Withdrawal actions (offensive, defensive, or new Dodge thing) happen on your
initiative, if you are faster you can choose to let them stun you before you
withdraw if you want to.
Exceptions to the acting on your initiative rule add complexity without
adding much benefit.

I have never heard of or seen anyone play that withdrawal happens last.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2001 10:53 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Combat - withdraw initiative


An issue occurred last night during a game - when does a defensive
withdrawal occur? Some people play that it happens on your engaged
initiative, some that it happens after the opponent has acted (last in the
melee).

The new combat rules treat it like any other action (i.e. on your
initiative), because I didn't know about the other interpretation when I
rewrote them. I'm particularly interested in how people played withdrawal
timing historically; if the delayed withdrawal is desirable/correct; and if
so, whether we should reintroduce it.

Andrew


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]

> The new combat rules treat it like any other action (i.e. on your initiative),
> because I didn't know about the other interpretation when I
> rewrote them. I'm particularly interested in how people played withdrawal
> timing historically...

Historically the timing may have been more of an issue than now, and it involves
the statement that an action is being performed until your next action (e.g.
once you start evading, you're evading until your next action).

In the case of Withdraw the issue would center around Engaged vs. Unengaged.
(e.g. If my melee opponent is Withdrawing at what point do I become unengaged?
Can I strike them before they leave my melee zone?)

The ability to "Step & Strike" -- a one hex move an attack with no BC mods -- as
an unengaged action is (relatively) recent, yes?  IIRC, in the old days, any
unengaged move and attack, even a single hex, would be Charging, and if done
without a pole-arm would incur a -15% mod.  This combined with Defensive
Withdraw would mean a -35% if you wanted to follow up your retreating opponent
(they are still Defensively Withdrawing until their next action -20%; and you
have to Charge with a non-pole weapon to reengage them in melee -15%).  The Step
& Strike alters this; they withdraw first, you step & strike at -20% for the
withdraw.

Having 2 initiatives still complicates things, as the opponent of the
Withdrawing figure becomes unengaged part way through the pulse... this
shouldn't create any major hassles as unengaged folk go after engaged anyway, it
is just a bit messy.

Cheers,
Martin


--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Product Specialist               Phone: +64-9-373-0400


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On changing to/from engaged/unengaged during as pulse, the simplest and most
common ruling is that your initiative is based on your state at the
beginning of the pulse.  Though this gets messier with quickness.  But if
both sides are quickened then there are effectively 2 mini-pulses per pulse
and it becomes simpler again.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2001 10:34 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Combat - withdraw initiative


From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]

> The new combat rules treat it like any other action (i.e. on your
initiative),
> because I didn't know about the other interpretation when I
> rewrote them. I'm particularly interested in how people played withdrawal
> timing historically...

Historically the timing may have been more of an issue than now, and it
involves
the statement that an action is being performed until your next action (e.g.
once you start evading, you're evading until your next action).

In the case of Withdraw the issue would center around Engaged vs. Unengaged.
(e.g. If my melee opponent is Withdrawing at what point do I become
unengaged?
Can I strike them before they leave my melee zone?)

The ability to "Step & Strike" -- a one hex move an attack with no BC mods
-- as
an unengaged action is (relatively) recent, yes?  IIRC, in the old days, any
unengaged move and attack, even a single hex, would be Charging, and if done
without a pole-arm would incur a -15% mod.  This combined with Defensive
Withdraw would mean a -35% if you wanted to follow up your retreating
opponent
(they are still Defensively Withdrawing until their next action -20%; and
you
have to Charge with a non-pole weapon to reengage them in melee -15%).  The
Step
& Strike alters this; they withdraw first, you step & strike at -20% for the
withdraw.

Having 2 initiatives still complicates things, as the opponent of the
Withdrawing figure becomes unengaged part way through the pulse... this
shouldn't create any major hassles as unengaged folk go after engaged
anyway, it
is just a bit messy.

Cheers,
Martin


--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Product Specialist               Phone: +64-9-373-0400


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> 
> In the case of Withdraw the issue would center around Engaged 
> vs. Unengaged.
> (e.g. If my melee opponent is Withdrawing at what point do I 
> become unengaged?
> Can I strike them before they leave my melee zone?)
> 

...

> 
> Having 2 initiatives still complicates things, as the opponent of the
> Withdrawing figure becomes unengaged part way through the 
> pulse... this
> shouldn't create any major hassles as unengaged folk go after 
> engaged anyway, it
> is just a bit messy.
> 
This is explicitly handled in 
"Exceptions to the combat sequence"
Engaged Figures becoming Unengaged. If a figure
becomes unengaged before their engaged Action is
resolved, they must act on their unengaged Initiative.
If they become unengaged after they have had their
engaged Action, they do not gain an extra Action.

Seems a little odd, but there you go, DQ's initiative system is a bit daft
often. It even seems counter to the apparent overall approach in DQ combat
of KISS (match off those in melee, sort out each individual 'Engagement', do
unengaged for one side, then the other.)

So, strictly applying the rules, you could get a situation where:

1. Two figures are engaged. The one with higher initiative (Player 1)
decides to do a defensive withdraw.
2. This makes their opponent (Baddie 1) unengaged. They can act on their
side's unengaged initiative.
3. If the Players win unengaged initiative, then Player 2 could step up and
get Baddie 1 in their melee zone, thereby stopping Baddie 1 doing a step and
strike on Player 1.

