Forums of the Megaverse®

Searched the forums; no luck. Here I go:

Imagine two guys, Adam and Bob, are in melee combat. Adam is armed with a laser pistol; Bob has a knife drawn.

In Melee range, Adam and Bob can slice and pistol-whip each other to their heart's content.

When it comes to firing their Ranged weapons in Melee range, I'd imagine that PARRYING WOULD BE ALLOWED, since they could target each others arms. Adam could have his pistol arm parried by Bob when he brings it up to fire, or perhaps Bob slashes Adam's arm with a simultaneous strike. Likewise, Adam could block Bob's throwing arm should he try to fling his blade, or boot the weapon out of Bob's hand in a attempt to Disarm him. This makes sense, at least to me, WITHIN MELEE RANGE.

What if Adam wants to step out of Melee range, disengaging from Melee combat, in order to fire his laser pistol without giving Bob the chance to parry his arm?

I'd imagine that it would take an attack/action for Adam to do so, but Bob could use an attack/action himself to follow Adam and keep him in Melee range. Is there an opposed test that could be used to determine how this works out?

My GM friends have suggested:
i) Adam rolls Dodge; Bob rolls to Strike. High roll wins; defender wins ties. This Strike roll is NOT a strike;
ii) Adam and Bob both roll a d20 and add their Speed attribute. High roll wins; defender wins ties.

I like the second option, as it makes sense that Juicers, Borgs, and other incredibly fast character should be able to stay within, or get away from, Melee range should they wish to, against average humans and D-Bees.

Is there a ruling on this that already exists for this scenario?

Thanks,
:Grim

I'd say that it would take an attack to break away from combat, and the opponent could use their attack to close in on you again before you could fire.
In fact, they could probably close in and attempt to strike, since THEY aren't breaking away from combat.

BUT you might also browse through Ninjas & Superspies.
I remember some rules in there for there being several different melee distances, and for shifting/moving from one to the other, and that might be applicable to what you're describing.

I do it pretty similarly to the way you do, Grimlock.

Thanks for the replies, guys.

@Killer Cyborg: I took your suggestion and looked up my copy of Ninjas & Superspies (N&SS) and read their section on Combat Ranges (pg. 128) as well as the Back Flip rules (pg. 127) which have been incorporated into Rifts: Ultimate Edition (pg. 344).

N&SS takes it a little too far, having Grappling, Combat, and Long ranges for melee engagements. I find that's a little too complex for my liking, as I want to differentiate between two possibilities: being within arms reach, and further apart (where Ranged Combat rules then apply). Plus, their system assumes all combatants are human, which typically isn't the case in the Rifts milieux.

The Back Flip rules touch on what I'm looking at, but it doesn't present an opposed roll. Back Flip: Escape, for example, says that using a Back Flip as a Dodge against an opposing Strike roll allows the Back Flipping character to jump out of combat range, forcing the striking character to use up an attack to close ranks.

Relatively straight forward, but what if the Merc with a Speed attribute of 3d6 (+bonuses) is fighting a Triax DV-12 Dyna Bot with a listed running speed of 120mph (192 kph)? Juicers and Crazies have Speed attributes of 3d6+[2d4x10](+bonuses) and 3d6[+4d6](+bonuses), respectively, and there are D-Bees and Powers that allow one to FLY to re-engage in melee combat.

That's why I figured an opposed Speed roll would work best. That Dyna Bot with its Running speed of 120mph, which translates to a Speed attribute of ~185, would be hard to evade. Juicers and Crazies would would get caught, but a Borg with their Speed maxed out to 176 has a chance, which makes sense. The Juicer, Crazy, and lowly Joe Merc would be forced remain in combat, unless they roll a Natural 20, or are wearing Jet Packs.

NOTE: There are knock down attacks, entangling, utilizing terrain/obstacles, and other techniques that would allow the disengagement to be automatically successful, making a roll unnecessary. I'm just talking about an opposed Speed roll from when stakes are even.


@Alrik Vas: How do you handle this scenario in YOUR games, Alrik?


EDIT: Grammar.

An issue with a turn based system like this is that whatever you do on your turn can immediately be refuted on your opponents turn, putting you right back where you started. Spend an action to dodge/cartwheel out of melee range? The opponent spends his next action closing back in. You're right back where you started. I see only a few ways of addressing a situation like this:

1. The person with the ranged weapons tries very hard to prevent the opponent from closing into melee range. Whether that means they're sniping, or firing from a long way away, or constantly moving away while shooting (wild shots then, of course), the best way to avoid this situation is to prevent it from occurring in the first place. But if that fails...

2. Respond with melee disabling attacks. Stuff like body block/tackle, or a trip attack (one or two of the kicks do it), or a body flip/throw - all these attacks, if successful, cause the defender to lose at least their next action and when they can act, they are lying on the ground. This gives the disabler an advantage and allows them to run out of melee range while their opponent is still recovering. If that isn't to your liking...

3. Hope you have more attacks/actions then them, and at the end of the melee spend those actions getting out of melee range.

I'd also like to point out that while it does make sense that in melee the defender could parry ranged weapons because they'd be in a position to affect the ability to properly aim the weapon, if you did NOT have that house rule then closing into melee range with a ranged fighter is suddenly a lot more dangerous, and now it's a little more balanced that the ranged fighter would have trouble getting out of melee range.

Also don't forget the point blank rules - any shot fired within 10 feet of the target does additional damage (in S.D.C. worlds, anyway - not sure how it applies with M.D.C. weapons in a M.D.C. environment).

@Glistam:

I appreciate your input, sir; I do believe we're on the same wave length.

Your points 1, 2, and 3 are all spot on. I just wanted to have a rule that would work as a 4th option, while making the Speed attribute less than useless.


Does anyone foresee a problem with an opposed, d20+Speed roll?

I allow two different things, actually.

Anyone who wants to use the backfip dodge can, but if they have automatic dodge it gets pretty much awesome. Since the dodge doesn't take an attack, i'd let the auto-dodger make ranged attacks (wild shots) at their opponent. Super cool moves and all that.

Yes i'm well aware auto-dodge doesn't work this way. Cool factor is too awesome to ignore, however.

Other than that, if you're in melee with someone using a firearm, i allow parries instead of dodges. If the defender is using a vibro blade or other melee weapon, i'll even let them try to destroy the gun at a penalty to their parry.

Disengaging in itself i allow just a strike vs dodge usually, though i like using SPD. Maybe i'll just make it a +1 for every 10 points of speed attribute though.

Though i don't have movement use actions, generally. I like to keep the action flowing as quick as possible.

Alrik Vas wrote:Other than that, if you're in melee with someone using a firearm, i allow parries instead of dodges. If the defender is using a vibro blade or other melee weapon, i'll even let them try to destroy the gun at a penalty to their parry.

Just curious: With Rifts: Ultimate Edition, Hand to Hand combat strikes on a 5+, while Ranged combat hits on an 8+. Do you use the 5+ ruling when firing at Melee range?

