Simultaneous attack

[Temporalmage]

As anyone thats been in a fight knows, hitting someone at the same time as your being hit is extreamly hard to do....on purpose. But does happen surprisingly often totally on accident. LOL

[RoadWarriorFWaNK]

We've changed simultaneous attacks in our game so that a person has to spend their turn "anticipating" an attack in order to simultaneous. SOrt of like when two fighters spend their time circling each other, waiting for the other to make the first move. If it comes back around to your turn and you didn't use the simultaneous attack, too bad, be more proactive.

The reason we did this is way back we were playing a New West style gunfight. Player A won initiative, and NPC A did a simultaneous attack. According to the rules, there was no reason he couldn't. They shot each other, even though Player A had an enormous initiative roll (something like a 30; quick-flex gunslinger with a high roll), and the NPC had a low one. This seemed silly and unfair, so we changed it, and it works out pretty well.

[Kryzbyn]

I voted no, because every time i've ever used a simul attack it's been in response to a scenario described by the GM.

GM: The dead boy raises his rifle and looks like he's gonna take a shot at you...what do you do?
Me: Screw dodging, I'll simul his arse.

Make sense?



Course I was in a glitter boy...

[Dead Boy]

Because of the precise timing involved, I agree with the majority thus far and say it needs to be called before the dice roll. Otherwise it's just too unfair.

Also in the grander scheme of things, I also still contend the Simultaneous Attacks is for melee combat only and can't be done in ranged combat. Really, why have any character with auto-dodge capabilities if your opponent can just Simo you all day long and negate any chance of your dodge ever working? Obviously, if Simo applied to ranged attacks, you wouldn't bother because the ability would never be of any help.

[Dog_O_War]

The question presented is bunk; it needs more "legalese". What you're saying is that a person must declare that they have to say simoltaineous attack before even the attacker knows what he's doing.

As it stands the order of operation in-game should go as follows; attacker declares he's attacking target X with weapon Y; defender then states dodge, parry, or simoltaineous attack. Effects are then resolved.


Otherwise if we were declaring before, it would be;
Player "simoltaineous attack!"

GM "he's pulling out a canteen and splashing water on his buddy (who's on fire); he's not even attacking you, goober".


EDIT: to the second question. I think they should get rid of simoltaineous attack. why? A Juicer attacks a guy that just gained the super power if invunerability and supernatural strength, but has no hand to hand skill. But due to simoltaineous attack, he can shrug off any hit the juicer throws, and gets that many extra attacks in the round which the Juicer cannot dodge. Even better, Two 15th leve Juicers with HtH assassin and boxing make 11 attacks against each other, doubled to 22 because Juicers hit other Juicers faster than they hit normal people.

[Killer Cyborg]

PC X wins initiative, PC Y says he wants to do a simultaneous attack.......

Should the GM let PC Y know what PC X is going to do?? Considering he wants to attack at the same time.

For instance normally if PC X is going to attack PC Y, the GM will tell PC Y, "PC X is aiming his gun at you, what do you want to do?"............then PC Y can decide to dodge, parry, ect.

So should somebody who is going to do a simulatneous attack have the privilege of knowing what the person attacking them is going to do???

It works the same way as it does with Dodge or any defensive move.
RUE, p. 347
"Instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle, a character can choose to do a simultaneous attack. In this case the character does not defend... and simply attacks in response."

You can't respond to something that hasn't happened (or isn't happening).

In my opinion I don't think they should know, b/c otherwise they truly aren't doing a simulataneous attack but rather waiting to do a defensive maneuver if any(dodge, parrry, roll ect).........

You have to do the same thing with a defensive maneuver.
You can't wait for the bullet to come at you before you start moving; you have to start getting the hell out of the way before the actual attack is made.
Same with a simo-attack. You see them starting to bring their gun to bear on you, you try to shoot them, the shots go off more or less at the same time.

Second question not part of the poll
Do you think simulataneous attack should be available only in HtH?

No.

I think it would only make sense in HtH combat b/c ranged combat is just too fast with energy blasts and rounds hitting basically instantaneously,

That's why you start attacking at the same time they start attacking.
Your beam might not hit them at the same nano-second that their beam hits you, but if that's what you're looking for then you're taking "simultaneous" WAY too literally.
And the same applies to melee attacks; you're not going to stab each other at the exact same nano-second either. Just roughly at the same time, within the same "attack" phase.

and if it's available to ranged combat then doesn't that kind of take the point of initiative away??

1. How so more in ranged combat than in melee?
2. In one-on-one combat, where all the people are doing is attacking each other, then it kind of does... but in one-on-one combat, where all the people are doing is attacking each other, init doesn't matter a heck of a lot to begin with.
In combat with multiple combatants, it doesn't negate init for everybody, just for the two people involved in the simo-attack. Everybody else performs init as normal.

[glitterboy2098]

i've dropped simo attacks entirely.

while combat is an "i go-you go" round robin in mechnics, each players action is supposed to be simultanous with each other, give or take. (obviously it's not perfectly simultanious given the differing 3 of attacks involved..)

if playerA shoots at NPC1, NPC1 has the option of parrying or dodging. which uses up the next attack of NPC1 in the sequence. if NPC1 does not dodge or parry, he can shoot back, and the shots are assumed to have occured at roughly the same time. an autododge is the ability to dodge while doing other things. so if NPC1 autododges the shot, he can still shoot back when his turn comes round. representing say, twisting out of the way of the bullet while firing his gun.

(i also limit autododge to a # equal to the characters # of attacks. makes them have to eventually either take the hits or use normal dodges. infinite autododge belongs with Neo in the Matrix, not in my games.)


.....did i explain that in a way people would understand?
basically, each turn of combat (one action per participant) occurs at roughly the same time (high init just gets that extra half second jump on the rest), so if you choose to normal dodge or parry, you can't attack that turn. you'd have to wait for your next action to roll round.

this has the side effect of limiting regular dodge parry to just against one attack per turn. so two people shooting one target have a better chance of actually doing damage to it, since it can only dodge/parry one attack per turn. but autododge can be used multiple times, but the limited # of uses per melee can quickly leave you high and dry.

encourages players to actually seek shelter in firefights and employ tactics.

[Zer0 Kay]

I think the defender should see what the attacker is doing before it is called not as far as a roll but something like. Ok Dave the CS guy raises his rifle...
I do a simultanious attack!

If you've waited for the entire sentence to get out it is too late for you to get that sucker punch in there.
CS guy raises his rifle and fires with a called shot to your foot.
I do a simultanious attack!

It has to be declared before the actual attack is made but shouldn't be declared before you even know the other person is attacking.

[glitterboy2098]

if playerA shoots at NPC1, NPC1 has the option of parrying or dodging. which uses up the next attack of NPC1 in the sequence.

Ouch. You got rid of autoparry?

doh...i keep forgetting. parry's rarely get used in my games, i tend to forget they don't cost anything...

[Killer Cyborg]

KC, I completely agree with your response as its stated that way per the rules

Maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with simo attack if they removed the fact that the person attacking and is going to have a simo attack performed on them can't dodge or do a defensive move of thier own........per canon of course.........it just doesn't make sense that the person that wins initiative performs the first move, the second person gets to react but doesn't allow the first persont to react respectfully to his action........just really disregards initiative and that bothers me.

Well, the attacker is too busy attacking to dodge.
But that could be changed with a house rule: just give the attacker an option to dodge instead of attacking if he is simo-attacked. Of course, this would mean that you spend your attack trying to dodge getting shot by the guy you were going to shoot, so I don't know how much it would help.
Except in situations where you have your pistol pointed at somebody, ready to fire, then notice a weapon that you didn't know they had (concealed missile launchers or something), and decide that it's not worth it.

The other house rule that makes some sense would be to roll to see who's shot gets off first (as somebody mentioned already). This still wouldn't make much difference a lot of the time, because getting shot second is still getting shot, BUT it would count for a lot if you manage to kill them with your shot, or to disrupt their attack (via magic net or something).
Hm.
Come to think of it, this might well be a mage-killing rule, though, because it could allow for somebody to effectively interrupt a single-action spell.

Either way, I believe the game doesn't lose anything if you get rid of simo attack, b/c I believe people use simo attack in order to "bend" the rules.........like someone mentioned about the Juicer......

I don't know what the hell he was talking about there.

[Dead Boy]

Do you think simulataneous attack should be available only in HtH?

No.

So basically you're saying Auto-Dodge will only work once at best and never again, and possibly not even the first time if the dodge attempt fails. Because if Simo Attacks are allowed in ranged combat that's exactly what will happen.

GM: The CS Commando is shooting his pulse laser at you and *roll* scores a hit.
Player: Then I'm shooting back... Rolled a 13. Nailed him.
GM: *roll* Nope, he got a 14 on his Auto-Dodge. The Commando manged to weave out of the way just in time.
Player: Oh, in that case every time he shoots at me, consider me Simo'ing his ass now and forever. That will put an end to that auto-dodging nonsense.

