Rules Discussion

[Marullus]

I think you are understanding everything correctly. When unengaged, the first to act can Close to Engaged with half their movement and set the positioning. After that, there is no way to meaningfully change facing with 1 yard allowances. It is enough to move from short to medium to short to medium for optimal weapon length but not enough to gain or escape from a side facing or rear facing. Once someone has gotten behind you, you can never turn around to face them properly.

I am proposing we house rule an addition to Alter Position - an engaged person can use it pass a ST then move half-BMA (with no attack). So, a maneuverable foe can use it effectively. Somewhere better than the current Alter Position but less than Close to Engage.

[jemmus]

It seems to me that changing facing should should require an entire action phase (1/3rd of a 10-second Detailed Turn) to be done. It's an Alter Position move I think, which requires spending a Primary Action Phase and delaying an attack until the next-up phase. NPCs will have to play by the same rules. There might be great advantages for PCs along the way. Especially when many, facing a single great and mighty foe, with opportunities to advance and encircle.

[Marullus]

It seems to me that changing facing should should require an entire action phase (1/3rd of a 10-second Detailed Turn) to be done. It's an Alter Position move I think, which requires requires spending a Primary Action Phase and delaying an attack until the next-up phase.

Yes - Moving is an a whole action, no attack. We can require the ST or not. It allows moving 1/2 BMA. It only applies when engaged (when unengaged, they already get this movement with no save and allowing an attack as the Close to Engage action).

Decisions:
- does it require a ST, or is giving up the primary action cost enough?
- do we make it a Basic Action or a Primary Action? I think this is the reason that Alter Position (a primary action) doesn't include this. All actions allowing full or partial BMA are Basic so you can't use Zanshin to get more movement in your turn than your BMA. This should probably be its own Basic option. Or we allow Close to Engage when engaged with a successful save.

For reference:

1116.4 EXECUTING MOVEMENT
The various Options available to a character can limit the way in
which he moves. The basic distance that a character can cover in
straight movement during a Detailed Turn is equal to his Base
Movement Allowance in yards.
Characters normally move forward within the arc represented by
their front facing. If a character wishes to move in a direction other
than one covered by this facing or wishes to alter direction one
movement is begun, the final distance traveled is shortened to reflect
the speed and time lost in turning. For convenience, movement is
made in 1 yard increments.
Think of the Basic Movement Allowance as a number of points that
the character may expend in order to move. For each point spent, he
may move forward 1 yard. To change facing by 60 degrees, he must
expend 1 point.
A character who wishes to move sideways or backwards without
changing his facing must expend 2 points per yard traveled.
A character who has chosen the Movement, Run, or Turn and Run
Options may not deliberately place himself in Engaged status during
his movement. Characters choosing Options that allow them to
conduct an attack are assumed to move to the most advantageous
range for the weapon in use unless they have insufficient movement
allowance to reach that range.
Any of the Options that allow the character to move only 1 yard are
assumed to allow this movement in any direction, forwards,
backwards, or sideways, without penalty.

Also note that BMA will almost always allow them to turn around to face an attacker, but needs to be higher to get a flank on an opponent. (If our ninjas wish to use maneuverability as a tactic, we need to account for that with high enough speed scores.)

Okay... Bushido is super tactical, so I had to actually look at it on a grid. Everything is measured in 1 yard increments. For tactical combat, it BMA is converted into points. Moving 1 yard forward costs 1 point. Moving one yard sideways or backwards costs 2 points. Rotating 60 degrees costs 1 point. Because it is looking for 60 degree rotations, I'm using a hex grid, which has 60 degree wide faces.

...Everything only makes sense of you use miniatures and maps.
Short range is when the hexes are adjacent. Medium range is when the miniatures are one hex apart. Long range is when the miniatures are two hexes apart.

Hex grids have horizontal and vertical formations which are different, so I plotted this three different ways to look at it:
Hex #1.JPGHex #2.JPGHex #3.JPG

The important calculation is, "When doing a Close to Engage, you can move half your BMA and then attack." THIS is where almost all tactical movement happens and the amount of BMA therefore matters a lot. I did calculations based on each of the three hex arrangements. Here's results. In each case, we're starting from front facing at Medium length and assuming medium weapons (i.e. katana). For purposes of forum approximation, I propose the following list as possibilities. (Depending on the grid, you can shave off a point in some cases, perhaps being side-facing-medium-range at 3 instead of 4... but I propose this list as a standard for fairness.)