Alrik Vas wrote:Disengaging in itself i allow just a strike vs dodge usually, though i like using SPD. Maybe i'll just make it a +1 for every 10 points of speed attribute though.

Though i don't have movement use actions, generally. I like to keep the action flowing as quick as possible.

I was planning to use the raw Speed attribute, but I'd like to hear from you how the 10 to 1 conversion works out. That is, IF it even comes up.

I make it an 8 still, just because I'm a jerk.

It will absolutely come up, Grim. My players are all pretty wily, and if not them NPC's like to survive, so disengaging is necessary at times.

Alrik Vas wrote:I make it an 8 still, just because I'm a jerk.

It will absolutely come up, Grim. My players are all pretty wily, and if not them NPC's like to survive, so disengaging is necessary at times.

I await to hear how this house rule plays out for you, sir. If I, by some miracle, manage to get a game going with my peeps and beat you to the punch, I'll post my findings on this thread for you.

:Grim

Thanks. I just ran my game last night, but my players managed to stay out of combat.

Grimlock wrote:i) Adam rolls Dodge; Bob rolls to Strike. High roll wins; defender wins ties. This Strike roll is NOT a strike;
ii) Adam and Bob both roll a d20 and add their Speed attribute. High roll wins; defender wins ties.

Thanks,
:Grim

I say option i. Why? Sure its not a strike per se, but in order to make the bullet travel from the chamber, out the barrel, and into the intended target, the pistol has to be positioned in the right way. Parrying it would disrupt that chain. In effect, the parry IS the defender getting to disrupt that chain in time for the trigger finger to pull. Whether or not the bullet actually goes off is up to the GM. Guess it depends on how well the parry roll defeated the strike roll.

I appreciate the input, Kagashi, but I think you glossed over the middle section:

What if Adam wants to step out of Melee range, disengaging from Melee combat, in order to fire his laser pistol without giving Bob the chance to parry his arm?

I'd imagine that it would take an attack/action for Adam to do so, but Bob could use an attack/action himself to follow Adam and keep him in Melee range. Is there an opposed test that could be used to determine how this works out?

Grimlock wrote:I appreciate the input, Kagashi, but I think you glossed over the middle section:

What if Adam wants to step out of Melee range, disengaging from Melee combat, in order to fire his laser pistol without giving Bob the chance to parry his arm?

I'd imagine that it would take an attack/action for Adam to do so, but Bob could use an attack/action himself to follow Adam and keep him in Melee range. Is there an opposed test that could be used to determine how this works out?

I didnt gloss over it. I chose not to speak to it. My input was to show that I feel that Bob's strike IS a strike role, otherwise, option i is how I would have run the situation.

As far as in and out of melee range as quoted above, that is a no brainer. Bob burns an attack to step out of melee range, Adam burns an attack to get back in it. It's not rocket science (assuming both Adam and Bob have exactly the same speed attribute). About the only factor to consider is raw speed. Is Bob's Speed attribute higher than Adam's? So we need to get a little more specific with the difference between Bob and Adam. Lets say both have 4 ATM for ease. Now Bob has a speed of 20 and Adam has a speed of 10. By the RAW, Bob moves 25 yards every attack spent moving. Adam only covers 12.5 yards every attack. If you go by the book exactly, Bob can stay out of melee range and spread the distance between the two easily. What isnt written is, Bob would likely be back peddling if trying to disengage from melee combat. I cannot find a cannon answer, but I think I remember reading somewhere that while moving backwards, speed is halved. If that is the case, Adam can simply spend another attack and be back in melee range again since their speeds are effectively the same. This cycle will continue until Bob's back is up against the wall and has no other place to maneuver, or he turns (spends an attack? Id rule, yes) and next turn, sprints in the opposite direction. Some characters may be able to leap from one level, to a higher/lower level and put distance between Adam that way as well.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'd say that it would take an attack to break away from combat, and the opponent could use their attack to close in on you again before you could fire.
In fact, they could probably close in and attempt to strike, since THEY aren't breaking away from combat.

BUT you might also browse through Ninjas & Superspies.
I remember some rules in there for there being several different melee distances, and for shifting/moving from one to the other, and that might be applicable to what you're describing.

This is correct. Also a Rifter 3 article built upon the rules and expanded them a little. Between the two you should find what you're looking for.

Killer Cyborg was referring to "Combat Range" on page 128 of Ninjas & Superspies.

All it says is that closing the distance is automatic, while breaking away isn't, without stipulating any particular rules on how to do so. I know this post isn't helpful, but I thought I'd add it here to add context to the conversation.

Perhaps it's best, for game simplicity, to just say the character who disengages automatically forfeits Initiative.

By the rules I've never heard of parrying ranged/modern weapons, but I do agree that if you're firing them in HtH range it's perfectly logical for a GM to allow you to parry the weapon or the arm holding it to throw off the aim.

We see that in all kinds of fights and stuff. Happens in the final fight of

Okay, so this is the thing; all combat is melee.

And as for parrying guns, the game directly assumes that when you're parrying them, you're parrying their projectiles - it has a rule directly for parrying bullets and energy blasts.

Otherwise there is no action for "parrying" the weapon-arm because that isn't being used to strike you.

That is, you cannot dodge or parry something that is not attacking you.

It's a bit of an... well, I can't even call it an oversight because this kind of thing doesn't come up often. Trying to parry the gun arm after it's shot you, but before the attack hits is what you're basically attempting to do, and that is like trying to turn back time; you can't do it.

What there really needs to be is a preventative action.

Oh wait, there is - it's called Entangle. This is the action you're looking for if you're attempting to prevent an enemy from shooting you in close-combat - you just have to be faster than your opponent to use it, and have to remember to use it.

Clever.

True, there's no penalty to do things like entangle or body-flip here Rarely does the phrase "all combat rolls" show up in situations of blindness too.

Dog_O_War wrote:Oh wait, there is - it's called Entangle. This is the action you're looking for if you're attempting to prevent an enemy from shooting you in close-combat - you just have to be faster than your opponent to use it, and have to remember to use it.

Wait a minute: what about a simultaneous strike? A guy can punch the hand that's holding the gun. High roll wins, and Strike bonuses are generally higher than Entangle bonuses.

Grimlock wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Oh wait, there is - it's called Entangle. This is the action you're looking for if you're attempting to prevent an enemy from shooting you in close-combat - you just have to be faster than your opponent to use it, and have to remember to use it.

Wait a minute: what about a simultaneous strike? A guy can punch the hand that's holding the gun. High roll wins, and Strike bonuses are generally higher than Entangle bonuses.

That doesn't prevent you from being shot.

You can do it, but you're hit "simultaneously". And then that arm is entangled.

Basically your only chance to prevent the arm from targeting you in the first place is to be preventative/proactive and not simply reactive. Parry, dodge, and simultaneous attack are all reactive actions.

Punching the hand that holds the gun would still have to destroy the hand right? It's not a disarm or anything.

