because of their mad skillz on the balance beam or the parallel bars.

Azazel wrote:I was told a while back that "An automatic kick attack at first level" simply meant that you automatically gained the use of kick attacks at first level even if your character doesn't have any Hand to Hand skills. Is this incorrect?

Yeah I think the FAQ clarified this. But backflips are so awesome and neglected in combat situations that exceptions should be made.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:in N&SS, there was/is a blanket automatic-attack mechanic and certain martial arts get a specific callout (kick, palm strike, punch, whatever)... it is rare and can be used for free usually when paired with another automatic defense (parry, auto-dodge, auto-backflip, whatever) - there are also combo maneuvers (combo parry/attack, combo dodge/kick, etc)

I think you're thinking solely of those combined attacks. Combination moves all cost a melee attack and allow an attack an a defense, for the most part.

They generally suck since most of them don't allow you to use bonuses, for some odd reason. Meaning they're only useful in rare circumstances such as if you lack bonuses anyway, or if your bonuses are negated by someone with Karmic Power, or if you're involving in a lot of simultaneous attacking where all you really need to do is make strike rolls and not worry about surpassing parries.

eliakon wrote:

Noon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

What if Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire when he was trying to shoot at Phil? Would Phil still be able to simultaneous attack Bob even though Bob's attack never materialized?
--flatline

If Bob's gun malfunctioned and didn't fire, then he'd have one heck of a time making a successful strike roll, unless he threw the thing.
And without a successful strike roll against you, you can't react.

Why can't he make a successful strike roll for zero damage? Surely laser tag people do it all the time?

Strike with WHAT though? if you dont shoot anything your laser just lays there There isnt anything to react TOO. With lasertag you make a strike roll....for your little laser, it doesnt have to do damage or have an effect other than 'lights up target' but you dont make a strike roll when you point your finger at someone and say 'bang' since you dont actually DO anything.

The rules don't require that you do anything.

There are plenty of attacks people can make (completely pulled punches, water pistols against non-vampires) which don't do any damage, yet can still be reacted to in simultaneous attack.

Bob's gun jamming is irrelevant: you can make the strike roll BEFORE rolling to see if the gun jams.

The key here is not whether or not the gun fires, it's that the person aimed it and TRIED to fire it. This took them off defense, and into offensive mode. It's being in offensive mode that makes you vulnerable to simultaneous attacks from defenders. You're too busy firing your gun to dodge or parry the attack from the person you're attacking.

Though one stupid thing about simultaneous attacks in this fashion (it's somewhat understandable in melee) is that only the defender being shot at (or aimed at, at least) can do it, and not other people, even though your guard is equally down and you're equally a sitting duck for all involved.

Tor wrote:There are plenty of attacks people can make (completely pulled punches, water pistols against non-vampires) which don't do any damage, yet can still be reacted to in simultaneous attack.

Bob's gun jamming is irrelevant: you can make the strike roll BEFORE rolling to see if the gun jams.

Sounds like house rules.

The key here is not whether or not the gun fires, it's that the person aimed it and TRIED to fire it.

No, it's not; the key is a successful strike roll. If you fire your gun and miss, then no simultaneous attack can be performed.
Not according to the official rules.

Though one stupid thing about simultaneous attacks in this fashion (it's somewhat understandable in melee) is that only the defender being shot at (or aimed at, at least) can do it, and not other people, even though your guard is equally down and you're equally a sitting duck for all involved.

How's it any different here than with dodge, parry, etc?

Simultaneous attacks really make aoe attacks like Grenades or Missiles a bad idea.
If you throw a Grenade and there are too many people in the target area, you need to roll up a new character.

Giant2005 wrote:Simultaneous attacks really make aoe attacks like Grenades or Missiles a bad idea.
If you throw a Grenade and there are too many people in the target area, you need to roll up a new character.

Just another example of how it's a broken mechanic.

--flatline

Simultaneous attacks are a nice way for the under-armored big robots of Rifts, who can't dodge anyway, to suppress and dominate infantry.

ok simo strikes are a good technique but for ranged weapons more specifically showdowns i don't allow them. Both parties start with holstered weapons exchange words,spit tobacco,glare whatever then roll iniative higher roll draws first and shoots first a simostrike in this scenero just means you fired the gun in its holster. in a mass gun fight how would you know who shot you? a sniper in a hidden position? i generally do not allow simostrikes outside of melee combat.

say652 wrote:ok simo strikes are a good technique but for ranged weapons more specifically showdowns i don't allow them. Both parties start with holstered weapons exchange words,spit tobacco,glare whatever then roll iniative higher roll draws first and shoots first a simostrike in this scenero just means you fired the gun in its holster. in a mass gun fight how would you know who shot you? a sniper in a hidden position? i generally do not allow simostrikes outside of melee combat.

the typical solution i've seen is to rule that you can't simultaneously attack someone unless you've got initiative on them. makes a fair bit of sense, i suppose.

flatline wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Simultaneous attacks really make aoe attacks like Grenades or Missiles a bad idea.
If you throw a Grenade and there are too many people in the target area, you need to roll up a new character.

Just another example of how it's a broken mechanic.

--flatline

Well, hilarious. And makes the whole dodge/parry thing moot, so reducing combat to a bash a thon.

Greedo should have simo attacked Han.

Noon wrote:

flatline wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Simultaneous attacks really make aoe attacks like Grenades or Missiles a bad idea.
If you throw a Grenade and there are too many people in the target area, you need to roll up a new character.

Just another example of how it's a broken mechanic.

--flatline

Well, hilarious. And makes the whole dodge/parry thing moot, so reducing combat to a bash a thon.

Only for people who like getting shot/stabbed.
And who only ever use their actions to shoot/stab.
Otherwise it's not something that you should do every attack.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:

flatline wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Simultaneous attacks really make aoe attacks like Grenades or Missiles a bad idea.
If you throw a Grenade and there are too many people in the target area, you need to roll up a new character.

Just another example of how it's a broken mechanic.

--flatline

Well, hilarious. And makes the whole dodge/parry thing moot, so reducing combat to a bash a thon.

Only for people who like getting shot/stabbed.
And who only ever use their actions to shoot/stab.
Otherwise it's not something that you should do every attack.

Back when we still allowed simultaneous attacks, we had a super powered character with Energy Absorption and APS:Liquid who would just stand there and simo anyone who attacked him. We were already unhappy with the idea of simultaneous attacks, but it wasn't really until that character was made (to prove a point, no doubt), that we house ruled them away.

--flatline