Allowing Simos in ranged combat completely neutralizes the Auto-Dodge ability with no defense whatsoever, which is exactly why I don't believe for a second that ever intended to be usable beyond melee combat. It's too unbalancing and screws over too many OCCs.

And before you say it, I already know what you're thinking. You were about to point out that even in melee combat there is no defense against a Simo, so it's no more unbalancing than it was before. That is categorically FALSE. In melee combat there is a defense against the Simultaneous Attack, that being Paired Weapons. Those with the Paired Weapons ability can attack and parry at the same time, meaning that they can use their free weapon or shield to stop a Simo dead in its tracks, (unless the Simo is used in conjunction with Paired Weapons as well and both weapons are being offensive used so one will get in, of course). In ranged combat there is no equivalent defensive measure, and thus allowing ranged simos is completely unbalancing to the game.

[Killer Cyborg]

Do you think simulataneous attack should be available only in HtH?

No.

So basically you're saying Auto-Dodge will only work once at best and never again, and possibly not even the first time if the dodge attempt fails. Because if Simo Attacks are allowed in ranged combat that's exactly what will happen.

Only in one-on-one combat.

GM: The CS Commando is shooting his pulse laser at you and *roll* scores a hit.
Player: Then I'm shooting back... Rolled a 13. Nailed him.
GM: *roll* Nope, he got a 14 on his Auto-Dodge. The Commando manged to weave out of the way just in time.
Player: Oh, in that case every time he shoots at me, consider me Simo'ing his ass now and forever. That will put an end to that auto-dodging nonsense.

Damn skippy.
I'm not sure where people got the idea that auto-dodge was the end-all, be-all of combat. It's a good bonus at times, but it doesn't make you an unstoppable god.
If you want to stop moving long enough to shoot somebody, then you have to stop moving long enough to get shot.

Allowing Simos in ranged combat completely neutralizes the Auto-Dodge ability with no defense whatsoever, which is exactly why I don't believe for a second that ever intended to be usable beyond melee combat. It's too unbalancing and screws over too many OCCs.

Not at all.
The scenario you posted is right for one-on-one combat, but where auto-dodge helps out most is when you're facing multiple foes, because the only person who can simo-attack you is the guy you're shooting at. You can still auto-dodge everybody else.
This helps even the odds a bit when you're outnumbered.

For that matter, you can only be simo-attacked when you attack somebody.
Juicers and such always have an advantage when they're just running away or otherwise making maneuvers that don't include actually attacking anybody (at least, that don't include attacking anybody who can shoot back).

And before you say it, I already know what you're thinking. You were about to point out that even in melee combat there is no defense against a Simo, so it's no more unbalancing than it was before. That is categorically FALSE. In melee combat there is a defense against the Simultaneous Attack, that being Paired Weapons. Those with the Paired Weapons ability can attack and parry at the same time, meaning that they can use their free weapon or shield to stop a Simo dead in its tracks, (unless the Simo is used in conjunction with Paired Weapons as well and both weapons are being offensive used so one will get in, of course). In ranged combat there is no equivalent defensive measure, and thus allowing ranged simos is completely unbalancing to the game.

Nah, I wasn't thinking that at all.

But I think it's funny that you say that allowing simo attacks "is completely unbalancing to the game," because I think it's the other way around; it helps balance the game by keeping Auto-Dodge from ruling the battlefield.

In any case, if you don't like it, write Kev a letter.

[ApocalypseZero]

EDIT: to the second question. I think they should get rid of simoltaineous attack. why? A Juicer attacks a guy that just gained the super power if invunerability and supernatural strength, but has no hand to hand skill. But due to simoltaineous attack, he can shrug off any hit the juicer throws, and gets that many extra attacks in the round which the Juicer cannot dodge. Even better, Two 15th leve Juicers with HtH assassin and boxing make 11 attacks against each other, doubled to 22 because Juicers hit other Juicers faster than they hit normal people.

I just want to point out. Simo-Attack REPLACES one's normal attack for the turn. Therefore, a Juicer with 11 Attacks can only makes 11 Attacks either as normal or using Simo-Attack. You don't get 11 Normal Attacks and 11 Simo-Attacks.

Simo-Attack isn't a problem as long as you don't have dumbasses using it every action. If so, start hitting them in other places to make them stop. Okay, so Player A keeps Simo-Attacking relying on his armor to keep him protected. Start jacking up the price of Armor Repair, Limit New Armors available, and watch for scavenging armor. Also, just like the Called Heat Shots debacle, you can have the NPC's do Simo-Attacks to them. Amazing how reciprocal the world of RIFTS is.

"There's always a bigger fish."-Qui-Gon Jinn

[ApocalypseZero]

In melee combat there is a defense against the Simultaneous Attack, that being Paired Weapons. Those with the Paired Weapons ability can attack and parry at the same time, meaning that they can use their free weapon or shield to stop a Simo dead in its tracks, (unless the Simo is used in conjunction with Paired Weapons as well and both weapons are being offensive used so one will get in, of course). In ranged combat there is no equivalent defensive measure, and thus allowing ranged simos is completely unbalancing to the game.

I just wanted to point out that a Dual Strike with Paired Weapons is considered one attack (you only roll once for the attack) which means that it's possible for a Dual Strike with Paired Weapons with a Single Parry and deliver a responsive Strike with your own Paired Weapons.

[Dog_O_War]

EDIT: to the second question. I think they should get rid of simoltaineous attack. why? A Juicer attacks a guy that just gained the super power if invunerability and supernatural strength, but has no hand to hand skill. But due to simoltaineous attack, he can shrug off any hit the juicer throws, and gets that many extra attacks in the round which the Juicer cannot dodge. Even better, Two 15th leve Juicers with HtH assassin and boxing make 11 attacks against each other, doubled to 22 because Juicers hit other Juicers faster than they hit normal people.

I just want to point out. Simo-Attack REPLACES one's normal attack for the turn. Therefore, a Juicer with 11 Attacks can only makes 11 Attacks either as normal or using Simo-Attack. You don't get 11 Normal Attacks and 11 Simo-Attacks.

Simo-Attack isn't a problem as long as you don't have dumbasses using it every action. If so, start hitting them in other places to make them stop. Okay, so Player A keeps Simo-Attacking relying on his armor to keep him protected. Start jacking up the price of Armor Repair, Limit New Armors available, and watch for scavenging armor. Also, just like the Called Heat Shots debacle, you can have the NPC's do Simo-Attacks to them. Amazing how reciprocal the world of RIFTS is.

"There's always a bigger fish."-Qui-Gon Jinn

Page reference please.

[ApocalypseZero]

Simoultaneous Attack: Instead of DEFENDING with a PARRY, DODGE, or ENTANGLE, a character can choose to do a Simoultaneous Attack. In this case, the character does not defend and simply attacks in response. The advantage of a Simoutaneous Attack is that neither opponent can Parry, Dodge, or Entangle. In all probability, both will take damage.

Let's see here, I'm going to break this down for everyone, and even though SOME PEOPLE will still ***** because it's not spelled out for them, they will just need to move past there "I must have everything in writing" stance and inject a little logic into their thinking (something that seems to be lacking around here).

First, Simoultaneous Attack is IN RESPONSE.
It REPLACES the option of PARRY, DODGE, or ENTANGLE (which both DODGE and ENTANGLE used an attack).
It's called SIMOULTANEOUS ATTACK. Hmm...keyword ATTACK! (Is there anyplace in the system that allows for free attacks?)

Here's a little piece of advice that can go a long way to solving 99.9% of the problems people come here crying about.......

READ THE GOD DAMN BOOK!

Once you do that, study it. Go back over what seems to 'Not make sense' and try to see A.) What the Author is trying to accomplish, B.) What is being done, and C.) What other rules/etc. exist already the can be used as a comparison to the problem. Throw in a dash of logic. Mix Thoroughly, and enjoy.

Or barring this, come to a Con that I am at. I will allow any and all those willing to learn the system to play FOR FREE to see how things are suppose to be done.

It's times like these when I realized why I left these boards.

[Kryzbyn]

Running out of MDC will also stop simultaneous attacks...
You choose to simul...you let yurself get hit, you dont doge, you dont move, you say "I'm accepting this attack to lay one on my enemy".
That's the draw back. You're taking a risk that you're opponant has no back up or has less MDC than you.
Also you can't simul an attack you cant see coming.
Sniper/Spec Ops ftw.

[Natasha]

READ THE GOD DAMN BOOK!

Once you do that, study it. Go back over what seems to 'Not make sense' and try to see A.) What the Author is trying to accomplish, B.) What is being done, and C.) What other rules/etc. exist already the can be used as a comparison to the problem. Throw in a dash of logic. Mix Thoroughly, and enjoy.

It's not that I don't understand what the Author is trying to accomplish, what is being done, and what other rules already exist. It's exactly what the Author is trying to accomplish, what is being done, and what other rules exist that doesn't make sense. Initiative means a hell of a lot less if the defender gets to call anything after the attack is rolled.

Or barring this, come to a Con that I am at. I will allow any and all those willing to learn the system to play FOR FREE to see how things are suppose to be done.