Tor wrote:Punching the hand that holds the gun would still have to destroy the hand right? It's not a disarm or anything.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Punching the hand (to distroy it) in an attempt to disarm your opponent? That's just attacking him. For all intents and purposes, it's effectively special circumstance that you also destroy your opponents' hand when you disarm/attack him.

Such an instance would be if you were throwing haymakers and they performed a block/sacrifice, thereby specifically taking damage to the arms, or if you were attacking with a knife and they parried while unarmed; they take limb damage then too.

Otherwise you're (more often than not) better off just attacking the weapon if you're just attacking in an attempt to disarm.

I get it. Both a Parry and a simultaneous attack would both assume the shot was ALREADY fired, meaning deflecting/striking/disarming the arm wielding the weapon. The only way to avoid getting shot point blank is if you target the gun before your opponent rolls to strike, such as while they take an action to draw it, or making it your first action in an ambush scenario.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Punching the hand that holds the gun would still have to destroy the hand right? It's not a disarm or anything.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Grimlock mentioned punching the hand that holds the gun.

Dog_O_War wrote:Punching the hand (to distroy it) in an attempt to disarm your opponent? That's just attacking him. For all intents and purposes, it's effectively special circumstance that you also destroy your opponents' hand when you disarm/attack him.

I figure it would take a called shot to target a hand. Some clearer rules on saves vs. pain would be useful. Even attacking an arm could cause a weapon drop but probably less likely than hitting the hand itself?

Dog_O_War wrote:Such an instance would be if you were throwing haymakers and they performed a block/sacrifice, thereby specifically taking damage to the arms, or if you were attacking with a knife and they parried while unarmed; they take limb damage then too.

I always figured the penalty to parry weapons while unarmed (no bonuses in PF, not sure elsewhere) meant you were parrying the limbs holding the weapons (at least in the case of bladed ones) good reason to reduce the penalty for blunt weapons which wouldn't hurt as much to catch them.

Dog_O_War wrote:Otherwise you're (more often than not) better off just attacking the weapon if you're just attacking in an attempt to disarm.

Swatting a gun does seem easier than swatting the hand but I figure that's like a disarm maneuver.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Punching the hand (to distroy it) in an attempt to disarm your opponent? That's just attacking him. For all intents and purposes, it's effectively special circumstance that you also destroy your opponents' hand when you disarm/attack him.

I figure it would take a called shot to target a hand. Some clearer rules on saves vs. pain would be useful. Even attacking an arm could cause a weapon drop but probably less likely than hitting the hand itself?

That would be dependent on the GM, because the rules do not otherwise offer governance regarding this.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Such an instance would be if you were throwing haymakers and they performed a block/sacrifice, thereby specifically taking damage to the arms, or if you were attacking with a knife and they parried while unarmed; they take limb damage then too.

I always figured the penalty to parry weapons while unarmed (no bonuses in PF, not sure elsewhere) meant you were parrying the limbs holding the weapons (at least in the case of bladed ones) good reason to reduce the penalty for blunt weapons which wouldn't hurt as much to catch them.

The rules specifically reflect that this is not the case.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Otherwise you're (more often than not) better off just attacking the weapon if you're just attacking in an attempt to disarm.

Swatting a gun does seem easier than swatting the hand but I figure that's like a disarm maneuver.

It's the same maneuver, whether you're attacking the hand or arm, and the penalty is (mostly) the same when looking at pistol-sized weaponry. Larger weapons can be easier, but only to a point.

Saves vs pain rarely get mentioned at all, true, a lot's left to GM judging there. Comment on good reason regarding blunts was to make a house rule, since while it might be equally difficult to skirt a weapon to grab a hand, deflecting a staff just seems easier than deflecting a sword since there's no edge to worry about.

Tor, deflecting a staff with your body to not take damage is difficult as well. If you don't have some kind of extreme conditioning you can still take damage, get a broken bone, etc. Doesn't take a blade to hurt a body.

I want to start off by saying sorry if I should not be involving myself in this conversation, b/c I am totally new to all this stuff. I loved Robotech growing up and I was a DM for D&D basic edition, and never played any other RPG's for lack of fellow players, which I must say still upsets me a little, anyway I am trained in hand to hand combat and other combat techniques used by US military (training included krav Maga and other H2H arts, or as some call gun fu). Once combatants have merged to H2H while equipped w/ other lethal weapons, disengagement is not possible(plus once you have grasped the hostiles weapon hand never release nor even readjust). Only disengage when support from allied persons has a shot. If you try to break away the other will shoot you(I must add bayonet/knife/dagger combat can result in a sit. that is open for a retreat/withdraw (AKA break off engagement). However ones speed during a retreat is usually 1/3 or less of ones advancing speed, unless you are jumping backward, then jump spd fore/aft is nearly the same. Also, people spoke of melee actions vs spd vs time. It takes a person(aliens I think would be same) about 2.5 sec to accelerate up toward their full spd, so I would think that may have a possible factor in a fight. Also, if there are more then one combatants then one is not going to hastily follow a retreating enemy as one must remain sit. aware of surroundings both terrain, hostiles, allies and yourself. Also, I do not understand the talk about breaking the enemy's gun or weapon, thats is on the same combat style as "I beat the hell out of his hand with my face". lol. Best bet is w/d with cover from friendlys, under cover of smoke, use of clothing or sand/dirt to obscure the enemys vision, or continue the attack and push on through till he is dead....(or you are).
It reminds me of a mission we were on, my second was on point when we made silent contact w/ a hostile enemy and my 2nd (who was and is a big guy) tried to snap the guys neck, as we were to maintain silence as we penetrated the mansion (Iraq for those who care). It takes a lot of force to do that i mean A LOT!! The guard actually turn his head to look at my 2nd and in good english said "what the hell are you doing...." Before he finish the word doing my knife opened his throat and proceeded to the next ck pt. My point is there are somethings that just can not be done, especially in the fog of war. Although the COOL factor that one guy spoke of does make playing the guy sound better.
Can people play online? I really would like to try playing this stuff, and thats why I am reading up on this so that I may one day be able to play. Take it light all. --KB

Dog_O_War wrote:That is, you cannot dodge or parry something that is not attacking you.

This comes up often for some reason...where is this written? I fail to see how somebody pointing a gun at you (roll to strike) within melee range could not be deflected (parry) by the defender.

Kagashi wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That is, you cannot dodge or parry something that is not attacking you.

This comes up often for some reason...where is this written? I fail to see how somebody pointing a gun at you (roll to strike) within melee range could not be deflected (parry) by the defender.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with what you've quoted.

And you can parry bullets, but unless that gun is being used to club you, you cannot parry it because it's not being used to strike you.

The "parry bullets" bit is under the shield WP (for easy reference). Otherwise, the other bit is right in the combat section in the "what the defender does" portion.

That is - pointing a gun at someone is not an attack action; unless it's an attack action, you do not get a defence action against it.

I get what you're picturing, but the problem with it is that it you're putting the wrong labels on it.

