johnnymasters
Topic Author
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2021, 02:30

Blocking action - opposed roll?

Mon 27 Dec 2021, 02:53

Hello,
couldn't find this anywhere and yes I've read all the blurbs regarding opposed rolls, close combat, blocking and reactive actions but I can't seem to grasp how is blocking supposed to work exactly. I get it it's an reactive action, but is it also an opposed roll? If yes, does it say anywhere it is? If not, does it say anywhere it isn't?

If yes, do you subtract success for success and apply stunts for the winner? Thus only attacker or defender can choose stunts?
If no, how do you handle both sides having stunts. Does attacker allocate stunts first and blocker second? How could an attacker defend itself from the blocking stunts? For example, can't it ever defend against a counterattack or disarm? Can you simply get aikido'ed into oblivion? Likewise, how can a blocker defend against one of the attackers non-damage stunts like getting knocked prone, getting disarmed or getting pinned? The blocking stunt text only says (or at least heavily implies) it can only reduce damage, not that it removes general successes. Is this an oversight or intended?

This being an opposed roll makes the most sense to me and also makes the game run faster, but I can see how it can be the other way around.

So,how do you people handle it?
 
User avatar
michael
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue 24 Sep 2019, 13:31
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Mon 27 Dec 2021, 09:01

  1. The attacker declares an attack.
  2. The defender declares if they choose to block or not (they need to have actions left).
  3. The attacker makes their attack roll and count their successes. Push if they want to.
  4. The defender, if they have chosen to block, make their roll and cound their successes. Push if they want to. (This is why it is not considered an opposed roll, as in opposed rolls only the aggressive player is allowed to push.)
  5. For each success the blocking party rolled they can choose to remove a success from the attacker (even though the small headline is called "decrease damage", what you do is remove successes).
  6. The blocking party can also choose to counterattack or disarm if they forego removing successes, or if they have more successes than needed. I'm unsure if it is written, but I would rule that the last two choices (disarm and counter-attack) happens after the attack has been resolved so the attacker doesn't lose their weapon before dealing damage, or dying from losing their last health before their own attack).
  7. After the blocking party has removed successes from the attackers roll, the attacker know what they have to work with. They need 1 success to deal weapon damage, and any additional successes they have left after above steps, can be used for stunts to increase damage or do other things.
--

Let's pretend the attacker rolls 3 successes and the defender 1 success.
The defender can remove 1 success -- or disarm -- or do a counter-attack.

  • If the defender removes 1 success, the attacker have two successes left. 1 is used for weapon damage, and the second can be used for a stunt.
  • If the defender choose to disarm, the attacker have three successes. 1 is used for weapon damage, and 2 can be used for stunts. After that has been resolved, the attacker is disarmed. (no additional roll, it's all included in the first roll).

If the attacker rolls 2 success and the defender rolls 3:

  • If the defender removes 2 successes, the attack misses completely. The defender can also choose to counter-attack or disarm.
  • If the defender only removes 1 success, the attack does weapon damage, but afterwards the defender both disarms and counter-attacks -- having 2 successes left.
"To fall in hell, or soar angelic, you need a pinch of psychedelic."
 
johnnymasters
Topic Author
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2021, 02:30

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Wed 29 Dec 2021, 15:14

Thanks for the indepth reply michael!

Those make sense and I get it why it isn't an opposed roll now, albeit it still seem like the most vague part of the rulebook. The blocking stunt decrease damage being a typo makes sense, and it really needs an errata because it changes how it work considerably. That solves the blocker side of things for me, but I'm still weirded by the fact that with counter you can always damage the attacker despite how well it rolls. I guess, at least from the GMs part, it boils down to etiquette to not drop a character missing the exact or the near exact amount of hp you can counter with.
 
Jehan Menasis
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu 24 Jun 2021, 17:21

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Sat 01 Jan 2022, 19:26

  1. For each success the blocking party rolled they can choose to remove a success from the attacker (even though the small headline is called "decrease damage", what you do is remove successes).
I disagree with this. And the rules are pretty straightforward with that.

In opposed rolls, you cancel opponent successes. Each one of yours cancels one of your opponents, thus the one that rolled at least one more succeeds in whatever they were trying to do.

When blocking, you specifically cancel damage. You already have been hit. There's no opposed roll to avoid being hit. Either your attacker succeeds in the attack roll and deals damage plus stunts, or not. Thus, blocking is just a reflexive action to lower the damage. And also, that's why the 'damage' value of the attack can make blocking more difficult (Ex: Headbites vs 'regular' attacks).

Edit: Also, consider this: For many Xeno attacks, there's absolutely no reason for increasing the 'damage' of the attack, since the attack will outright kill you with a fixed critical result if it succeeds, regardless of how much numerical damage the attack really did. But, you may have already guessed it... yes... The only reason is to make the attack more difficult to block.
 
User avatar
michael
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue 24 Sep 2019, 13:31
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Mon 03 Jan 2022, 14:39

I disagree with this. And the rules are pretty straightforward with that.

In opposed rolls, you cancel opponent successes. Each one of yours cancels one of your opponents, thus the one that rolled at least one more succeeds in whatever they were trying to do.

When blocking, you specifically cancel damage. You already have been hit. There's no opposed roll to avoid being hit. Either your attacker succeeds in the attack roll and deals damage plus stunts, or not. Thus, blocking is just a reflexive action to lower the damage. And also, that's why the 'damage' value of the attack can make blocking more difficult (Ex: Headbites vs 'regular' attacks).

Edit: Also, consider this: For many Xeno attacks, there's absolutely no reason for increasing the 'damage' of the attack, since the attack will outright kill you with a fixed critical result if it succeeds, regardless of how much numerical damage the attack really did. But, you may have already guessed it... yes... The only reason is to make the attack more difficult to block.

Not entirely sure with what you disagree on. But it explicitly says in the rules re: Blocking "For each [success] you roll, choose an effect below:" and then there's a list of actions the blocking party can do. The first one is headlined as "Decrease Damage" but in the description it says that you remove a [success] from the attacker for every [success] you spend. Since the attacker chooses their stunts at a later point -- one being increasing the damage -- it could be what the headline says, but it could also stop the attacker from achieving other positive outcomes such as you (the defender) losing your weapon or throwing you to the ground.

But it's important to note that blocking doesn't remove damage "points" in itself. If you successfully remove all the attackers successes your own last blocking success removes the Base Damage of the weapon which can be 1 or 3 or something else. If the Base Damage is 3, you do not need to spend 3 successes to lower this damage, you just need to remove all the attackers successes with your own.

--

Armour on the other hand does. The armour roll is made after damage has been decided and for each success on the armour roll you remove one point of damage.

--

As for Xeno attacks, here the best course of action for someone being attacked is to lower the damage as much as possible if possible as some attacks cause certain critical injuries. But the critical injury only happens if the attack causes damage so it follows the same rules as above.

Hope this helps, and please let me know if I've misunderstood anything.
"To fall in hell, or soar angelic, you need a pinch of psychedelic."
 
User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 4429
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Mon 03 Jan 2022, 14:52

Tomas answer to how to make rolls in close combat can be found here.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
User avatar
michael
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue 24 Sep 2019, 13:31
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Mon 03 Jan 2022, 15:20

Nice, thanks Fenhorn!

I'm a bit surprised with the Disarm happening at the same time as the attack resulting in an unarmed attack. That makes disarming as a reactive defense more powerful than I wish and always the best choice if you want to minimize damage if the attackers weapon base damage is more than 1. As there's no contest or possiblity for the attacker to defend against the disarm, there's no gamble, stake or drawback to picking it.

Also, to me it makes more sense that the attacker decides what to do with their remaining successes after the blocker has removed some. Otherwise the attacker have to consider it twice in the same round. First decide what to do with their successes, then after a block has removed a few of them, decide which stunts to keep? Instead, they'd just pick stunts when they know how many successes they have.
"To fall in hell, or soar angelic, you need a pinch of psychedelic."
 
User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 4429
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Mon 03 Jan 2022, 15:29

Nice, thanks Fenhorn!

I'm a bit surprised with the Disarm happening at the same time as the attack resulting in an unarmed attack. That makes disarming as a reactive defense more powerful than I wish and always the best choice if you want to minimize damage if the attackers weapon base damage is more than 1. As there's no contest or possiblity for the attacker to defend against the disarm, there's no gamble, stake or drawback to picking it.

Also, to me it makes more sense that the attacker decides what to do with their remaining successes after the blocker has removed some. Otherwise the attacker have to consider it twice in the same round. First decide what to do with their successes, then after a block has removed a few of them, decide which stunts to keep? Instead, they'd just pick stunts when they know how many successes they have.
When we play, we let the attacker choose after the block has removed successes. This mainly because we have always done so and we are more used to FbL and there are no stunts in FbL so there is no choice. Perhaps the next time we play game with stunts we will try the "correct" way.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
johnnymasters
Topic Author
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2021, 02:30

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Thu 06 Jan 2022, 18:39

When we play, we let the attacker choose after the block has removed successes. This mainly because we have always done so and we are more used to FbL and there are no stunts in FbL so there is no choice. Perhaps the next time we play game with stunts we will try the "correct" way
Isn't this a loophooled opposed action tho? Minus the pushing part. Mind you, this is how I've been doing since it's far simpler and intuitive. The correct way seems so convoluted, with multiple steps -steps that I can't find in the book.

Is there a good reason why blocking isn't simply an opposed roll? If I house rule this way, what I'm breaking or should take into consideration? For example, I don't even see why In a PC x PC scenario (where this would be an issue, since no npc push), defender couldn't also push his roll, for the sake of adrenaline alone.
 
User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 4429
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Blocking action - opposed roll?

Thu 06 Jan 2022, 18:52

What we do in our group is:

1) Attacker declares the attack.
2) Defender declares if he wants to defend or not.
3) The attacker and the defender rolls.
4a) The attacker pushes if he wants to.
4b) The defender pushes if he wants to.
5a) The attacker selects his stunts, if any.
5b) The defender selects his stunts, if any.
6) The result of the attack and defence are implemented simultaneously.

Almost the same as how Tomas intended it, but gives the attacker a little bit of a hint if wants to push or not because he can see the base roll of the defender. In order to make this work, you need to sets of dice, so both the attacker and the defender can see each others dice rolls.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests