[Torg] Torg Initiative & Torg Combat Options

[Benn Grant]

>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.

A "person that makes themselves into a target" sounds an awful like "a person that does X".  Does this mean that by your reckoning that a Andy's Location attack can be "I attack the person named Brad that attacks Gary" - meaning that if Brad does attack Gary, he "provokes" an interruptive attack from Andy first?

>
>> 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.

Then if you do not win the initiative, that's a problem.  Even if your action is ten times faster than your opponent's.

>
>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.

Can you remind where in the original Torg Rulebook the rules about Holding your Action are, I am having trouble finding them.  Or are the rules on Location and Opportunity Attacks all the book has to say about held actions?

>> 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.

This is kind of key.  The way I figure it, let's say that Brad and Andy have the same Dex and Brad wins the initiative simply because he got lucky - either the flipped card has him going first or he rolled 1 higher on his die roll.

If the round starts of with no held actions, no location or opportunity attacks declared last turn, and starts out with Andy pointing a gun right at Brad, while Brad's gun is holstered, how does it make sense for Brad to go first?  In other words, am I the only one being bothered that the winner of the initiative always goes first, regardless of the situation, circumstances, or comparative speed of the actions each has chosen?

The way I understand it, now more than ever, is that no matter how short the action is that one guy wants to take, and how long the action the other guy wants to take, the second guy will always complete his action if he merely wins initiative, even by just a little.

On thought I had for a house rule to "fix" this problem is to assign actions a speed rating - either -6, -3, 0, +3, or +6.

For example:

+6 to initiative if your action is as fast as: thinking a thought, blinking, pulling a trigger or pressing a button you are already primed to do, etc.

+3 to initiative if your action is as fast as:  Doing one simple math operation like adding two numbers, aiming and firing a gun with a -3 AV penalty, pressing a button near you, any other simple action

+0 to initiative if your action is as fast as:  Doing a simple math process involving several steps like adding a large group of numbers, a standard attack with a standard weapon, a standard action or skill roll.

-3 to initiative if your action is as fast as:  Doing complex math like finding an average, drawing and firing your weapon, swinging a large, cumbersome, and/or heavy weapon like a great axe or a broadsword.

-6 to initiative if your action is as fast as:  Doing sophisticated math like solving an equation; picking up a disassembled weapon, assembling it (assuming you know how) and firing; closing to melee then executing a melee attack

Under these idea, all parties declare their actions, then roll for initiative, applying the bonus recommended by the GM.  Higher initiative goes first.

It's just an off the top of my head idea.  Any other ideas for "fixing" this problem?


>>> 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.

Well, that's something.  I still think I am more in favor of the -3/+2 approach.

>
>[blindside]
>

I am going to pass on the blindside rules for now, too much else going on in here.

>
>[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 was just thinking that multitap shooting of a single shot weapon should have a somewhat higher disadvantage tactically speaking the merely the extra loss of ammo - the ability to hit should suffer *some* penalty, and losing 1 or 2 due to extra recoil seems a fair trade, pre-testing.

>
>> 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. :)

True - but sometime it becomes dramatically appropriate *because* you were counting rounds before, when it wasn't.  Not saying make a big deal about it, I would just let the player know when he swaps clips and when he is out.  The drama will take care of itself, I bet. ;)

-Benn