" I fail to see how somebody pointing a gun at you (roll to strike) within melee range could not be deflected (parry) by the defender."
It's because pointing a gun at someone is (no action), while deflecting (entangle) is a completely different action.

seems like splitting hairs to me. when you're trained the aim and shoot happens fluidly- just like with a punch.

of course, there are different ways of doing it. could rule that you have to disarm offensively on your initiative, but I don't see anything wrong with allowing a parry that causes a potential hit with a firearm to miss, either.

Alrik Vas wrote:seems like splitting hairs to me. when you're trained the aim and shoot happens fluidly- just like with a punch.

of course, there are different ways of doing it. could rule that you have to disarm offensively on your initiative, but I don't see anything wrong with allowing a parry that causes a potential hit with a firearm to miss, either.

That was the original question behind me posting this thread, but it's not really possible.

Once an enemy fires their weapon at you in melee combat, meaning they roll to strike and succeed, they've already shot you, and it's too late to parry it. Even a simultaneous strike does nothing, unless your character is faster than a laser.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kagashi wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That is, you cannot dodge or parry something that is not attacking you.

This comes up often for some reason...where is this written? I fail to see how somebody pointing a gun at you (roll to strike) within melee range could not be deflected (parry) by the defender.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with what you've quoted.

And you can parry bullets, but unless that gun is being used to club you, you cannot parry it because it's not being used to strike you.

The "parry bullets" bit is under the shield WP (for easy reference). Otherwise, the other bit is right in the combat section in the "what the defender does" portion.

That is - pointing a gun at someone is not an attack action; unless it's an attack action, you do not get a defence action against it.

I get what you're picturing, but the problem with it is that it you're putting the wrong labels on it.

" I fail to see how somebody pointing a gun at you (roll to strike) within melee range could not be deflected (parry) by the defender."
It's because pointing a gun at someone is (no action), while deflecting (entangle) is a completely different action.

Sorry brother, but that is not the definition of entangle. Using RUEs definition, the end result of an entangle means the arm or weapon is trapped, i.e. actively held by the defender so it is useless on the next attack by the attacker, not simply pushed away and disrupted to complete the intended attack.

I am talking about a deflection, pushing the muzzle of the weapon some place other than my face. This is no different than deflecting a punch or a sword strike that is intending you harm.

In no way did I even mention parrying bullets. That is pure conjecture.

And yes, the act of making the weapon's muzzle point in the direction of the intended target is part of ensuring that attack is successful, thus is burning an attack. Heck, it takes extra attacks to make doubly (Aimed Shot) or triply (Aimed Called Shot) sure your bullet is going to strike true. Spending an attack to fire a weapon is not just pulling the trigger with your finger, it involves ensuring your weapon is lined up to hit the intended target, which is the part a parry in melee range would be disrupting.

My enemy lines up his sites to shoot me while we are in melee range of one another (this is his strike roll, committing to burning an attack for this portion of the melee round), I elect to use my auto parry (I COULD use an entangle, but I want to reserve my attack for something else like actually Disarming him on my attack rather than just entangling the weapon; I roll to parry). If my parry roll beats his attack roll, the weapon's muzzle is no longer pointing at me at the time he finally pulls the trigger (completing the attack he is required to burn to attempt this and was already committed to a the beginning of this rounds attacks), sending the projectile harmlessly down a path away from me. My parry roll being lower, he pulls the trigger before my hand can get up there to parry, putting a bullet in my face. Unlike Entangle, he gets to do it again at his next opportunity (next attack, assuming I don't Disarm him with my attack).

But really, this is not what I was asking originally, please provide a page number that backs up your claim that you cannot parry or dodge a harmful event, even if the character was not "targeted". Because if I can dodge INTO an attack to block a bullet not intended for me, or parry an attack leveled at somebody else, both examples as per GMG p 33, I can certainly dodge away from danger, or parry a pistol that is going to be pointed at my face before the trigger is pulled. This would also be extended to when people claim you cannot dodge away from grenade tossed somewhere near the character and will still be engulfed in the blast radius. So where is this rule (the "what a defender does" part you quoted)? Because 'Step 3: Defender may Parry, Dodge or Entangle' on page 340 of RUE makes no mention of this restriction I have seen many people claim on these boards. It's either conjecture commonly accepted as an unwritten rule, or I am missing some sort of canon rule.

Kagashi wrote:Sorry brother, but that is not the definition of entangle. Using RUEs definition, the end result of an entangle means the arm or weapon is trapped, i.e. actively held by the defender so it is useless on the next attack by the attacker, not simply pushed away and disrupted to complete the intended attack.

I know this, but it's as close to "deflecting" as you're gonna get.

I mean, strictly speaking, there is no "deflecting" option, but you're meaning it to be a parry. However, as has been stated, you cannot parry unless you've been attacked and simply pointing a gun at someone is not considered an attack.

Kagashi wrote:I am talking about a deflection, pushing the muzzle of the weapon some place other than my face. This is no different than deflecting a punch or a sword strike that is intending you harm.

The closest thing to that is entangle. I mean, what do you call tying up your opponent's weapon for an attack?

Stylistically you can parry your opponent's gun, but mechanically you're still going to suffer the penalty for parrying bullets.

Kagashi wrote:In no way did I even mention parrying bullets. That is pure conjecture.

I know you didn't mention parrying bullets; conjecture is the wrong word as I've offered none. All I did was mention what you can parry.

Kagashi wrote:And yes, the act of making the weapon's muzzle point in the direction of the intended target is part of ensuring that attack is successful, thus is burning an attack.

No; not even close.
Until said person with gun pulls the trigger (ie: rolls to strike), no attack has taken place. Not even aiming is considered an attack, as it is only a part of the action.

Kagashi wrote:Heck, it takes extra attacks to make doubly (Aimed Shot) or triply (Aimed Called Shot) sure your bullet is going to strike true. Spending an attack to fire a weapon is not just pulling the trigger with your finger, it involves ensuring your weapon is lined up to hit the intended target, which is the part a parry in melee range would be disrupting.

Look, there is only one actual qualifier for an attack; that is a roll to strike. Unless this has occured, the defender may not parry.

This is the mechanical truth of the situation.

Source for all that please.

Kagashi wrote:Source for all that please.

It's right in the steps of combat; you quoted to me step three, it's the step before that. "Step two: Attacker rolls to strike".

If he doesn't roll to strike, then he can't be an attacker, now can he? You can call him "an attacker" but that is not mechanically the same as the aforementioned "Attacker", who is rolling to strike.

But to get deeper, the attack also has to be successful, too. Which means you can't do anything even if they pull the trigger on that gun - unless you get hit.

this is just an example of forcing mechanics to dictate the life simulation of an RPG, though.

so let me ask you, Dog, how would you translate the act of deflecting a gun as it fired away from you so you don't get shot? because it can be done in desperation during a real fight.

would you make it a parry, entangle, or would the player have to do it on their action? other? not at all?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kagashi wrote:Source for all that please.

It's right in the steps of combat; you quoted to me step three, it's the step before that. "Step two: Attacker rolls to strike".

If he doesn't roll to strike, then he can't be an attacker, now can he? You can call him "an attacker" but that is not mechanically the same as the aforementioned "Attacker", who is rolling to strike.

Dude, he IS rolling to strike. Its the FIRST sentence of step 2 on page 339 of RUE. He would be clearly burning his attack. He IS an attacker.

But to get deeper, the attack also has to be successful, too. Which means you can't do anything even if they pull the trigger on that gun - unless you get hit.

Right there...where does it EVER say that? Show me where the the attack is executed at the moment of trigger pull. Because:

- as per page 347 of RUE, a Strike is "Anyone attempting to hit an opponent must roll to strike. As with all combat rolls, a roll to strike is made with a twenty sided die."
- Furthermore, to even enter Step 2 as per page 339 of RUE, one must actually roll.
- Additionally, page 362 clearly states that each individual shot with a ranged weapon (even if in this case its melee range of combat) is an attack.

It is clear that for Adam to even begin his assault on Bob, he is committing to burning his attack for that portion of the Round.

The defender of this technique is not defeating the energy blast or the bullet. He is defeating the gunman's capability to point the barrel in the correct direction, and beating his reaction time to even pull the trigger. That trigger is getting pulled by the end of the attack, the barrel is just no going to be where the attacker wants it to be.

Bob (armed with a knife) and Adam (armed with a pistol) are engaged in combat as per the OP example. Both are in melee range of one another:

Step 1: We all roll initiative. Adam wins.
Step 2: Adam rolls to strike with his pistol. He burns an attack with the declaration of what he wants to do as per the black and white, quantifiable step 2. He rolls, with bonuses, a 10. Successful unless Bob can parry or dodge.
Step 3: Bob, the defender, sees the attack is coming (Adam is standing in front of him), thus he can defend. Since he is in melee range, he parries the pistol, not a bullet, currently raising to his main body (he has H2H, so its an automatic movement). He rolls a 14. The pistol is successfully deflected to the side as the energy blast flies harmlessly by Bob's right ear when Adam finally pulls the trigger.
Steps 4 and 5 are NA because there was no damage to roll against Bob (unless the GM elects that it his an innocent bystander) and Bob does not need to roll with impact, except for the last part of Step 5 where the defender gets to return the attack if he did not spend it in his defense, which in this case, he has an attack to use since his parry was automatic (Bob is now executing Simultaneous Attack). Bob spends his attack to Disarm Adam. He rolls a 17. Adam's pistol flies out of his hand.

Then, the cycle continues for the second round of attacks except now Bob is armed with a knife and Adam has nothing. Start with Step 1 again.

You see this in the movies, and actually can happen in real life. And it all still fits with the RAW.

For your viewing pleasure. (although in this video, the defender should never let the gunman ever get to the point with his arm fully extended like that in which he is instructing the technique, that would most certainly be too late IMHO.)

Alrik Vas wrote:this is just an example of forcing mechanics to dictate the life simulation of an RPG, though.

so let me ask you, Dog, how would you translate the act of deflecting a gun as it fired away from you so you don't get shot? because it can be done in desperation during a real fight.

would you make it a parry, entangle, or would the player have to do it on their action? other? not at all?

How's about I explain it in a more simple manner, because people just do not seem to get this.

Forgetting guns for a moment, we're going to talk about punches.

I throw a punch at you; I roll to strike and I connect. You've been punched in the face (none of this main body crap for me).

You don't want to take damage, so you decide that you're going to try and parry my attack that you already know has (will) hit you unless you do something.

You roll to parry in the attempt to prevent me from striking your face. The mechanic here is that you're pushing out of the way what I'm hitting you with.

Now we're going to up the stakes - I've busted out a knife and you still only have your bare hands. Same deal except this time, even if you parry, you're taking damage, though I'm not gonna give you a Joker's smile and instead just whittle off a couple of fingers.

The thing of it is though is now you're thinking, "well hey, why didn't I just parry your arm? I wouldn't take damage then!" Well yeah, no ****. But I didn't design this game and am just telling you how the mechanics work in it.

Because parrying the arm, or in the above-case, pushing the gun out of the way is not a reactive option here; the best you can do is tangle up that gun to prevent its further use.

Kagashi wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kagashi wrote:Source for all that please.

It's right in the steps of combat; you quoted to me step three, it's the step before that. "Step two: Attacker rolls to strike".

If he doesn't roll to strike, then he can't be an attacker, now can he? You can call him "an attacker" but that is not mechanically the same as the aforementioned "Attacker", who is rolling to strike.

Dude, he IS rolling to strike. Its the FIRST sentence of step 2 on page 339 of RUE. He would be clearly burning his attack. He IS an attacker.

If he's rolled to strike, then if it was successful, you've already been hit by bullets/lasers/etc. and only now can you try and prevent that.

Kagashi wrote:

But to get deeper, the attack also has to be successful, too. Which means you can't do anything even if they pull the trigger on that gun - unless you get hit.

Right there...where does it EVER say that? Show me where the the attack is executed at the moment of trigger pull. Because:

- as per page 347 of RUE, a Strike is "Anyone attempting to hit an opponent must roll to strike. As with all combat rolls, a roll to strike is made with a twenty sided die."
- Furthermore, to even enter Step 2 as per page 339 of RUE, one must actually roll.
- Additionally, page 362 clearly states that each individual shot with a ranged weapon (even if in this case its melee range of combat) is an attack.

Here's a better idea; show me where it says that pointing ones' gun at someone constitutes an attack.

But more importantly, I can demonstrate how simply pointing your gun at someone is not an attack; if you're out of ammo or otherwise have no intention of shooting, then just doing what you've said (pointing your gun at someone) is not an attack. The gun accidentally or on-purpose going off and striking someone however (rolling to strike) is an attack against them. But for more information;

R:UE, pg. 340 wrote: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

Regardless of what happened, you had to be successfully hit in order to even grope your hands on your opponents' gun as a defence.

Kagashi wrote:It is clear that for Adam to even begin his assault on Bob, he is committing to burning his attack for that portion of the Round.

The defender of this technique is not defeating the energy blast or the bullet. He is defeating the gunman's capability to point the barrel in the correct direction, and beating his reaction time to even pull the trigger. That trigger is getting pulled by the end of the attack, the barrel is just no going to be where the attacker wants it to be.

Bob (armed with a knife) and Adam (armed with a pistol) are engaged in combat as per the OP example. Both are in melee range of one another:

Step 1: We all roll initiative. Adam wins.
Step 2: Adam rolls to strike with his pistol. He burns an attack with the declaration of what he wants to do as per the black and white, quantifiable step 2. He rolls, with bonuses, a 10. Successful unless Bob can parry or dodge.
Step 3: Bob, the defender, sees the attack is coming (Adam is standing in front of him), thus he can defend. Since he is in melee range, he parries the pistol, not a bullet, currently raising to his main body (he has H2H, so its an automatic movement). He rolls a 14. The pistol is successfully deflected to the side as the energy blast flies harmlessly by Bob's right ear when Adam finally pulls the trigger.
Steps 4 and 5 are NA because there was no damage to roll against Bob (unless the GM elects that it his an innocent bystander) and Bob does not need to roll with impact, except for the last part of Step 5 where the defender gets to return the attack if he did not spend it in his defense, which in this case, he has an attack to use since his parry was automatic (Bob is now executing Simultaneous Attack). Bob spends his attack to Disarm Adam. He rolls a 17. Adam's pistol flies out of his hand.

Then, the cycle continues for the second round of attacks except now Bob is armed with a knife and Adam has nothing. Start with Step 1 again.

You see this in the movies, and actually can happen in real life. And it all still fits with the RAW.

Look, I'm not calling you crazy. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, that it's not realistic or even a bad accounting of a combat.

All I'm telling you is that the last part, where you're saying that "it all still fits with the RAW" is that it only does in the imaging of how combat is playing out. In this game we have rules for striking people with stuff, both bullets and objects like clubs, swords, even thrown children, however, they do not always fit what we can imagine. You want to be able to visually parry your opponent's gun, and I'm saying that you cannot do that unless he uses it like a club against you, because otherwise you're subject to the specific rule for parrying bullets and energy (what your opponent is specifically attacking you with).

It's why I suggested entangle is the better option here. There is not penalty to it for one (yes, that defence against bullets and energy blasts? it only applies to dodge and parry and does not mention entangle).

That is, in this game you get to dodge, parry or entangle. There are exceptions to all of these; you can't parry a fourth attacker, you can't dodge what you can't see, and you can't entangle your opponent's gun when he's a mile away from you.

Well we also have rules for how your opponent is striking you; if they come rushing in with a rifle-butt, you can do all of your combat actions, as normal, barring extenuating circumstances. However, if they come rushing in with bullets ripping out of the end of the barrel, well there are some very specific rules that governs what happens then, too. You get penalties to dodge and parry; it does not mention you trying to parry your opponent's gun in these circumstances; in fact, under parry it states that you're trying to block your opponent's physical blow, and that as a rule bullets (despite being physical) and energy blasts cannot be parried.

As far as I can tell, when an opponent shoots you, they are not otherwise physically striking you with their weapon - which is what parry states you're blocking.

And again, the option of entangle all but fits what you've been trying to describe perfectly; you're trying up the limb (in this case, the gun) that is trying to strike you.

the problem is that you didn't answer my question.

Alrik Vas wrote:the problem is that you didn't answer my question.

Same. Ive just given up.

Kagashi wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:the problem is that you didn't answer my question.

Same. Ive just given up.

Alrik Vas wrote:the problem is that you didn't answer my question.

I've been saying entangle since the very first post in this thread. So when you ask, "how would you translate the act of deflecting a gun" and then give me five options, of which I've been choosing the same one repeatedly, then you either need to elaborate on how me saying 'entangle' the entire time is being discounted from the five options you've presented "(parry, entangle, or would the player have to do it on their action? other? not at all?)"

As for you, Kagashi - all I've done is point out that the mechanics to not support parrying the gun instead of the bullets; you don't get a chance to parry a gun until you've been hit with it or shot, and in the latter case, there are specific rules for parrying the bullets (as well as dodging them), indicating that being shot and being struck are different things in combat and governed differently. I'm not sure what the answers you're looking for are, other than, "we'll I'll just change the canon so it's possible to do what you're saying". Unfortunately, I can't do that - I don't have that power. I wish I did.

Fine, one more post...

To be clear, there are two different conversations happening here. First, you say the gun cannot be parried in melee range and I say it can. I believe this to be something neither one is going to budge on based on how both of us interpret the rules. I believe the game mechanics allow for the parry at this range, where as you believe it doesnt. This is not why I continue the conversation because it will never end.

However, the second conversation has to do with *when* an attack is spent.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kagashi wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kagashi wrote:Source for all that please.

It's right in the steps of combat; you quoted to me step three, it's the step before that. "Step two: Attacker rolls to strike".

If he doesn't roll to strike, then he can't be an attacker, now can he? You can call him "an attacker" but that is not mechanically the same as the aforementioned "Attacker", who is rolling to strike.

Dude, he IS rolling to strike. Its the FIRST sentence of step 2 on page 339 of RUE. He would be clearly burning his attack. He IS an attacker.

If he's rolled to strike, then if it was successful, you've already been hit by bullets/lasers/etc. and only now can you try and prevent that.

Negative. If the defender does nothing, he will be hit based on a successful roll of the dice. That game mechanic is clearly written in the rules which you quote later.

Kagashi wrote:

But to get deeper, the attack also has to be successful, too. Which means you can't do anything even if they pull the trigger on that gun - unless you get hit.

Right there...where does it EVER say that? Show me where the the attack is executed at the moment of trigger pull. Because:

- as per page 347 of RUE, a Strike is "Anyone attempting to hit an opponent must roll to strike. As with all combat rolls, a roll to strike is made with a twenty sided die."
- Furthermore, to even enter Step 2 as per page 339 of RUE, one must actually roll.
- Additionally, page 362 clearly states that each individual shot with a ranged weapon (even if in this case its melee range of combat) is an attack.

Here's a better idea; show me where it says that pointing ones' gun at someone constitutes an attack.

Just look at what you quoted me saying. Anyway...

Never did say that solely pointing the gun was all that is happening here, but it IS part of ensuring that the bullet is going to strike true to the intended target. I even explained that in my detailed example below. Bottom line is, the attacker is committed to burning the attack to even get into Step 2. If the defender does nothing, he gets hit. However, he can take defensive maneuvers to prevent that damage from occurring, which is Step 3. The entire point of Step 3 is the defender is injecting some sort of maneuver to disrupt the chain of events which would otherwise be a successful strike, in this case, electing to an automatic parry. All that is happening here is the defender is, by the existing game mechanics, is injecting a disruption to the attackers chain of events that would lead to a successful attack roll.

The attacker must commit to attacking, thus burning the attack. This happens no matter what other events break that chain of events. The attack is spent the moment he initiates the attack, not on trigger pull. The attacker is committed the moment he starts to orient the firearm to do damage to his intended target. Its the defender's job to make that not happen. If that is disrupted, the attacker doesnt get to say, "oh, well that didnt work, instead of spending my attack on shooting him, I do something else instead." No, the attack is spent. If the defender does nothing, he is going to be shot (assuming the roll was successful).

This same chain of events would be broken using your example to Entangle. The attack would be spent from the attacker, and the bullet passed harmlessly past the defender.

Thus, the attack is spent at the beginning of Step 2, regardless of the outcome if the defender ultimately takes damage.

Now, please, with a source, refute how this wouldn't be burning an attack until trigger pull. Because I'm not seeing it.

But more importantly, I can demonstrate how simply pointing your gun at someone is not an attack; if you're out of ammo or otherwise have no intention of shooting, then just doing what you've said (pointing your gun at someone) is not an attack.