Tactical movement options

• 2 pts (3-4 BMA): You can reach a side facing, but you have to enter short range and you can't turn. Net effect is both parties attacking a foe in their side facing (-5) who is also side-facing you (+5) and at short range (-1) , net -1 to each.
• 3 pts (5-6 BMA): Attacker can reach a side facing AND rotate so you're front-facing, but have to enter short range. Net effect is both parties -1 for short range, attacker has +5 for being in oponent's side facing. Opponent has -5 to hit the attacker at his side-facing. Attacker +4, Opponent -6.
• 4 pts (7-8 BMA): Attacker can reach a side facing and rotate to be front-facing and remain at medium range. Attacker +5, Opponent -5.
• 5pts (9-10 BMA): Attacker can make it to a REAR facing and rotate, but enters short range. Attacker +9, Opponent -11.
• 6pts (11-12 BMA): Attacker can make it to a REAR facing and rotate, remaining at medium range. Attacker +10, Opponent +10.

In my game, I already house ruled that the Wakizashi is a Short weapon, not Medium. This gives much more incentive to a dai-sho style, allowing the samurai to strike with the appropriate length weapon when constantly changing positioning.

[jemmus]

How about if we include changing facing in the "etc." of the Alter Position rule? That seems reasonable to me. The character has to use a Primary Action, which means giving up a Primary Action full-BCS attack. And the RAW would require a Speed ST if trying to change facing while engaged.

1115.2 PRIMARY OPTIONS
These Options are usable on any Primary Available Action Phases, including the Base Action Phase.
Alter Position
This Option allows the character to stand up from a prone position, kneel down, lie down, etc. If he chooses this Option while Engaged, the character must make a Speed Saving Throw in order to succeed.

[ffilz]

Hmm, needing to make a ST to change facing if someone attacks you from behind seems a bit draconian. Having to use a primary action is quite a cost as it is. Changing facing while engaged should be easier than standing up while engaged.

I'm not sure how much facing has come up in our combats. I'm always wary of too much strictness on facing. Facing IS important and shouldn't be ignored, but I recall watching some folks play Melee and the faster character kept running around the slower character and attacking from behind, and somehow the slower character could never stay facing the faster character. They may have been playing it wrong, but any hint of such craziness gets me looking closely at the rules.

[Rex]

How many facings are there? Hexagon (6)? I ask as if it is 6 plus I would think a 1 facing change would be free, the cost should be greater somehow for larger facing changes.

[jemmus]

There are just three facings-- front, side and back. The rules have a diagram kind of like this one (Book 1, p.62). The 90 degrees wedge in front of the character is its front. The sides and back are also 90 degrees.
\ /
C
/ \

Facing was pretty decisive in own of our combats earlier. A bushi with decent AC was in melee with a powerful oni from its front facing. Two speedy budoka got to its back and side and got the great to-hit BCS bonuses. The oni couldn't change facing to counter that without turning its side or back to the bushi. It maybe could have delayed getting flanked/encircled by stepping back 1 yard each Primary Action phase (which is allowed in the Combat Action option, while still getting an attack roll).

[Marullus]

How about if we include changing facing in the "etc." of the Alter Position rule? That seems reasonable to me.

The main consideration for allowing it to be a Primary Action instead of a Basic Action is that characters with higher zanshin can eventually get more than one Primary Action but only ever Basic Action. (This is why all actual movement is cordoned off in Basic Actions, and I think why it isn't listed under Alter Position.)

...if the movement doesn't allow disengaging I think that's less consequential.

If we allow "changing facing" -

• Does this mean only rotating in place to face attackers at the rear or side?
• Or, does this include repositioning around an opponent to gain favorable facing on THEM, but without leaving Engaged status?

If the former, I think we just clarify that any time you only get 1 yard of movement, it allows turning around, and be done.

If the latter, then do we allow a full BMA (with the cost of your full action and having to pass a Speed ST) or do we allow only half BMA as you keep up defense (half-BMA is what is allowed for Close to Engage action, which includes making an attack).

How many facings are there? Hexagon (6)? I ask as if it is 6 plus I would think a 1 facing change would be free, the cost should be greater somehow for larger facing changes.

Yes, so it takes 3 movement to turn around and face an opponent hitting you in the back (or if we're at half BMA, that's 6 movement). The Average Man only has a BMA of 3, and it seems silly to not be able to turn around and face the person hitting you in the back, so I prefer either that "one yard allows turning up to 180 degrees" (for option #1) or "giving up a whole action and passing a speed test lets you have your full BMA" (for option #2).

We're nimble ninjas with BMA of 5+, if we're moving half-BMA we can make it to a side facing. If we're at full BMA, we can potentially get behind them. This is okay and won't result in endlessly jockeying for position because as soon as someone fails a Speed ST, the other guy can schwack him.

There are just three facings-- front, side and back. The rules have a diagram kind of like this one (Book 1, p.62). The 90 degrees wedge in front of the character is its front. The sides and back are also 90 degrees.
\ /
C
/ \

Facing was pretty decisive in own of our combats earlier. A bushi with decent AC was in melee with a powerful oni from its front facing. Two speedy budoka got to its back and side and got the great to-hit BCS bonuses. The oni couldn't change facing to counter that without turning its side or back to the bushi. It maybe could have delayed getting flanked/encircled by stepping back 1 yard each Primary Action phase (which is allowed in the Combat Action option, while still getting an attack roll).

That's incorrect - the graphic is misleading because next to it it says that one movement is 60 degrees, which is hex-based.

...that's why the hex maps in our Rulings post are really helpful - I couldn't have figured it out without them.

[jemmus]

OK, now I got it and see the issue we're deciding on. Basically, is changing facing a Movement action, or one of the any other actions allowable during a Detailed Combat Turn. And how to handle that if the char is Engaged (generally, in range of an opponent's melee weapon or not). So, to recap and summarize....

There are only three facings for a char: front, side and rear. Like on a grid of squares. But changing facing is done in increments of 60 degrees, like on a hexes map. Each change of 60 degrees costing 1 point of the char's Basic Movement Allowance.

To me, the rules soem to discuss changing facing in the context of a char's Movement before going into an engaging an opponent and Engaged themselves situation. Say the character wants run in an arcing path around an opponent, then turn and run at it from the rear. (This is what happened in the previously mentioned oni-bushi-budoka fight).

Now Engaged, in melee combat, the character wants to change facing. Say, they get a hard blow from behind and want to react by immediately reversing face. For simplicity, my vote would be to treat that as Alter Position option (Primary Action). No 60-degree BMA calculations involved. They can go 60, 120, or 180 degrees in 3.33 seconds of a 10 second Detailed Turn. The rules for requirement for an Alter Position Speed ST would apply. (I now see the Speed attribute controlling reflex responses, good instinctive and quick decision-making over just the speed of hands and feet. Compared to Deftness, which is slower, more thoughtful and artful application of skill or tactics). A slow character can't very well ignore a katana strike precisely aimed at their neck and do an about-face. But a speedy one might be able to turn and duck, so that the blow instead crashes onto the side of their wide kabuto helmet.

[Marullus]

Okay, so that means:

Alter Position
This Option allows the character to stand up from a prone position, kneel down, lie down, change facing, etc. If he chooses this Option while Engaged, the character must make a Speed Saving Throw in order to succeed.

...that's simple enough.

And that also means that you're not down with the idea of repositioning around an ally during an engagement? (Like our previous examples) For a ninja game, I like us doing that. But not doing that follows the dead-Kentaro precedent. I am fine with allowing it for your characters in my game, but it matters more here.

[jemmus]

I am proposing we house rule an addition to Alter Position - an engaged person can use it pass a ST then move half-BMA (with no attack). So, a maneuverable foe can use it effectively. Somewhere better than the current Alter Position but less than Close to Engage.

I skimmed this on my phone when you posted it on April 5 and I kind of missed the substance. Would the ST be for Speed, like for Alter Position? And would we use the rules for spending BMA to change facing? Maybe we could playtest this while ffilz is making his character.

[Marullus]

I skimmed this on my phone when you posted it on April 5 and I kind of missed the substance. Would the ST be for Speed, like for Alter Position? And would we use the rules for spending BMA to change facing? Maybe we could playtest this while ffilz is making his character.

I would propose that it be a Speed ST, like Alter Position (or as part of Alter Position). Through this conversation, I've talked myself into preferring full BMA rather than half-BMA, but that it cannot allow disengagement (that's Turn and Flee). Full BMA would allow an Average Man (BMA 3) enough movement to turn and face any attacker (like you already said above). Below-average men might have significant difficulty with that (like Taka, who only mustered a BMA of 2). For speedy Ninja-types who rely on positioning for advantage rather than straight sword-on-sword Samurai types, this is a much better system.

Since we're still using some level of approximation in PbP here, I'd suggest we almost always just use the rule of thumb we put in the Rulings already:

Tactical movement options

• 2 pts (3-4 BMA): You can reach a side facing, but you have to enter short range and you can't turn. Net effect is both parties attacking a foe in their side facing (-5) who is also side-facing you (+5) and at short range (-1) , net -1 to each.
• 3 pts (5-6 BMA): Attacker can reach a side facing AND rotate so you're front-facing, but have to enter short range. Net effect is both parties -1 for short range, attacker has +5 for being in oponent's side facing. Opponent has -5 to hit the attacker at his side-facing. Attacker +4, Opponent -6.
• 4 pts (7-8 BMA): Attacker can reach a side facing and rotate to be front-facing and remain at medium range. Attacker +5, Opponent -5.
• 5pts (9-10 BMA): Attacker can make it to a REAR facing and rotate, but enters short range. Attacker +9, Opponent -11.
• 6pts (11-12 BMA): Attacker can make it to a REAR facing and rotate, remaining at medium range. Attacker +10, Opponent +10.

