[Torg] Torg Initiative & Torg Combat Options

[Kansas Jim]

Benn writes:

[I wrote:]

>> Andy in the previous round can declare either an Opportunity Attack
>> or a Location Attack to allow him to shoot Brad if Brad makes a move
>> in the next round, even if Brad wins the initiative.

> How does this work?  Let me be precise.  Andy has his gun out when he 
> rounds a corner and sees Brad, who doesn't have his gun out.  At this 
> moment we go into round by round action.  How is the fact that Andy 
> already has his gun out and pointing at Brad taken into consideration 
> when Brad, who wins initiative, attempts to pull his gun and shoot Andy?

Well, putting aside complications like surprise (was Andy expecting
someone to be around the corner? Did Brad hear Andy coming?) I'd say it
would have to depend on what Andy declared he was going to do before
going around the corner. If he said something like "I shoot the first
person I see" then yeah, even if Brad gets initiative Andy will get
the drop on him because he's doing a Location Attack.

>> If Andy declares it as a Location Attack, then the instant Brad moves
>> at all Andy shoots him. If it turns out that Brad was just going to
>> scratch his nose, well, that's unfortunate for Brad.

> So a Location attack is what, Andy saying "if Brad does *anything* I do 
> X" or is it "if Brad does Y I do X"?

A Location Attack is one that you make as soon as a target presents
itself in a location you're covering (original rulebook p78). Normally
this is supposed to be things like "I shoot anyone who comes through
that door" but I figure that you can cover a person the same as you
can cover a location, so as soon as the person makes themselves into
a target you can take the shot.

> And from the sound of it, you have to declare it the previous round to 
> take effect in this one?

You have to declare it before the other side goes; if you win initiative
that means you can declare it as your action and then shoot or not when
the other side starts to take their actions that round.

Going strictly by what the original rulebook says, that is actually the
only way it works, the phrasing there says "until the end of the round".
Which means if you lose initiative you can't do it, you don't get to
hold your action into the next round. I've never run it that way, if you
have the drop on someone and declare you're holding your action it
should hold over at least until your next initiative phase IMO.

> So Opportunity actions are used to interrupt an opponent's action?  Do I 
> understand that they work like this:
> 
>     * If you declared an Opportunity Attack last round, than this round
>       you get to decide if you want to interrupt your opponent's action
>       after it is revealed but before it is resolved - but you take a
>       -3/-3 penalty for doing so?

That's correct. When the target presents itself the character chooses to
attack it or not and if they choose to attack it they go before the
target acts. (Also p78 in original rulebook.)

> So if I understand you correctly, a Location attack is an attack that 
> you set up to occur when or if an announced condition Y happens.  An 
> Opportunity Attack is  one that is not pre-configured, but therefor has 
> a base penalty?

You must still be covering a location or person for the Opportunity
Attack, so there is a bit of pre-configuration involved. But yes,
because it's not completely pre-configured there's a penalty involved
representing the hesitation involved in making the decision instead of
immediately reacting.

> For that matter, how does one go about declaring it?  What I mean is, if 
> I want to have an Opportunity Attack this round, what must I have done 
> in the previous round?  Does this mean that I lose my action in the 
> previous round in order to have an Opportunity Attack this round?  Or 
> can I attack last round, but also declare that next round will be an 
> Opportunity Attack?

As mentioned above, strictly by the wording in the original rulebook
you have to declare it in a round during which you have the initiative
and it only applies during that round. I think it's something that
should be allowed to carry over into the next round. Heck, it should
carry over until a target presents itself, it's not like a sniper
covering a doorway is going to lose his shot because he has to wait
more than 10 seconds before someone comes through the doorway.

So to answer your question, you're not losing an action when you declare
a Location or Opportunity Attack, your action is just delayed. Say that
Andy has the initiative and has his gun pointed at Brad and Andy
declares a Location Attack, if Brad moves a muscle then Andy will shoot
him. If Brad declares he's going to do something that involves moving,
Andy gets to shoot first. If Brad declares he's not going to move,
Andy's action is delayed and holds over into the next round.

In the next round, if Andy gets the initiative again he can either
declare that he's continuing his Location Attack or he could declare
he's doing something else. In this case, yeah, you could say that he
lost his action last round because he held it and didn't get to use
it.

But lets say that Brad gets the initiative. Thinking that means he gets
to go first, he declares that he will draw his gun and shoot Andy. But
Andy's delayed action from the previous round is still being held, so he
gets to go before Brad does and Andy shoots first. Brad, assuming he
wasn't taken out by Andy's shot, then takes his action. Then Andy gets
to take his regular action for this round.

> Finally, given that apparently both Opportunity and Location attacks 
> have to be prepped for in a previous round, my basic question becomes 
> more, if no previous round prep is done, but Andy's action is obviously 
> much faster that Brad's, but Brad gets initiative, what happens?  What 
> happens when Andy's action requires just a thought (teleportation) while 
> Brad's action requires somewhat more (drawing his gun and firing it)?

In a case like that I would probably just go with the initiative order.
Andy's action may not take as much time to perform but Brad is reacting
faster and gets to do his first.

>> My players used Vital Blows all the time. If you're constantly scoring
>> action totals higher than you need to hit the target, why wouldn't
>> you trade some of those points for extra damage?

> Because you need to be able to *know* you can hit.  Trading off action 
> value for effect value makes a certain kind of sense - what makes no 
> sense to me is requiring a minimum of a -8 penalty to action to do so.

Ah, yes, that. The R&E changed Vital Blow to a staged -2/+1 modifier
that you can take up to a maximum of -8/+4.

[blindside]

>> Unless the target is being restrained or otherwise prevented from
>> moving, he can turn to face you as part of his passive defense while
>> you try to move around him. To get behind someone without them turning
>> to face you I've ruled that it requires using the Maneuver skill and
>> getting a Setback result. You could also do it with a Trick, get him to
>> turn around while you stay still!

> Is this part "Unless the target is being restrained or otherwise 
> prevented from moving, he can turn to face you as part of his passive 
> defense while you try to move around him." somewhere in the book or a 
> houserule you have come up with to handle this?  Also, if the 

It is not in the original rulebook, it is in the R&E but not phrased
quite that way. To me it's a logical extension of what is in the
original rulebook, a blindside can be an attack from a direction which 
the defender cannot protect well. If you're able to move around then
you're going to position yourself against your attacker in such a way
to protect yourself well, so a blindside can't happen in that situation.
But if the defender cannot position himself to defend properly, then
the attacker can get in a position to blindside him. Similarly you can
trick him, fake a move to the left and when he reacts to that you swing
right and get behind him. Or the old Bugs Bunny routine, point over his
shoulder and shout "what's that?" and when he turns to look, he's
blindsided himself.

> unrestrained target can always do this, how can he *ever* be blindsided, 
> that is, why even have blindsiding in the rules?

If you sneak up behind someone, then you've blindsided them. If the
target is facing multiple opponents, they can encircle him and someone
will always be behind him, a position that cannot be protected very
well.

> Or does is just mean that you can only blindside an opponent (without 
> the help of friends) by using Trick or Maneuver?  By the way, if you are 

If you've engaged him and he knows where you are then yes, you've
got to somehow move around him without him being able to properly
defend himself. But if you've surprised him, ambushed him, come up
behind him before he can react, then you've blindsided him.

> using Trick or Maneuver to do this, and "Setback" is required, first of 
> all, you are going to need 10 result points, and that's a lot.  

Actually it's worse than that, with Maneuver you need 15 RPs for a
Setback. That is pretty harsh, I may have not made it quite that
difficult in my games. It's been ages since I've been able to run
a Torg game, I may have gone with 10 RPs on a Maneuver since that's
the same as a Setback on the other interaction skills. (The R&E
does say Setback though, I may have just been a real bastard of
a GM back then....)

> Secondly, how do you Trick someone and Attack them the same round?  
> Seems to me the only way to Trick/Maneuver for blindside is either to go 
> one on Many, taking penalties, or to do it in 2 separate rounds, meaning 
> that you take two rounds for one attack whlie he gets two attacks in the 
> same two rounds - seems a bad tradeoff.

It was one of my players who actually came up with the idea of
using Maneuver to get behind a guy for a blindside attack. Usually
what I think he did, and then the others started imitating him,
was wait for a Flurry so there'd be no multi-action penalties or
he'd use a Haste card to get the same effect, two actions in one
round with no penalties. But occasionally he'd do it as a multi-
action.

And you're not taking two rounds for one attack, Maneuver or Trick
counts as an attack too you know. And they show up as Approved Actions
a lot more often than Attack does so it's a way to build up your cards
as well. Though I suppose since you're not using approved actions that
doesn't mean much for your game.

>> Of course the easiest way to do it is to team up with a friend, while
>> one of you keeps the target's attention the other one can easily flank
>> him.

> Does that mean that the target has to roll a Perception check to not be 
> blindsided, or that if defending against one opponent, he cannot use his 
> passive defense turn to prevent blindsiding from another opponent?

If you can't see an attack coming at you, you can't defend as well
against it, that's all there is to it. Even if you know there's a
guy behind you, you can't react to him as well as you could if he
was where you could see him.

As for constantly turning to prevent either from blindsiding you, I
guess I'd call that an active defense. Neither one can blindside you,
but you're so busy trying to defend against both of them that you
can't attack.

>> There weren't any real rules for disarming attempts until the martial
>> arts rules in the Nippon Tech sourcebook, and there it was a discipline

> Page 77 in the Vital Blow text box of the original core rules does 
> indeed cover using Vital Blow to perform a disarm.

Well, there were rules for it but I wouldn't call them real rules. :)

[rate of fire rules]

> I guess that's simple enough.  I would make 2 changes.  The multi-tap 
> attack of a single shot weapon should increase the DV by 3, should 
> decrease the AV by at least 1-2, and should use 3x the ammo of the 

Torg takes a cinematic approach to firearms, recoil is never a problem.
Otherwise burst fire would be less accurate than single shot and full
auto certainly wouldn't have a bonus to hit.

> I know you can use more abstract methods to limit and track ammo, but it 
> seems the simplest method is to have the GM simply keep track.

The simplest method is to only bother counting ammo when it's
dramatically appropriate. :)

-- 
Kansas Jim, Torg guru (ksjim (at) sdc (dot) org)
Torg website: http://www.sdc.org/~ksjim/index.html