| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2932
Location: Online
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| DougRed4 wrote: | | shootingwomprats wrote: | | [R&E p.79 "The character can use up any remaining actions for a reaction or have the reaction be an extra action, accepting the higher multiple action penalty for the rest of the round." |
Upon further reflection (and after talking this over with two of my players), my belief is that if they meant for it to use up every remaining action a player had, they would/should have used the word "all". In other words:
"The character can use up all remaining actions for a reaction..."
Still curious, how do the rest of you play this? |
I agree, but its really not that ambiguous. At least not for me. I can see where others could get tripped up but hey, not everyone is the freakin genius I am. Btw, don't you got a like a cab to drive or some tourists to fleece?
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10530
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DougRed4 wrote: | | Sounds like you have it right, but just used the wrong terminology. You said "actions do not need to be declared", but then (in your response) said they do need to be declared, just that you don't have to spell out what you do. I agree. But you do have to declare how many actions you are taking... |
There does seem to be some terminology confusion. "Actions do not need to be declared" may be somewhat vague, but it is not incorrect. The specific actions to be taken do not have to be declared in advance (what he meant) - Only the number of actions needs to be declared up front.
| DougRed4 wrote: | Interesting interpretation. I see how you're getting that. The question becomes: what does "use up any remaining actions for a reaction" mean? I interpret this as:
- A player can substitute (i.e., "use up") any reaction for any previously declared action, on a one-to-one ratio.
And you seem to be interpreting it as:
- All previous declared actions are "used up".
So what do the rest of you think? How have you typically played this? |
I completely agree with you, Doug. I admit I am surprised to find there even are multiple debatable interpretations, but I guess the wording and example could be more clear. I've played many other games, and been through all the edition variations of this game (1e, Rules Upgrade, Rules Companion, 2e), and I've always thought R&E just perfected it. It seems straightforward to me.
Your party is facing off against a party of goons. When it comes to your turn, you declare the number of actions you are going to take that round for immediate MAP calculation (-1D for every action over 1).
Let's say you declare three actions, so these will be Declared Action #1, #2 and #3. Your MAP is -2D. You declare your first Action #1 to shoot at the lead goon, and you do so at -2D.
Before it comes to your #2 declared action, one of the goons shoots at you. You have two declared actions remaining that round. You want to dodge, so you have to decide if this uses one of the two remaining declared actions, or if this dodge is an extra action.
If you choose to use one of the two remaining declared actions to dodge, then you do so at your original MAP and you later still have one more declared action. If you choose to have the dodge be an extra action (a fourth action total), then that increases your MAP by an extra die for that reaction and your remaining two declared actions. (Of course, that dodge roll then applies to any other attacks that round.) Then you still later get your second and third declared actions, with the updated MAP.
"any remaining actions" does not mean "all remaining actions". The plurality may be confusing things, but it is being used correctly. If they meant all, it would be so easy to just say that, but they didn't. Here "any remaining actions" means 'any of your remaining declared actions, if any'. Actually, 'using up' a remaining declared action means you are technically using the last of your declared actions, because declared actions occur in order of first declared, second declared, etc. until 'used up' (You never skip action slots by doing nothing then do actions later in the round). But if in my example you want to think of it as using your #2 declared action early and then your #3 declared action is bumped up to the #2 slot, you get the same end result.
It doesn't help that in the example on p.79, Greg only had one declared action left and chose his dodge to be an extra action, thus not demonstrating the meaning of the rule's wording.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10530
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | That's why i find it a glitch. Cause you can take any # of reactions, after the fact, and only penalize them (and any other actions you have from then on). Unlike regular actions which by the rules of multiple action penalties, gets ALL actions penalized. |
I do not find a "glitch" in the rule of choosing the dodge to be an extra action that only effects that reaction and the remaining declared actions without retroactively effecting an action that already happened before you dodge that round. From the start of the round to finish, it's all about chronological sequence and the difference between declared actions and undeclared reactions.
You may end up doing more actions than you declare (if you end up adding a reaction as an extra action), or even less actions than you declare (say if you get knocked unconscious). If you think it is unfair that your first action isn't somehow retroactively affected when someone later attacks you, then by the same logic it would be unfair for you to declare three actions, have a MAP of -2D for everything, but then get incapacitated before completing a third action. Shouldn't the first action have had a better chance since you only attacked once and unsuccessfully dodged before getting injured? I don't think so, even though you never got to do three things but you accounted for it by the MAP for the first two.
When you are declaring a number of actions (say before anyone attacks you in the round), your character is setting his mind to divide his attention between these multiple things in one round. That's as good a reason as any to rationalize it. But the bottom line is, you have to have a specific number of declared actions to calculate MAP for the first action. It will later be justified if you end up doing the additional declared actions that round. The option of having a reaction be an extra action makes sense because it is a different kind of action. It's a reaction. You didn't originally plan on it or account for it, but now someone's shooting at you. The reason it only affects actions that haven't happened yet is because it shouldn't affect something that already happened. And if you don't want it to affect subsequent declared actions, then you have the option to "use up" a declared action to preserve the original MAP. So you are either being penalized further from the point you are first attacked, or it takes the place of of your last declared actions. It works for me, and I have never had any players take issue with the rules since R&E came out.
If anyone still thinks it is 'glitchy' to be able to later dodge without it retroactively affecting earlier actions (and conversely suffering a certain MAP up front when not all actions may end up being completed), then here are some optional alternative ways to handle it...
- One way would be to require all characters to account for dodge up front, whether they end up getting attacked or not, so that way their initial action is penalized just in case they need it. So everyone has to suffer an extra MAP die to account for dodge, and everyone rolls dodge whether they are attacked or not. Not a reaction, but rather a mandatory action. Or just let everyone roll a mandatory dodge but this action isn't figured into the MAP calculation, so the rest of the actions determine the MAP which then affects the dodge the same as the other actions. But I wouldn't like either of these.
- Another way would be to have MAPs only affect subsequent actions based on their action number for that character in that round. So your first action in every round would be at full skill value, your second action would be at -1D, and so on. When you use a reaction, it just counts as your next action and has the next higher MAP. But in this system it would be pointless to declare a number of actions because the first action has no MAP, but then people could just keep doing actions until they ran out of dice. Unless you had to declare all your specific actions up front. Either way, I just think that wouldn't work well.
Actions occur in the round as they are rolled, and that includes both actions taken by your PC and actions made against your PC. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with RAW where an undeclared reaction does not retroactively affect declared actions that already occurred before the character was first attacked in the round. But, to each his own.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
A third way would be to have an additional penalty assessed on top of the -1d MAP for reactive actions.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2295
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | I agree, but its really not that ambiguous. At least not for me. I can see where others could get tripped up but hey, not everyone is the freakin genius I am. Btw, don't you got a like a cab to drive or some tourists to fleece? |
I'll assume you are attempting to insult me with that comment. I'd just like to remind you that you've been an excellent ambassador for SW D6, and I'd hate to see you damage that just because you got frustrated during a discussion. No need to get personal or to sink down to name calling (or insulting other people's occupations). You are correct, though, that it's not that ambiguous (as Whill pointed out).
| Whill wrote: | | I completely agree with you, Doug. I admit I am surprised to find there even are multiple debatable interpretations, but I guess the wording and example could be more clear. I've played many other games, and been through all the edition variations of this game (1e, Rules Upgrade, Rules Companion, 2e), and I've always thought R&E just perfected it. It seems straightforward to me. |
I think the rules are pretty clear, too, but also agree that the example could have been done better.
| Whill wrote: | | You may end up doing more actions than you declare (if you end up adding a reaction as an extra action), or even less actions than you declare (say if you get knocked unconscious). If you think it is unfair that your first action isn't somehow retroactively affected when someone later attacks you, then by the same logic it would be unfair for you to declare three actions, have a MAP of -2D for everything, but then get incapacitated before completing a third action. Shouldn't the first action have had a better chance since you only attacked once and unsuccessfully dodged before getting injured? I don't think so, even though you never got to do three things but you accounted for it by the MAP for the first two. |
That's a good point (and a perspective I'd never considered before). I still do think it's not as elegant as the rest of the rules, and can be a bit of a hang-up for players. I also like our solution, which has worked well for us. What we do is simply try not to 'take advantage' of a free (of any MAP) first action, if that character knows he'll more likely than not end up using Dodge that round. No penalty if he doesn't; it's just a way of trying not to 'game' the system. I am going to consider playing it straight as per the RAW, though, and see how that plays (based on the logic you've shown above).
| garhkal wrote: | | A third way would be to have an additional penalty assessed on top of the -1d MAP for reactive actions. |
When my son runs D6, that's what he does. Sort of "if you got away with not paying for a MAP early in the turn, you'll pay an extra -1D later in the round to make up for it" kind of approach.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2932
Location: Online
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DougRed4 wrote: | | shootingwomprats wrote: | | I agree, but its really not that ambiguous. At least not for me. I can see where others could get tripped up but hey, not everyone is the freakin genius I am. Btw, don't you got a like a cab to drive or some tourists to fleece? |
I'll assume you are attempting to insult me with that comment. I'd just like to remind you that you've been an excellent ambassador for SW D6, and I'd hate to see you damage that just because you got frustrated during a discussion. No need to get personal or to sink down to name calling (or insulting other people's occupations). You are correct, though, that it's not that ambiguous (as Whill pointed out). |
Uh ... it was a joke and not meant as a slight towards anyone. Why on Earth would I purposefully berate or antagonize someone? There have been plenty of times that I don't agree with people. I do not resort to getting into arguments over ... a game. In hindsight that was perhaps a joke that should have been used with voice chat and not a text only forum. If you were offended I do apologize. I thought the line preceding the final sentence would have set the tone. Seriously, do you think I am so crass and self-absorbed to refer to myself as being "freakin' brilliant" in anyway but a joking manner?
Now my final say on the mechanic ruling: its however you want to run it. There is no real right or wrong way. Its a game. Discussion is fine, but no one should be made to feel like the loser. We are all adults and we can discuss things in a respectful manner. I don't think anyone has strayed from that philosophy and beyond a single, easily corrected, misunderstanding I think we can keep on topic and have a great time.
Edit:
Now I see what happened. The taxi driver thing was towards my buddy Raven Redstar who happens to be a taxi driver. I made the mistake of superimposing DougRed4 for Raven Redstar. Hopefully that now makes sense to people.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter
Last edited by shootingwomprats on Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:36 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DougRed4 wrote: |
| garhkal wrote: | | A third way would be to have an additional penalty assessed on top of the -1d MAP for reactive actions. |
When my son runs D6, that's what he does. Sort of "if you got away with not paying for a MAP early in the turn, you'll pay an extra -1D later in the round to make up for it" kind of approach. |
That makes me wonder who else does that?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cynanbloodbane
Commander
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 410
Location: Cleveland, Go Tribe!
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | DougRed4 wrote: |
| garhkal wrote: | | A third way would be to have an additional penalty assessed on top of the -1d MAP for reactive actions. |
When my son runs D6, that's what he does. Sort of "if you got away with not paying for a MAP early in the turn, you'll pay an extra -1D later in the round to make up for it" kind of approach. |
That makes me wonder who else does that? |
A fourth way would be to tack an additional MAP onto the first action next round as a Reaction Penalty.
I've never used it in SW D6, but I have in a couple of other RPGs.
_________________
"Yes because killing the guy you always planned on usurping and killing anyways in order to save your own kid, totally atones for murdering a roomful of innocent trusting children." The Brain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cynanbloodbane wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | DougRed4 wrote: |
| garhkal wrote: | | A third way would be to have an additional penalty assessed on top of the -1d MAP for reactive actions. |
When my son runs D6, that's what he does. Sort of "if you got away with not paying for a MAP early in the turn, you'll pay an extra -1D later in the round to make up for it" kind of approach. |
That makes me wonder who else does that? |
A fourth way would be to tack an additional MAP onto the first action next round as a Reaction Penalty.
I've never used it in SW D6, but I have in a couple of other RPGs. |
That might work.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2295
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | DougRed4 wrote: | | shootingwomprats wrote: | | I agree, but its really not that ambiguous. At least not for me. I can see where others could get tripped up but hey, not everyone is the freakin genius I am. Btw, don't you got a like a cab to drive or some tourists to fleece? |
I'll assume you are attempting to insult me with that comment. I'd just like to remind you that you've been an excellent ambassador for SW D6, and I'd hate to see you damage that just because you got frustrated during a discussion. No need to get personal or to sink down to name calling (or insulting other people's occupations). You are correct, though, that it's not that ambiguous (as Whill pointed out). |
Uh ... it was a joke and not meant as a slight towards anyone. Why on Earth would I purposefully berate or antagonize someone? There have been plenty of times that I don't agree with people. I do not resort to getting into arguments over ... a game. In hindsight that was perhaps a joke that should have been used with voice chat and not a text only forum. If you were offended I do apologize. I thought the line preceding the final sentence would have set the tone. Seriously, do you think I am so crass and self-absorbed to refer to myself as being "freakin' brilliant" in anyway but a joking manner?
Now my final say on the mechanic ruling: its however you want to run it. There is no real right or wrong way. Its a game. Discussion is fine, but no one should be made to feel like the loser. We are all adults and we can discuss things in a respectful manner. I don't think anyone has strayed from that philosophy and beyond a single, easily corrected, misunderstanding I think we can keep on topic and have a great time.
Edit:
Now I see what happened. The taxi driver thing was towards my buddy Raven Redstar who happens to be a taxi driver. I made the mistake of superimposing DougRed4 for Raven Redstar. Hopefully that now makes sense to people. |
No worries, sir. No harm, no foul (and yes, I knew the genius part was a joke). 
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