None of that would constitute a strike roll and has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The attacker has to say, "GM, I shoot him at point blank range.", then rolls to strike. At that point, he is committed and cannot do anything else for that attack in the melee round. The trigger has yet to be pulled. Even using your example to Entangle (which is a valid response as well), the defender would be doing something *before* the trigger is pulled to prevent damage to himself.

The gun accidentally or on-purpose going off and striking someone however (rolling to strike) is an attack against them. But for more information;

R:UE, pg. 340 wrote: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

Regardless of what happened, you had to be successfully hit in order to even grope your hands on your opponents' gun as a defence.

Im not sure why you are quoting text to support my argument, but thanks. Clearly, while in melee range, a defender can still parry as well. But, thats the first conversation.

Kagashi wrote:It is clear that for Adam to even begin his assault on Bob, he is committing to burning his attack for that portion of the Round.

The defender of this technique is not defeating the energy blast or the bullet. He is defeating the gunman's capability to point the barrel in the correct direction, and beating his reaction time to even pull the trigger. That trigger is getting pulled by the end of the attack, the barrel is just no going to be where the attacker wants it to be.

Bob (armed with a knife) and Adam (armed with a pistol) are engaged in combat as per the OP example. Both are in melee range of one another:

Step 1: We all roll initiative. Adam wins.
Step 2: Adam rolls to strike with his pistol. He burns an attack with the declaration of what he wants to do as per the black and white, quantifiable step 2. He rolls, with bonuses, a 10. Successful unless Bob can parry or dodge.
Step 3: Bob, the defender, sees the attack is coming (Adam is standing in front of him), thus he can defend. Since he is in melee range, he parries the pistol, not a bullet, currently raising to his main body (he has H2H, so its an automatic movement). He rolls a 14. The pistol is successfully deflected to the side as the energy blast flies harmlessly by Bob's right ear when Adam finally pulls the trigger.
Steps 4 and 5 are NA because there was no damage to roll against Bob (unless the GM elects that it his an innocent bystander) and Bob does not need to roll with impact, except for the last part of Step 5 where the defender gets to return the attack if he did not spend it in his defense, which in this case, he has an attack to use since his parry was automatic (Bob is now executing Simultaneous Attack). Bob spends his attack to Disarm Adam. He rolls a 17. Adam's pistol flies out of his hand.

Then, the cycle continues for the second round of attacks except now Bob is armed with a knife and Adam has nothing. Start with Step 1 again.

You see this in the movies, and actually can happen in real life. And it all still fits with the RAW.

Look, I'm not calling you crazy. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, that it's not realistic or even a bad accounting of a combat.

All I'm telling you is that the last part, where you're saying that "it all still fits with the RAW" is that it only does in the imaging of how combat is playing out. In this game we have rules for striking people with stuff, both bullets and objects like clubs, swords, even thrown children, however, they do not always fit what we can imagine. You want to be able to visually parry your opponent's gun, and I'm saying that you cannot do that unless he uses it like a club against you, because otherwise you're subject to the specific rule for parrying bullets and energy (what your opponent is specifically attacking you with).

And Im saying you can. Thus the impass, and no further posts will change that for either of us concerning that part of the conversation.

But I still want to see the source for attacks being burnt at trigger pull. Which as far as I can tell from RAW and your posts, you cannot provide.

It's why I suggested entangle is the better option here. There is not penalty to it for one (yes, that defence against bullets and energy blasts? it only applies to dodge and parry and does not mention entangle).

That is, in this game you get to dodge, parry or entangle. There are exceptions to all of these; you can't parry a fourth attacker, you can't dodge what you can't see, and you can't entangle your opponent's gun when he's a mile away from you.

Well we also have rules for how your opponent is striking you; if they come rushing in with a rifle-butt, you can do all of your combat actions, as normal, barring extenuating circumstances. However, if they come rushing in with bullets ripping out of the end of the barrel, well there are some very specific rules that governs what happens then, too. You get penalties to dodge and parry; it does not mention you trying to parry your opponent's gun in these circumstances; in fact, under parry it states that you're trying to block your opponent's physical blow, and that as a rule bullets (despite being physical) and energy blasts cannot be parried.

As far as I can tell, when an opponent shoots you, they are not otherwise physically striking you with their weapon - which is what parry states you're blocking.

And again, the option of entangle all but fits what you've been trying to describe perfectly; you're trying up the limb (in this case, the gun) that is trying to strike you.

[/quote]

Yes, and when firing a firearm in melee range, the defender has things he *can do* as well that he couldnt while in ranged range.

So, how about giving me my source I have been asking for? Where does it say the attack is burnt at trigger pull?

Kagashi wrote:Fine, one more post...

To be clear, there are two different conversations happening here. First, you say the gun cannot be parried in melee range and I say it can. I believe this to be something neither one is going to budge on based on how both of us interpret the rules. I believe the game mechanics allow for the parry at this range, where as you believe it doesnt. This is not why I continue the conversation because it will never end.

Kagashi wrote:However, the second conversation has to do with *when* an attack is spent.

Dog_O_War wrote:If he's rolled to strike, then if it was successful, you've already been hit by bullets/lasers/etc. and only now can you try and prevent that.

Negative. If the defender does nothing, he will be hit based on a successful roll of the dice. That game mechanic is clearly written in the rules which you quote later.

That's semantics; we both mean the same thing, and the end-result is the same. 'You are/will be hit; prevent it'.

Kagashi wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Here's a better idea; show me where it says that pointing ones' gun at someone constitutes an attack.

Just look at what you quoted me saying. Anyway...

Never did say that solely pointing the gun was all that is happening here, but it IS part of ensuring that the bullet is going to strike true to the intended target. I even explained that in my detailed example below.

I know, but you're wrong in this. This is not a complete answer - see the response to the next-quoted portion:

Kagashi wrote:Bottom line is, the attacker is committed to burning the attack to even get into Step 2. If the defender does nothing, he gets hit. However, he can take defensive maneuvers to prevent that damage from occurring, which is Step 3. The entire point of Step 3 is the defender is injecting some sort of maneuver to disrupt the chain of events which would otherwise be a successful strike, in this case, electing to an automatic parry. All that is happening here is the defender is, by the existing game mechanics, is injecting a disruption to the attackers chain of events that would lead to a successful attack roll.

You're saying the attacker is committed to burning the attack.
You're also saying that the defender is injecting some sort of manoeuvre to disrupt the chain of events; I'm pointing out that the events in-question are not as fluid as you would like to believe.

For instance, regardless of how committed the attacker is to burning the attack, the defender has to wait for that attack to be successful in order to react; how then is the defender not as dedicated to using a defence, given that you're trying to describe moving the gun out of the way, as opposed to dodging the bullets that would hit?

If the events were fluid, why then is the defender only reacting when he knows he's about to be shot? What if that attackers' gun is out of ammo? He wouldn't know; all events in-place may make it appear to be that the defender is going to get shot - gun squarely pointed, finger pulling the trigger, etc. And you are stating "the defender is parrying by moving the barrel out of the way". The thing is - that isn't a listed defence. All the defences listed are stopping or getting out of the way of successful attacks. The game is set up so that you need not do anything if the attack will not hit. If the barrel is not pointed at the character, then by your own words the character cannot be hit, and by the RAW, a character that is not successfully struck is not a defender.

Kagashi wrote:The attacker must commit to attacking, thus burning the attack. This happens no matter what other events break that chain of events. The attack is spent the moment he initiates the attack, not on trigger pull. The attacker is committed the moment he starts to orient the firearm to do damage to his intended target. Its the defender's job to make that not happen. If that is disrupted, the attacker doesnt get to say, "oh, well that didnt work, instead of spending my attack on shooting him, I do something else instead." No, the attack is spent. If the defender does nothing, he is going to be shot (assuming the roll was successful).

The attack is only spent when the roll to strike occurs - it states this in the "attacker rolls to strike" portion. He can "commit" all he wants, do all the prep-work, aim, etc. but until that roll is made, nothing is spent. If he's out of ammo? He does not get the roll. If there are no targets? He does not get to roll. Etc.

That is, the player can only state the actions he wishes to take; regardless of how committed he is to taking them, nothing is in stone until a roll to strike happens. You don't roll to strike? You don't burn the action.

This actually brings us full circle here; your defender grabs the attackers' gun - why would he shoot? Why would he roll to strike? He knows he's going to miss because the barrel of the gun is not pointed at the target - what you're stating is self-defeating using the current rules-set. And that is because defences in this game are reactive, not proactive. And that is the action you're describing - a proactive action 'to not be in the way of the barrel of the gun by any means possible before it goes off'.

Kagashi wrote:This same chain of events would be broken using your example to Entangle. The attack would be spent from the attacker, and the bullet passed harmlessly past the defender.

Thus, the attack is spent at the beginning of Step 2, regardless of the outcome if the defender ultimately takes damage.

Now, please, with a source, refute how this wouldn't be burning an attack until trigger pull. Because I'm not seeing it.

That's because it does still use the attack - amazingly, if you read entangle, it only actually prevents future attacks from happening - it states nothing about preventing the current attack from hitting. It is listed as a defence, but says nothing about stopping the current attack - only tying up your opponent so that they may not attack you with that limb until they break the grapple. That is, if they've already attacked you, and you get a defence like entangle, then you've been hit. It's poor wording on part of the book, but I didn't write it.

Kagashi wrote:

But more importantly, I can demonstrate how simply pointing your gun at someone is not an attack; if you're out of ammo or otherwise have no intention of shooting, then just doing what you've said (pointing your gun at someone) is not an attack.

None of that would constitute a strike roll and has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The attacker has to say, "GM, I shoot him at point blank range.", then rolls to strike. At that point, he is committed and cannot do anything else for that attack in the melee round. The trigger has yet to be pulled. Even using your example to Entangle (which is a valid response as well), the defender would be doing something *before* the trigger is pulled to prevent damage to himself.

And again, your example is self-defeating; he cannot successfully strike with his gun, then the defender would not get the chance to defend. That is, if you tied up the limb before the shot, then you wouldn't be defending. It's why all the defensive actions are reactions; you're reacting to what's happened. You've been shot; parry or dodge. You've been stabbed; parry or dodge. The method you're describing is proactive; you're going to be shot - move out of the way, or like a true Russian, move the way out of you.

Kagashi wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The gun accidentally or on-purpose going off and striking someone however (rolling to strike) is an attack against them. But for more information;

R:UE, pg. 340 wrote: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

Regardless of what happened, you had to be successfully hit in order to even grope your hands on your opponents' gun as a defence.

Im not sure why you are quoting text to support my argument, but thanks. Clearly, while in melee range, a defender can still parry as well. But, thats the first conversation.

All combat is melee, and a defender can parry at any range. I'm pointing out that the attack needs to be successful in order for you to get a defence to move the gun out of the way - what you're describing, moving the gun out of the way so the attack is not successful, does not fit the definitions provided under defences.

Kagashi wrote:And Im saying you can. Thus the impass, and no further posts will change that for either of us concerning that part of the conversation.

But I still want to see the source for attacks being burnt at trigger pull. Which as far as I can tell from RAW and your posts, you cannot provide.

I'm only stating what the completion of the action is; a shooter must shoot in order to successfully strike a target with bullets or energy blasts. If they do not pull that trigger, then it is impossible to successfully attack, which means that either the defender can do nothing or that no attack was expended.

Basically what you're asking for is in the subtext; the game does not say that an attacker needs to move the arm holding the sword to successfully strike with the sword, but we both know that happens. The game does not state that you need to point the gun at the target to successfully hit with bullets, but we both know that happens too. Just like the game doesn't tell us you need to pull the trigger on the gun for the bullets to come out, but again, we both know that happens, too.

But if you're looking for a RAW entry which states, "the trigger pull of the gun is what completes the action", well you're not going to find it. But in that same vein of what the RAW states, you're also not going to find "Kagashi is correct in his interpretations of the matter". But I'm not discounting what you're saying just because the RAW doesn't happen to say you're right, specifically.

Kagashi wrote:Yes, and when firing a firearm in melee range, the defender has things he *can do* as well that he couldnt while in ranged range.

So, how about giving me my source I have been asking for? Where does it say the attack is burnt at trigger pull?

I'll comb over the book later, but how else is a gun fired without a trigger pull? (either by hand or electronically)

I mean, why are you asking for me to produce a source which specifically states that you have to actually pull the trigger of the gun in order to shoot with it? That does not make any sense. It's like, "hey Kagashi, find me a source that specifically says you have to move your legs in order to run, have your sword in-hand instead of at home in a safe in order to stab somebody with it, or turn the engine on in your vehicle to have the gas pedal move it?" I know you wouldn't find those in the book, but it's a non-point for me to ask that you provide such, and then lord over you my victory when you couldn't.

Post one more time so you can get the last word. You obviously dont get it.

Haven't really read the thread, just skimmed it.
If the question is: "can you parry a gun attack by parrying the arm/hand/gun instead of the bullet?"
And the answer would very clearly be "That's up to the GM."
Officially, there is no answer.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to allow it, though.
After all, dodging laser blasts necessarily means moving before the trigger is pulled, and I don't see why it would work any differently for parrying.

If the question at hand is: "Can you Parry a gun in such a way as to prevent the trigger from being pulled at all?"
Again, I'd say that's ultimately up to each GM. I also don't think it's a likely scenario for the question to really be important.

that's probably the best point so far. you'd have to dodge before the trigger is pulled anyway or else it's a "miss", not a "dodge"...taking it from that angle, close range parry of an impending firearm attack makes sense.

now, how about disengagement? parrying with hand to hand bonuses seems much stronger than the -10 dodge penalty at close range. must games eliminate the trade off by applying attacks of opportunity or something similar. so what's to stop a gunman from taking two steps back as part pod his action to shoot and force you to dodge instead of parry?

I think that's closer to what the OP brought up.

What's to say you can't take two steps as part of a Parry?
Again, that kind of thing is up to the GM, unless you get into the N&S different melee ranges.