This result may or may not "feel right" in any given situation. Of course
all sorts of stuff happens in actual play with initiative, the above is
strictly 'by the book'. As a general rule, being able to 'chase' a
retreating opponent sounds right, but so does their master swordsman mate
coming to the rescue.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Errol Cavit wrote:

> As written, you have the option to delay your action if you are faster (I
> assume the withdrawer had the higher initiative in this case?)[1]

[...]

> (increased
> defence stays in place until your next action presumably [2])

Pulse 1:
Inigo Montoya the master swordsman has engaged initiative, and evades.
Random Bozo has a choice of attacking and probably getting reposted to
death, or waiting for Inigo to stop dancing.

Pulse 2:
Inigo chooses to act second.
Random Bozo has the same no-win choice as above, as Inigo is considered to
still be evading.
Inigo attacks.

Pulse 3: See pulse 1.

Is the 'can choose to wait' rule new, or has this strategy been available
for ages? (I know it has been available for ages when Inigo is quickened and
Bozo is not.) It seems a little overdone that a single point difference in
engaged initiative to allow this, but short of some administrative nightmare
initiative system, I don't see a way out.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This has always been the winning strategy for characters with higher
initiative.  The only problem is that it's slow, you only get to attack
every other pulse.
And if the slower person wants to stalemate the situation they also choose
to evade.
If they are of similar skill level the fight can take a long time, usually
ending when one of them gets lucky, bored, or someone else steps in.
If there is a difference in skill then the better person quickly cleans up
with 3 attacks every 2 rounds (2 ripostes and 1 attack).
If fighting multiple opponents then this tactic is even better as you
potentially get more ripostes.
However if you misjudge your opponent and try to riposte against a better
swordsman then you are forced to take pass actions while they wipe the floor
with you.

Often in DQ the fight is resolved by the mages, the fighters stand up front
and evade at each other indefintely while the mages cast their spells, who
ever has the best mages tends to win.

However the more agressive fighters who have the initiative advantage and
big weapons tend to hit first and keep their opponent stunned till they die.

Once you are skilled in combat in DQ, engaged initiative is everything.  If
you are faster then you get to decide the tactics and control the fight.  A
slower person just gets to respond in the best way they can and hope their
defence/armour is sufficient to allow them to hit back.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Woodhams [mailto:michael.woodhams@peace.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2001 12:06 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Combat - withdraw initiative


Errol Cavit wrote:

> As written, you have the option to delay your action if you are faster (I
> assume the withdrawer had the higher initiative in this case?)[1]

[...]

> (increased
> defence stays in place until your next action presumably [2])

Pulse 1:
Inigo Montoya the master swordsman has engaged initiative, and evades.
Random Bozo has a choice of attacking and probably getting reposted to
death, or waiting for Inigo to stop dancing.

Pulse 2:
Inigo chooses to act second.
Random Bozo has the same no-win choice as above, as Inigo is considered to
still be evading.
Inigo attacks.

Pulse 3: See pulse 1.

Is the 'can choose to wait' rule new, or has this strategy been available
for ages? (I know it has been available for ages when Inigo is quickened and
Bozo is not.) It seems a little overdone that a single point difference in
engaged initiative to allow this, but short of some administrative nightmare
initiative system, I don't see a way out.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> From: Michael Woodhams [mailto:michael.woodhams@peace.com]
> Is the 'can choose to wait' rule new, or has this strategy 

The

"In each Engagement, figures with faster initiative
may choose to act after figures with lower initiative,"

bit was in the 2000 rulebook, I didn't touch it when putting the allowance
for two attempts to recover from Stun into the 2001 rulebook.

> It seems a little overdone that a single point 
> difference in
> engaged initiative to allow this, but short of some 
> administrative nightmare
> initiative system, I don't see a way out.

Concur with Stephen's response. Also my earlier "Seems a little odd, but
there you go, DQ's initiative system is a bit daft
often. " comment applies. 

Note that if you are close in rank of weapon (attacker vs evader),
riposte-ing is a bit less attractive, as there is a chance of ending up with
the 

"successfully Parried, but the
target [the figure doing the riposte-ing] has been thrown off balance, and
their next ac-tion
must be a pass action."

result. This result breaks the Evade-(still Evading)Attack-... cycle.




As Michael implies, one way to stop this effect up is to include a random
element in engaged initiative, but it adds complexity. I believe we have had
the resulting discussion before, without resolving much. This suggests no
simple answer that suits everyone exists.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Woodhams [mailto:michael.woodhams@peace.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2001 12:06
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Combat - withdraw initiative
> 
> 
> Errol Cavit wrote:
> 
> > As written, you have the option to delay your action if you 
> are faster (I
> > assume the withdrawer had the higher initiative in this case?)[1]
> 
> [...]
> 
> > (increased
> > defence stays in place until your next action presumably [2])
> 
> Pulse 1:
> Inigo Montoya the master swordsman has engaged initiative, and evades.
> Random Bozo has a choice of attacking and probably getting reposted to
> death, or waiting for Inigo to stop dancing.
> 
> Pulse 2:
> Inigo chooses to act second.
> Random Bozo has the same no-win choice as above, as Inigo is 
> considered to
> still be evading.
> Inigo attacks.
> 
> Pulse 3: See pulse 1.
> 
> Is the 'can choose to wait' rule new, or has this strategy 
> been available
> for ages? (I know it has been available for ages when Inigo 
> is quickened and
> Bozo is not.) It seems a little overdone that a single point 
> difference in
> engaged initiative to allow this, but short of some 
> administrative nightmare
> initiative system, I don't see a way out.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --