View Full Version : Why is Block and Strike necessary?
Kublai
05-13-2005, 12:30 PM
I remember the good old days when Shield Training meant you got the benefit of your shield dice without having to script a Block. If I had a heater, I could always rely on 3D to block, but that was it. None of this shifting dice from your strike to the block.
Why was there a need for this Uber Block-and-Strike? Why wasn't it kept simple?
It think it should be scaled back to it's original intent. The idea that it mimics a Counter-strike, in which you can split dice, disturbs me.
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 12:35 PM
Kublai, what the hell do you think you're doing? Bitching about how great things used to by is my job, pal, and if you think you're going to horn in on my action, you got another thing coming.
Don't make me call the union on your ass.
Kublai does whine a good point, though. Why over-complicate things with split dice?
I remember the good old days when Shield Training meant you got the benefit of your shield dice without having to script a Block. If I had a heater, I could always rely on 3D to block, but that was it. None of this shifting dice from your strike to the block.
Why was there a need for this Uber Block-and-Strike? Why wasn't it kept simple?
It think it should be scaled back to it's original intent. The idea that it mimics a Counter-strike, in which you can split dice, disturbs me.
Wow. This one just takes the cake. I have no idea what game you are playing or have ever played at this point. MERP perhaps? Star Wars?
Page 107 of Burning Wheel Classic, "When declaring a Strike in melee combat, a character with Shield Training splits his dice between Strike and Block."
The text goes on to say, "Alternately, he may Strike with [all of his skill dice] and leave his shield's 2D to work on its own."
This is not a new rule, new phenomena, new interpretation, new variation or anything.
Sheesh.
-L
Kublai
05-13-2005, 12:53 PM
Brah, I didn't say I remember "BW Classic."
BTW, the Avoid you just scripted does nothing to answer my Point.
Why is there a need to split the strike dice? Why isn't allowing to get your shield dice for free enough?
Piikki
05-13-2005, 01:02 PM
btw, what is this "heater" ?
Kublai
05-13-2005, 01:08 PM
A Heater is a type of shield, as is a Buckler, Kite and Tower.
stormsweeper
05-13-2005, 01:18 PM
A Heater is a type of shield, as is a Buckler, Kite and Tower.
http://images.google.com can be very helpful for these kinds of things. Not perfect, mind you, but useful.
Bill Cook
05-13-2005, 02:35 PM
Kublai:
Why do you have to split dice between Block and Strike when you have a shield? Because it's fun to do. It's lovely gaming texture. It a mechanical component the manufacturer didn't cover with a housing because he figured you'd enjoy fiddling with it.
Out on the horizon, I see an entire campaign resolved by a coin flip .. That probably wouldn't satisfy most. So, like anything, the design choice to allocate pool by function is a matter of taste. To me, it's delicious.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 03:05 PM
It's a redundant choice already covered by Counter-Strike, except that it is better for no discernible reason. Rules that apply to Counter-strike - such as Feint - are ignored by it, removing any logical consistency.
As you can read in these forums, it is causing some confusion when applied because of its lack of consistency.
When stances are applied to it, multiple mechanics have to be followed. This applies another level of complexity that I find unecessary. For instance, if you are in Aggressive Stance and use the Block and Strike, you get 2 bonus die for the strike, but you have to remember a +2 Ob penalty for the Block. If you are in Defensive Stance, you get +2 Dice to the Block, but have to remember the +2 Ob to the Strike.
However, since it's one big pool to split up, the bonus can be applied to its opposite intent. I am in Defensive stance for a total of 8 dice. I can script Block and Strike and put 7 dice into the Strike and 1 die into the Block (plus shield dice). What's the point of the stance here?
Kublai
05-13-2005, 03:13 PM
Out on the horizon, I see an entire campaign resolved by a coin flip .. That probably wouldn't satisfy most. So, like anything, the design choice to allocate pool by function is a matter of taste. To me, it's delicious.