...which are written for Close to Engage, but with an assumption that they're already engaged, because I misunderstood at the time.

You can playtest using the Hex map.


This is set up for a Medium weapon trying to stay a Medium range. We can also look at how long weapons and short weapons come in to play based on what players are picking for their characters.

I think it's a good option to put on the table (and to keep in mind as PCs set their Speed and thus their BMA right now) but it won't be all-encompassing because of the need to devote your Primary Action to it.

Glad to playtest out with you for any of the characters built.

[jemmus]

I think we should do some playtesting before we go live, just because I know that I don't fully get the concept. And it might be a good demo of the Bushido combat system before we start on a live ninja mission. Here's a map. It's an evil one. Many Hindrances, sections of Treacherous Ground, and elevated places for Target is Below bonuses to BCS. Info on the map:
-1 hex = 1 yard.
-The river is a typical swiftly-flowing shallow Nippon mountainside stream. Treacherous Ground to cross or fight in it.
-Brown hexes mean trunks of straight pine trees. They're Hindrances for weapon use, depending on the weapon's range. (It's kind of common sense. A katana's range is Medium (1-2 yards optimal, I believe).
-Black shapes are rocks a yard or over high. Chars on them get the Target is Lower bonus to BCS.
-Little gray rocks skipping stone through shallow parts of the stream. Almost like crossing a bridge. But as always with skipping stones, are they treacherously covered with slick moss? Crossing would need a Wit BCS, +5. On a fail, drop into water unless a Speed ST.

The opponent is a fully armored bushi. He's got a full head of uncut hair and a stringy beard. On the other side of the stream, bow in hand, 14 yards away.

[Marullus]

Fun! Let's put it in it's own thread? Do you want the fight to be between two Bushi or a Bushi and a Ninja?

[jemmus]

I'll make a Playtesting thread. Any profession you'd like is OK. Anyone who wants to join/test drive their PC is also welcome.

[Marullus]

Nice! Noted about the Treacherous Ground only affecting combat, not movement.

But it SHOULD affect movement. Maybe I am just influenced by D&D 5e, which doubles movement cost on Difficult Terrain.

Take a look and see if you can find what I am missing. There's enough things that emphasize Treacherous Ground that it has to be more than a -1 BCS hinderance.

For example, the Traitor Ground spell just creates Treacherous Ground. But it also then says it "also reduces the Saving Throws of those in danger of falling on it due to over-rapid movement." so that implies there should be a save involved, and a definition of "over-rapid."

[Rex]

It makes sense that it would lower movement or if not have a chance of falling or twisting an ankle etc.

[jemmus]

The rules do make a big deal out of Treacherous Ground. It's mentioned in 10 different sections. But the -1 to BCS in combat is kind of... too close to a negligible penalty to even worry about? It does seem that the designers intended to have Treacherous Ground affect movement, as well as combat.

If the vessel is in water that is less than calm, its deck is treated as
Treacherous Ground. More severe weather such as a storm would
have a greater negative effect on combat BCSs. A typhoon might
cause the deck to be treated as extremely Treacherous Ground and
yield a modifier of -5. This would also affect movement on such a
surface, giving the same modifier to the Saving Throw to remain
upright while moving faster than a character’s Base Movement
Allowance. Note that the Treacherous Ground of a vessel’s pitching
deck will affect missile fire. (Book 1, p. 66)

By "same modifier to the Saving Throw," it seems they mean the same -5 modifier. Then there's "Saving Throw to remain upright while moving faster than a character’s Base Movement Allowance." If we compare that to the Traitor Ground spell's "also reduces the Saving Throws of those in danger of falling on it due to over-rapid movement"-- does that also mean moving faster than the base BMA (i.e., faster than Walk (Run or Charge)?

It seems that movement other than walking on Treacherous Ground requires a Saving Throw not to fall. (And as we've seen, going prone in combat can be extremely dangerous). But what is the ST? I chose Speed, because it seems to me that Speed in Bushido is analogous to Dexterity in D&D.

[Marullus]

So, a run or charge causes a speed ST, but a walk is fine. That seems fair.

(I would reduce them to half speed, but that's definitely 5e talking)

[jemmus]

Good enough. House rule, I'd say.