If you're saying the results of my protest of the Block and Strike will yield a system of flipping dice, I say you're a man of extremes.
It's a redundant choice already covered by Counter-Strike, except that it is better for no discernible reason. Rules that apply to Counter-strike - such as Feint - are ignored by it, removing any logical consistency.
I'm curious, Pete, can you remember the last time you used Shield Training in play? (I can, but I'm curious if you can.)
Because this post is sounding a lot like an rpg.net thread bitching about a mechanic you've never sat down with. If you had an issue with this in play, let's talk about that. Otherwise, I think you bitching about mechanical theory is bootless.
-L
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 03:25 PM
It's a redundant choice already covered by
However, since it's one big pool to split up, the bonus can be applied to its opposite intent. I am in Defensive stance for a total of 8 dice. I can script Block and Strike and put 7 dice into the Strike and 1 die into the Block (plus shield dice). What's the point of the stance here?
As I understand it, you always add the +2 dice to the Block portion of the Block/Strike. In other words, first you split the dice, then you add the extra stance dice to the block half.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 03:25 PM
I'm curious, Pete, can you remember the last time you used Shield Training in play? (I can, but I'm curious if you can.)
Because this post is sounding a lot like an rpg.net thread bitching about a mechanic you've never sat down with. If you had an issue with this in play, let's talk about that. Otherwise, I think you bitching about mechanical theory is bootless.
I played with it all last Friday at the tourney. This is why it is all so fresh to me and perhaps why I didn't raise a stint about it before, O' Lord of the Snide Remarks.
Now, care to actually respond to my ACTUAL PLAY criticisms or shall you continue to Avoid my Points?
Now, care to actually respond to my ACTUAL PLAY criticisms or shall you continue to Avoid my Points?
Sure: Shield Training exists because BW has heavy genre-fidelity priorities. Shield fighting is a prominent part of that genre. Mechanically, it sufficiently models the feel of hiding behind one's shield while striking out at one's opponent. And acheives this feel without burdensome mechanics.
However, since it's one big pool to split up, the bonus can be applied to its opposite intent. I am in Defensive stance for a total of 8 dice. I can script Block and Strike and put 7 dice into the Strike and 1 die into the Block (plus shield dice). What's the point of the stance here?
This really deceptive, Pete. Defensive stance dice, as Yag said, can only be applied to the Block. So you'd have 2D plus Shield Dice in Defense. If you decide to throw the rest of your dice into Strike, that's fine, but you're screwing yourself. You've got a +2 Ob to Strike.
It's not complicated, it's consistent and it models fine.
-L
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 03:39 PM
If you decide to throw the rest of your dice into Strike, that's fine, but you're screwing yourself. You've got a +2 Ob to Strike.
I have two words for you: Advancement Test
Kublai
05-13-2005, 03:48 PM
Why does Feint work against Counter-strike as a whole but not against Block and Strike as a whole? This is the specific reference I have to the move being inconsistent.
Thor Olavsrud
05-13-2005, 03:50 PM
Why does Feint work against Counter-strike as a whole but not against Block and Strike as a whole? This is the specific reference I have to the move being inconsistent.
Because you've feinted the shield out of the way, but not the primary weapon? Makes perfect sense to me.
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 03:50 PM
Because Counter-strike is a reaction -- you're waiting for an attack to come, in order to parry it and use the opening for an attack.
Block-strike, on the other hand, isn't reactionary. You're lashing out and raising your your shield to block a potential blow at the same time.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 03:55 PM
Because you've feinted the shield out of the way, but not the primary weapon? Makes perfect sense to me.
The exact same argument can be made for Counterstrike with a shield as you've just made for Block and Strike.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 03:57 PM
Because Counter-strike is a reaction -- you're waiting for an attack to come, in order to parry it and use the opening for an attack.
Block-strike, on the other hand, isn't reactionary. You're lashing out and raising your your shield to block a potential blow at the same time.
This implies to me that you think there is no thought being put into the Block. Therefore, why would you be able to put skill dice into the Block? When you use skills dice, it implies an intent to block a strike that is coming at you. You are reacting to an incoming strike by better positioning your shield against it.
It's the same thing as a Counterstrike.
Thor Olavsrud
05-13-2005, 04:01 PM
The exact same argument can be made for Counterstrike with a shield as you've just made for Block and Strike.
When was the last time you saw someone script a Counterstrike when he has shield training? He doesn't, because it's a bad script. If you script Counterstrike when you have a shield, you are NOT blocking with the shield. You are parrying with your weapon and then making a riposte.
I'm just curious, what's the intent of this thread and your queries? Are you looking for satisfactory fluffified explanations? Or are you looking to change the mechanics?
-L
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 04:05 PM
This implies to me that you think there is no thought being put into the Block. Therefore, why would you be able to put skill dice into the Block? When you use skills dice, it implies an intent to block a strike that is coming at you. You are reacting to an incoming strike by better positioning your shield against it.
It's the same thing as a Counterstrike.
Um, no. It's the same thing as a block. A counterstrike is dependent on using your opponent's strike against him to make an opening for an attack. A block/strike is not so dependent. A Block / Strike is just like a Block with a tandem Strike.
Seriously, I don't see where the breakdown is occuring here. One hand blocks. The other hand strikes.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 04:07 PM
I want to see Block and Strike reduced from an Uber Counterstrike down to a very simple - yet still advantageous - rule: You may use you shield dice to block without spending an action when you script a Strike.
I want to see Block and Strike reduced from an Uber Counterstrike down to a very simple - yet still advantageous - rule: You may use you shield dice to block without spending an action when you script a Strike.
That's a fine house rule.
-L
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 04:12 PM
I think that would qualify as a Dismissal.
donbaloo
05-13-2005, 04:18 PM
As I read over these in the book I figured that a shield fighter would never script a counterstrike or a block. Well, block maybe if he was going for total defense in a Defensive Stance. Outside of that, he passes over possible openings by scripting a block.
Angaros
05-13-2005, 04:22 PM
When was the last time you saw someone script a Counterstrike when he has shield training? He doesn't, because it's a bad script. If you script Counterstrike when you have a shield, you are NOT blocking with the shield. You are parrying with your weapon and then making a riposte.
You would script CS if you were limited to taking a defensive action and wanted to turn the table and inflict some damage (and perhaps steal the initiative). But this is BW and not TRoS so there is no such limit. Unfortunately?
Kublai
05-13-2005, 04:27 PM
That's a fine house rule.
It's hard to have this as a house rule when you play in the Designer's house! :oops:
Kublai
05-13-2005, 04:30 PM
If you script Counterstrike when you have a shield, you are NOT blocking with the shield. You are parrying with your weapon and then making a riposte.
You may add shield dice to the Block portion of a Counterstrike. That squarely describes that you are blocking with a shield when counterstriking.
Enlil
05-13-2005, 05:01 PM
I think the only way that block and strike is uber in any way is that if you divide the dice after knowing the response, you aren't going to put any dice into block if the other guys move is not one you can block. Hence my suggestion that die splitting (at least for block and strike) is declared before the counteraction is known. It does break with the way the system works a little though. I would have to see if it causes problems in play before I decided whether I wanted to do anything with it.
Actually, a counterstrike with a shield, against something it works against, is superior to a block and strike. If you are in defensive stance, you get +2 dice for counterstriking, +1-5 dice from the shield, split those up and take no penalty to the riposte! Pretty sweet.
Christian
Thor Olavsrud
05-13-2005, 05:06 PM
When splitting your dice, you must always allocate at least one die to each part of the action.
When in doubt, split them half and half.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 05:16 PM
Page 107 of Burning Wheel Classic, "When declaring a Strike in melee combat, a character with Shield Training splits his dice between Strike and Block."
The text goes on to say, "Alternately, he may Strike with [all of his skill dice] and leave his shield's 2D to work on its own."
If only that were true, Thor. This is just one more advantage B+S has over CS for no clear reason.
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 05:24 PM
Wow. I'm impressed. I'm being out-Bitter Grave Dug. I may have to abdicate in favour of Pete...
Nah. Screw that. :x
Pete, man, it's really not that much of an advantage. It's only a big deal when the opponent doesn't have a shield -- which, IMO, is as it should be.
Thor Olavsrud
05-13-2005, 05:36 PM
Wow. I'm impressed. I'm being out-Bitter Grave Dug. I may have to abdicate in favour of Pete...
Nah. Screw that. :x
Sorry man. You're just outclassed. Pete never even accepted the Classic rules he was responsible for editing -- as you can see here, since Block and Strike has not really changed since Classic. He runs with rules that were tossed out before Classic ever saw print. We haven't been able to get him to read Revised. Maybe when he stops being bitter about Classic. :twisted:
stormsweeper
05-13-2005, 05:40 PM
Shield fighting was terribly effective in the real world, I don't see a need to hamper it in the game.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 05:41 PM
If you are in defensive stance, you get +2 dice for counterstriking, +1-5 dice from the shield, split those up and take no penalty to the riposte!
Ah! This points out another inconsistency!
If I am in defensive stance and counterstrike, there is no penalty for the strike portion.
If I am in defensive stance and Block and Strike, there is a penalty for the strike portion.
Please explain why one gets the penalty and the other doesn't.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 05:42 PM
Shield fighting was terribly effective in the real world, I don't see a need to hamper it in the game.
I am not trying to hamper it. I am trying to reign it under control!
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 05:43 PM
If I am in defensive stance and Block and Strike, there is a penalty for the strike portion.
Please explain this away.
As I understand it, there IS a penalty for the strike portion.
Thor Olavsrud
05-13-2005, 05:56 PM
If you are in defensive stance, you get +2 dice for counterstriking, +1-5 dice from the shield, split those up and take no penalty to the riposte!
Ah! This points out another inconsistency!
If I am in defensive stance and counterstrike, there is no penalty for the strike portion.
If I am in defensive stance and Block and Strike, there is a penalty for the strike portion.
Please explain this away.
Please! This suffers the same penalty as a normal Counterstrike. It offers no defense whatsoever against Feint, and you Hesitate unless your opponent Strikes, Great Strikes, Disarms or Pushes.
Anyway, Pete, I thought you were trying to argue that Block and Strike is too powerful. Now you're suggesting that Counterstrike is too powerful? C'mon. Make up your mind already.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 06:01 PM
These are all symptoms that Block and Strike is a non-conforming irregularity in BW! It's all interconnected and that's why it got mentioned.
Anyways, you are using to many pronouns. What does the "This" you used refer to?
Counterstrikes don't suffer the strike penalty. Is this true?
Thor Olavsrud
05-13-2005, 06:06 PM
These are all symptoms that Block and Strike is a non-conforming irregularity in BW! It's all interconnected and that's why it got mentioned.
Anyways, you are using to[o] many pronouns. What does the "This" you used refer to?
'This' refers to Counterstriking with a shield. The only thing that is inconsistent here is your argument, Pete. It works the same way it's worked since at least 2003. I don't see a problem.
Angaros
05-13-2005, 06:09 PM
Why would there be a penalty to the strike dice in CS? Counterstrike is a Defensive Action and shouldn't be penalised when in Defensive stance. On the contrary, it should gain the 2D advantage. Strike (+ Shield Block) on the other hand is still a Strike maneuver. And that's an Aggressive Action and should be penalised in Defensive stance. A few questions arise:
In what way is S+B affected by stance? Are the two simultaneous actions judged on their own in the same way as a normal strike or block would be? Or is the whole S+B viewed as one action -- an aggressive one. IMO it should be viewed as an aggressive action since it *is* a Strike. The blocking is only possible because the character has a special skill allowing him to change the rules a bit and defend himself while beating on his enemy. If it's considered to be an aggressive action, is both the Block and the Strike penalized in Defensive Stance? Or just the Strike part? Not sure how to rule on this one. In Aggressive stance, giving the character +2D simply adds to the pool, but a +2Ob penalty isn't as easy to apply to two rolls since it mechanically becomes a +4 Ob if it applies to both Block and Strike.
Kublai
05-13-2005, 06:29 PM
I view Block and Strike as one action, much like a Counter-strike. This has been my mistake.
If taken as two tandem actions, things make more sense.
I feel that it should be taken as a single action, and therefore be forced to conform to precedents or be reduced to a much more elegant and basic effect. However, this is my own opinion which others have thoroughly mocked and criticized enough for me to let it go.
Viva simplicity! Viva la revoluccion!
Angaros
05-13-2005, 06:59 PM
I think S+B should be viewed as one action as well -- a Strike with some fluff.
And until someone gives me good reason not to I will also rule (IMC) that S+B, as an aggressive action, gets a +2 Ob penalty to the Strike part in Defensive stance and +2D to be placed in either part in Aggressive stance. And Counterstrike, as a defensive action, gets a +2 Ob penalty to the Block part in Aggresive stance and +2D to be placed in either part in Defensive stance.
"Block and Strike" is a single special action gained when a character chooses the Shield Training or Two-Fisted Fighting Training skills.
-L
Kublai
05-13-2005, 07:08 PM
Well, that just throws everything back into the air for me! :?
Well, that just throws everything back into the air for me! :?
It's like any other cheating martial arts maneuver.
And, as Jocke said, it's an Aggressive Maneuver. So you can apply your bonus dice to Strike while Aggressive, but you suffer +2 Ob to Block. And that means in Defensive Stance ::gasp:: it's +2 Ob to the Block half and the Strike half.
::gasp::
-L
Kublai
05-13-2005, 07:34 PM
But in defensive stance you also get the +2D to the block half?
::head explodes::
W3rst. rules. evar.
Yagathai
05-13-2005, 07:41 PM
And, as Jocke said, it's an Aggressive Maneuver. So you can apply your bonus dice to Strike while Aggressive, but you suffer +2 Ob to Block. And that means in Defensive Stance ::gasp:: it's +2 Ob to the Block half and the Strike half.
Don't like it. Works much better if you treat it like a tandem block/strike. Why the heck would the block part be penalized in defensive stance? Makes no sense.
But in defensive stance you also get the +2D to the block half?
::head explodes::
W3rst. rules. evar.
What is the rule for Aggressive and Defensive maneuvers?
Counterstrike is a Defensive Maneuver, does it grant you +2D to its Strike half while you're in Aggressive stance? No. It's a Defensive Maneuver and is therefore fully penalized when you're in Aggressive Stance.
Aggressive maneuvers are penalized when the character is in Defensive stance. Defensive Maneuvers are penalized when the character is in Aggressive stance.
Read. the. fucking. rules. before. you. start. shit.
Angaros
05-13-2005, 07:55 PM
Well, that just throws everything back into the air for me! :?
And, as Jocke said, it's an Aggressive Maneuver. So you can apply your bonus dice to Strike while Aggressive, but you suffer +2 Ob to Block. And that means in Defensive Stance ::gasp:: it's +2 Ob to the Block half and the Strike half.
Why would the Block half get penalised in Aggressive stance? I'm all for penalising both halves in Defensive stance (which would conversely apply to a Counterstrike in Aggressive stance), but being an aggressive action I don't see why it gets penalised in aggressive stance.
Why the heck would the block part be penalized in defensive stance? Makes no sense.
Because it's not a block, it's a Strike action in which the aggressor is allowed to deflect countering blows with his shield. This is why it feels awkward (to me) that you in S+B can be very defensive and put all your dice save one into the Block half. It's an aggressive action and shouldn't be allowed to be used as a defensive action. Kublai's idea/fond memory about only allowing the shield dice to be used for block sounds better and better.
Leningrad
05-13-2005, 07:58 PM
Read. the. fucking. rules. before. you. start. shit.
Word.
Why would the Block half get penalised in Aggressive stance? I'm all for penalising both halves in Defensive stance (which would conversely apply to a Counterstrike in Aggressive stance), but being an aggressive action I don't see why it gets penalised in aggressive stance.
Because that is the detrimental side-effect of the move, designed into deliberately to stop shield-munchkinning. This mechanic has been tested for years. It works fine. Even with the new stances, it works fine.
and, in case anyone hasn't notice, these mechanics are not at the current time being considered be for modification or revision.
thanks!
-L
Bill Cook
05-14-2005, 06:37 AM
Kublai:
Sorry if I'm treading on a sore subject.
This is the way I understand it. In Classic, you've got two basic moves: Strike and Block. As pertains to stance, Strike is aggressive, and Block is defensive.
What I call 'conditional moves' are Feint and Counterstrike. Feint is aggressive and parallels Strike. Counterstrike is defensive and parallels Block. A Feint is conditioned by an opposing Block or Counterstrike; when it fires, the trigger is cancelled and Feint is processed just like a Strike. A Counterstrike is conditioned by an opposing Strike or Push variant; however, it does not cancel the trigger. Instead, a skill dice allocation is processed as a Block; secondly, within the same action, a Strike is processed with the pool remainder. Where a maneuver is comprised of components, its stance-affected nature is determined at the highest level. (i.e. A Counterstrike is indivisibly categorized as defensive, though its final component is a Strike.)
If you have a shield and script Block or Counterstrike, you can Shield Block, which allows you to add shield dice to a skill dice pool or allocation. Additionally, if you have Shield Training and script Strike, you can Strike and Block. A skill dice allocation is processed as a Strike; secondly, within the same action, a Block is processed with the pool remainder. To be clear, comparing a Counterstrike to a Strike and Block, the former is defensive, and the latter is aggressive.
Here's a primer for the kit:
Strike to vanquish your opponent.
Block to protect yourself.
Feint to misdirect the turtling of a cautious defender.
Counterstrike to bat aside the onslaught of a frenzied attacker.
Use a shield to improve Block (or the Counterstrike Block component) to a Shield Block, adding shield dice.
Receive Shield Training to improve Strike to Strike and Block, allowing a measure of defense while scripting aggressively.
(By contrast, a Counterstrike allows a measure of aggression while scripting defensively.)
If you're saying the results of my protest of the Block and Strike will yield a system of flipping dice, I say you're a man of extremes.
I mentioned the coin flip or single die roll battle resolution to express an extreme. That's how they do it in Story Engine. To a D&D guy, it's unpalatable. My point: you want it to be simple, but it could be simpler still. Each individual will determine the limit of use to what Luke's game offers. My advice is to use the kit in the way that best pleases you. If you think Strike and Block is redundant to Counterstrike, don't use it.
(Which, BTW, Counterstrike is just a gem of a maneuver. It's probably my favorite. I use it to quash overzealous players that script 'Strike, H. Strike / Strike / H. Strike' all the time.)
My group actually uses all the rules I summarized above. We have a blast with the kit and love the mechanical support provided for shields. It's actually one of my favorite parts of the system.
****
There are, apparently, a few points that lack clarity. Can you allocate no dice to a maneuver component? I assume not. Can the shield dice be added to other than a Block component? To me, the answer is 'obviously not.' Is the Block component of a Counterstrike actually a Parry and therefore not applicable for shield dice additions? To me, shield dice apply. Whether it's a parrying blade or a heater, the point is that it's an off-hand implement.
Angaros
05-14-2005, 06:46 AM
Why would the Block half get penalised in Aggressive stance? I'm all for penalising both halves in Defensive stance (which would conversely apply to a Counterstrike in Aggressive stance), but being an aggressive action I don't see why it gets penalised in aggressive stance.
Because that is the detrimental side-effect of the move, designed into deliberately to stop shield-munchkinning. This mechanic has been tested for years. It works fine. Even with the new stances, it works fine.
Does this "ruling" affect the Strike part of Counterstrike as well? The two actinos aren't linked in any necessary way, I know, but I still felt like asking. If you're in Defensive stance, is the Strike half of CS also penalised?
Bill Cook
05-14-2005, 07:15 AM
Angaros:
I'm not Luke, but .. surely not. When you (1) apply modifiers of stance or (2) trigger conditional maneuvers, you must remain at the maneuver level. Maneuver components are not typed as aggressive or defensive; maneuvers are.
Also, you would never knowingly enter an aggressive stance to Counterstrike; it's a defensive maneuver.
Jocke,
all i'm doing is pointing out which type of maneuvers these are. You're parsing everything way too much.
A Counterstrike is a DEFENSIVE maneuver in Burning Wheel and it listed as such. Therefore, all Defensive maneuver bonus and penalties apply.
If you read the section on Block and Strike, it's clearly described as an AGGRESSIVE maneuver (with an additional special rule). All of the bonus and penalties of Aggressive maneuvers apply to Block and Strike.
Aside from the fact that Block and Strike is a special maneuver (like those found in the old martial arts rules), there's nothing new or different happening here with any of these maneuvers. They all obey the standard rules for maneuver type and stance.
-L
LordSmerf
05-16-2005, 07:55 PM
Hmm...
I feel somewhat bad and totally responsible for all this. Pete, sorry for confusing you over the weekend.
Now even I am confused though. I don't know if you remember this clearly Luke, it was a busy weekend, but you told me the following things when Pete and I came to you for arbitration on the issue:
"Block and Strike is a tandem action, each half has Stance bonuses/penalties applied separately. This means that if you are in Aggressive Stance you get +2D on your Strike portion, but suffer +2Ob on your Block, etc."
Then you said:
"Block and Strike is, ideally, a neutral maneuver. If you are in a stance you will take a penalty, and the penalty is worse than the bonus you'll be getting on the other side of the maneuver."
Now, it's entierly possible (likely?) that this isn't how things work and that I was asking leading questions and the like to get the answer I wanted. I have been known to do that.
From reading the preceding discussion in the thread it seems that you are saying that Block and Strike is basically a Counter-Strike that is Agressive instead of Defensive with an anti-munchkin addition that the Block portion is always penalized by a stance. Are you also saying that the Block portion of the maneuver can be Feinted, but that the Strike will still go off if it is? That's what I'm seeing. Does this paragraph basically summarize your intentions on the issue?
Thomas
From reading the preceding discussion in the thread it seems that you are saying that Block and Strike is basically a Counter-Strike that is Agressive instead of Defensive with an anti-munchkin addition that the Block portion is always penalized by a stance. Are you also saying that the Block portion of the maneuver can be Feinted, but that the Strike will still go off if it is? That's what I'm seeing. Does this paragraph basically summarize your intentions on the issue?
Thomas
DOH! Caught red handed making an off-the-cuff rules call. A chobo maneuver on my part, I failed to immediately refer to the Revised Edition rules. I knew i had said this somewhere at some point. And, it turns out, I was wrong.
After referring to the rules (which I don't have with me at the moment), I discovered that I had enshrined the Block and Strike rules in the holy text and updated them to the new stance rules.
So it's my fault, not yours! :lol:
::reminds self to always check the rules first::
-L
LordSmerf
05-16-2005, 08:10 PM
I'll let you take partial credit I guess, but you probably would have looked at the book if I hadn't said:
"Pete's stupid understading is this... Any my reasoned and intelligent understanding is this... Isn't my idea way, way better? Also, I'll give you this cookie if you agree with me..."
Let this be a lessen folks: always bring a cookie to bribe the GM in case you need it.
Thomas
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.