It's times like these when I realized why I left these boards.

Nah, not with your attitude.

[ApocalypseZero]

READ THE GOD DAMN BOOK!

Once you do that, study it. Go back over what seems to 'Not make sense' and try to see A.) What the Author is trying to accomplish, B.) What is being done, and C.) What other rules/etc. exist already the can be used as a comparison to the problem. Throw in a dash of logic. Mix Thoroughly, and enjoy.

It's not that I don't understand what the Author is trying to accomplish, what is being done, and what other rules already exist. It's exactly what the Author is trying to accomplish, what is being done, and what other rules exist that doesn't make sense. Initiative means a hell of a lot less if the defender gets to call anything after the attack is rolled.

Here's the kicker.........Everything which deals with Defending is declared AFTER the attacker declares their attack.

Or barring this, come to a Con that I am at. I will allow any and all those willing to learn the system to play FOR FREE to see how things are suppose to be done.

It's times like these when I realized why I left these boards.

Nah, not with your attitude.

The attitude is a necessity, much like guns or an army in a war.

[Natasha]

READ THE GOD DAMN BOOK!

Once you do that, study it. Go back over what seems to 'Not make sense' and try to see A.) What the Author is trying to accomplish, B.) What is being done, and C.) What other rules/etc. exist already the can be used as a comparison to the problem. Throw in a dash of logic. Mix Thoroughly, and enjoy.

It's not that I don't understand what the Author is trying to accomplish, what is being done, and what other rules already exist. It's exactly what the Author is trying to accomplish, what is being done, and what other rules exist that doesn't make sense. Initiative means a hell of a lot less if the defender gets to call anything after the attack is rolled.

Here's the kicker.........Everything which deals with Defending is declared AFTER the attacker declares their attack.

Not just after the declaration, but after the roll.

The rules go:
- Attacker rolls to strike.
- Defender rolls to defend.

Whether the defender is going to parry, dodge, simultaneous attack, or whatever should be declared at the same time the attacker declares attack.

Initiative, getting to be the first to attack, means even less otherwise.

Or barring this, come to a Con that I am at. I will allow any and all those willing to learn the system to play FOR FREE to see how things are suppose to be done.

It's times like these when I realized why I left these boards.

Nah, not with your attitude.

The attitude is a necessity, much like guns or an army in a war.

This isn't war and being abrasive isn't necessary. Or even helpful. Unless maybe you're standing across from me punching me in the face because you think I'm an idiot; but even then you're just making yourself feel better and making it impossible for me to care what you think.

[Dog_O_War]

Simoultaneous Attack: Instead of DEFENDING with a PARRY, DODGE, or ENTANGLE, a character can choose to do a Simoultaneous Attack. In this case, the character does not defend and simply attacks in response. The advantage of a Simoutaneous Attack is that neither opponent can Parry, Dodge, or Entangle. In all probability, both will take damage.

Let's see here, I'm going to break this down for everyone, and even though SOME PEOPLE will still ***** because it's not spelled out for them, they will just need to move past there "I must have everything in writing" stance and inject a little logic into their thinking (something that seems to be lacking around here).

First, Simoultaneous Attack is IN RESPONSE.
It REPLACES the option of PARRY, DODGE, or ENTANGLE (which both DODGE and ENTANGLE used an attack).
It's called SIMOULTANEOUS ATTACK. Hmm...keyword ATTACK! (Is there anyplace in the system that allows for free attacks?)

Here's a little piece of advice that can go a long way to solving 99.9% of the problems people come here crying about.......

READ THE GOD DAMN BOOK!

Once you do that, study it. Go back over what seems to 'Not make sense' and try to see A.) What the Author is trying to accomplish, B.) What is being done, and C.) What other rules/etc. exist already the can be used as a comparison to the problem. Throw in a dash of logic. Mix Thoroughly, and enjoy.

Or barring this, come to a Con that I am at. I will allow any and all those willing to learn the system to play FOR FREE to see how things are suppose to be done.

It's times like these when I realized why I left these boards.

Wow, not only are you incridibly easy to rile (and now a target for me to annoy - I love to cheese people such as yourself off), but you've posted a conundrum; what if I choose to burst on an area (an attack) which will hit multiple opponents? Do they in turn get simoltaineous attacks against me? do their attacks (that are in response to my attack) happen at the same time (simoltaineous) as the opponent I'm attacking? Where does it state that a simoltaineous attack is infact a regular attack? We do have other game systems to compare to (D&D 3rd Ed.), and rifts itself likes to offer actions for free (parry, auto-dodge) why wouldn't a person assume that simo-attack is for free, since they can take parry and auto-dodge actions for free as well and still maintain a full attack regimen?

Really, YOU have no proof other than a poorly worded book that supports my view as much as it does yours. Yet you seem to think should be interpreted your way, and no other way. But really, who the hell are you?
Did you write the book?
Do you play with the creator of the game?
Maybe instead of coming here and WRITING IN LARGE TEXT BECAUSE YOU THINK WE FORUM DWELLERS ARE DUMB AND BLINDwhich isn't getting you any friends by the way You should offer rational, calm solutions instead of statements you cannot back up.

Perhaps it was best you left the boards, because you have come back only to yell and impose your condicending views apon others, which you will see myself and others will not take smiling.


And to summarize - your quote proves nothing as it still does not say that simo-attack eats up regular attacks.

[ApocalypseZero]

Not just after the declaration, but after the roll.

The rules go:
- Attacker rolls to strike.
- Defender rolls to defend.

Whether the defender is going to parry, dodge, simultaneous attack, or whatever should be declared at the same time the attacker declares attack.

Initiative, getting to be the first to attack, means even less otherwise.

Well, considering that Initiative gives you the first attack, you still retain the original goal of 'Initiative'. I think that you may either be looking into it or wanting it to be something more than a tool to establish order. After that, the advantage goes to those who use their head. Someone with Initiative could easily turn the tables on their opponent using Simo-Attack by getting to cover (one that would necessitate a Called Shot to strike) and then start firing. Since Simo-Attacks can not be Called Shots (because that takes Multiple Attacks, where Simo-Attack is a quick, single action in response to an Attack), one with Initiative could move to a cover situation and negate Simo-Attacks altogether.

This isn't war and being abrasive isn't necessary. Or even helpful. Unless maybe you're standing across from me punching me in the face because you think I'm an idiot; but even then you're just making yourself feel better and making it impossible for me to care what you think.

When it comes down to Rules, it's always war. I've don't think I've ever seen a Rule Discussion Thread not spin with attitude at some point. I'm merely a vessel in which to speed up the process. (Or maybe I'm secretly trying to get the thread locked and subsequently removed. That'd be a good way to clear some of these assinine questions threads. )

[Dog_O_War]

OCC's with Auto-Dodge ARE suppose to rule teh battlfiels, they are the elite soldiers and enhanced people who's training and physical skills has allowed them to do so.........and like we've discussed before auto-dodge bonuses are very low for non-juicers which makes complete sense...

#1 thing I hate is this, it throws initiative out the window.............somebody rolls a nat 20, other guy rolls a 1..............but he still can simo attack???



Simo attack basically just helps those with massive amounts of MDC b/c they can just dish out and receive MDC until attrition kicks in and the opponent runs out of MDC.

+1 to this. I hate that too; a battle of skill goes out the window because you have eliminated the "light and fast" guys' chances to be light and fast.

[Natasha]

Not just after the declaration, but after the roll.

The rules go:
- Attacker rolls to strike.
- Defender rolls to defend.

Whether the defender is going to parry, dodge, simultaneous attack, or whatever should be declared at the same time the attacker declares attack.

Initiative, getting to be the first to attack, means even less otherwise.

Well, considering that Initiative gives you the first attack, you still retain the original goal of 'Initiative'. I think that you may either be looking into it or wanting it to be something more than a tool to establish order. After that, the advantage goes to those who use their head. Someone with Initiative could easily turn the tables on their opponent using Simo-Attack by getting to cover (one that would necessitate a Called Shot to strike) and then start firing. Since Simo-Attacks can not be Called Shots (because that takes Multiple Attacks, where Simo-Attack is a quick, single action in response to an Attack), one with Initiative could move to a cover situation and negate Simo-Attacks altogether.

That's right, I think it's more than just establishing order. Why have initiative bonuses if it isn't more important than strike order? Initiative goes to the guy that gets the jump on his opponent. And if the defender gets to know what the attacker is going to do and the attacker's strike roll before declaring his defense, then the defender gets to make a more informed calculus. Then it's just fight order.

[ApocalypseZero]

Wow, not only are you incridibly easy to rile (and now a target for me to annoy - I love to cheese people such as yourself off),

Actually, it's more a "straw breaking the camel's back', as I've seen far too many questions raised that aren't all that hard to answer with simply reading the book, understanding what your read, and injecting some logic.

but you've posted a conundrum; what if I choose to burst on an area (an attack) which will hit multiple opponents? Do they in turn get simoltaineous attacks against me? do their attacks (that are in response to my attack) happen at the same time (simoltaineous) as the opponent I'm attacking?

Well, since a Spray is designed to hit multiple targets, and in such, each target gets to make a DEFENSIVE response, then each one does have the option to Simo-Attack back. And, since the nature of the attack is, the Defenders will all strike back relatively within the same 0.1-2.0 Second interval that it takes to make an attack.

Where does it state that a simoltaineous attack is infact a regular attack?

In the word ATTACK. In the Palladium System, to Attack it takes and Attack/Action. Therefore, to Simo-Attack takes and Attack/Action.

We do have other game systems to compare to (D&D 3rd Ed.)

Irrelivant. Trying to use another system (which is also written by an entirely different bunch of people) will in no way help solve questions in the system which you have questions. For example and more clarity, you don't use D20 to solve Palladium questions. Two different entities that have to bearing on each other. Instead, look for comparisons within the system but say with other Product Lines (Look at Robotech, Nightbane, etc. for instances that might have reference to your questions in RIFTS/etc.). Of course, I do understand the reasoning of not owning the other books also.

and rifts itself likes to offer actions for free (parry, auto-dodge) why wouldn't a person assume that simo-attack is for free, since they can take parry and auto-dodge actions for free as well and still maintain a full attack regimen?

Parrying is only free if one possesses a Hand To Hand Skill, otherwise even Parrying takes an Attack. Dodging takes and Attack unless one happens to possess Auto-Dodge. Knowing this: it's System wide in that all actions, be they Offensive or Defensive, take an Attack/Action to perform them. Only when special circumstances arise (Possessing Auto Dodge or having a HtoH skill) do certain actions cease to take an Attack/Action to perform. Again, in Palladium, there are NO FREE ACTIONS. There are special circumstances that do relieve the cost of some actions though. Although, it may still not be 'in print' for you to latch onto and parade in the air, the logic of it is there and the evidence provides more support for Simo-Attack to cost and Attack/Action than not to.

Really, YOU have no proof other than a poorly worded book that supports my view as much as it does yours. Yet you seem to think should be interpreted your way, and no other way.

I have my books. They are the prove. Outside of that, there is the clarifications I've sought out for my own personal knowledge that may or may not be placed in a book. Unfortunately for those who will want these clarifications documented, I haven't (and will not) record my converstations for that reason alone.

But really, who the hell are you?

Lonnie Langston

Did you write the book?

Nope, just read the thing and asked questions to the right people.

Do you play with the creator of the game?

Regularly? No. Occasionally, I have played with many of the writers and staff of Palladium.

Maybe instead of coming here and WRITING IN LARGE TEXT BECAUSE YOU THINK WE FORUM DWELLERS ARE DUMB AND BLINDwhich isn't getting you any friends by the way You should offer rational, calm solutions instead of statements you cannot back up.

Obviously you only saw what you wanted to see and overlooked what was being said. The 'LARGE TEXT' was emphasis for Game Terms. Since you seem to be unable to comprehend logic when presented to you, I thought making it stand out would be beneficial. Instead I see that you really don't read anything. And by the way, I've made the friends I wanted to here. I'm no longer here to make friends, only to help and clarifiy things when it gets murky.

Perhaps it was best you left the boards, because you have come back only to yell and impose your condicending views apon others, which you will see myself and others will not take smiling.

And to summarize - your quote proves nothing as it still does not say that simo-attack eats up regular attacks.

You think what you have to think to get you through the day.

[ApocalypseZero]

That's right, I think it's more than just establishing order. Why have initiative bonuses if it isn't more important than strike order? Initiative goes to the guy that gets the jump on his opponent. And if the defender gets to know what the attacker is going to do and the attacker's strike roll before declaring his defense, then the defender gets to make a more informed calculus. Then it's just fight order.

Well, it also seems to be that you are making Initiative more of a 'Life and Death' thing. Sure, it can be, depending on the situation. Initiative is just that 'Strike Order', it's how we as Players utilize our advantage of going first where Initiative becomes a capitalizing thing. The way I see your side of it, you want any brute to be able to smoke whatever they face simply because he goes first. Initiatve is very much a battle of both Brains and Brawn. In some situations, it is 'tactically best' to open fire from where you are at. Other times, it best to use that first attack to do something else (like get the hell out of there).

[ApocalypseZero]

Anyway, regarding whether or not Simultaneous Attack requires a regular melee attack. All three other defense forms unless otherwise stated require a melee attack. Dodging requires a melee attack unless you have auto-dodge; parrying requires a melee attack unless you have auto-parry (which, I'll grant you, is easy to get); rolling with impact requires a melee attack action. If the other three require melee attack actions unless they're "auto", I feel safe assuming it also requires a melee attack action.
However, I do recognize that this is an assumption.

It's more than assumption, it's underlying logic. Only thing not done is having it spelled out.

If that's your goal, I suspect you find these counterarguments inconvenient and are not willing to seriously examine questions posed for fear of being wrong.
If this isn't your goal, it's a joke in poor taste.
Either way, calm down. I'm here to have a conversation, and you're disrupting that endeavor by being rude. Your input is appreciated when it is civil.

Yeah, again I've just gotten sick of the same old thing from the same old people with the same old responses and nothing ever getting through. So I use the tact of a ten ton hammer.

[bigbobsr6000]

I have never had a problem with Simultaneous Attack option. My PCs have rarely used this option. I explain in detail that both involved do not get any dodges, parries, etc. If the attack is successful, they take the damage. It also counts as one of their actions/attacks for that round. Most players prefer to be able to dodge, parry, etc. than stand there and take it.

2 or 3 PCs actually killed NPCs and was killed by the same NPCs in simo attack. That kind of put a halt on abusing this option.

Just some thoughts.

[Natasha]

That's right, I think it's more than just establishing order. Why have initiative bonuses if it isn't more important than strike order? Initiative goes to the guy that gets the jump on his opponent. And if the defender gets to know what the attacker is going to do and the attacker's strike roll before declaring his defense, then the defender gets to make a more informed calculus. Then it's just fight order.

Well, it also seems to be that you are making Initiative more of a 'Life and Death' thing. Sure, it can be, depending on the situation. Initiative is just that 'Strike Order', it's how we as Players utilize our advantage of going first where Initiative becomes a capitalizing thing. The way I see your side of it, you want any brute to be able to smoke whatever they face simply because he goes first. Initiatve is very much a battle of both Brains and Brawn. In some situations, it is 'tactically best' to open fire from where you are at. Other times, it best to use that first attack to do something else (like get the hell out of there).

I am not making Initiative more of a 'Life and Death' thing. I am speaking nothing about brutes and brains.

I'll try one last time.

Giving the defender knowledge of the attacker's intention and dice roll results diminishes the value of winning initiative. Yes, you still get to attack first, but your attack or whatever it is you do, gives the defender information that will potentially alter his defense decision; this decision is based on information he shouldn't have against someone with the initiative.

So what I am trying to do make Initiative actually be Initiative, not just fight order.

I know what the book says. And I understand what the book says. And I'm saying that it doesn't make sense. And I'm explaining why. Now please simply read what I have written and understand.

[Natasha]

So I use the tact of a ten ton hammer.

To no avail whatsoever.

[Dog_O_War]

Wow, not only are you incridibly easy to rile (and now a target for me to annoy - I love to cheese people such as yourself off),

Actually, it's more a "straw breaking the camel's back', as I've seen far too many questions raised that aren't all that hard to answer with simply reading the book, understanding what your read, and injecting some logic.

but you've posted a conundrum; what if I choose to burst on an area (an attack) which will hit multiple opponents? Do they in turn get simoltaineous attacks against me? do their attacks (that are in response to my attack) happen at the same time (simoltaineous) as the opponent I'm attacking?

Well, since a Spray is designed to hit multiple targets, and in such, each target gets to make a DEFENSIVE response, then each one does have the option to Simo-Attack back. And, since the nature of the attack is, the Defenders will all strike back relatively within the same 0.1-2.0 Second interval that it takes to make an attack.

Where does it state that a simoltaineous attack is infact a regular attack?

In the word ATTACK. In the Palladium System, to Attack it takes and Attack/Action. Therefore, to Simo-Attack takes and Attack/Action.

Actually you can perform a large number of attacks on a single action, all normally requiring a single attack/action themselves. volley fire with SRMs, using multiple weapons (against multiple targets), using a computer (to fire other weapon systems), etc... All can be performed on one action. The point of this? To show you a person needn't use multiple actions to perform multiple attacks. As it stands, simo-attack is akin to a defensive manuever, which can (and often are) offered for free.

Also, what you're saying is that with the right combination of attacks/actions everyone can strike on the top initiative, even if they rolled a 1 and have a penalty? What is the point of initiative then? Or auto-dodge? Or parry? If you have the choice of always striking an opponent, does that not seem like the most advantageous course of action, especially if he'd otherwise dodge/parry your attack? I mean take a 3rd level PA pilot with RC:E; he can take everything a Juicer lays out on him and offer that the Juicer has no chance to dodge his mega-damage punches. Seems like a system exploit.

And again, I haven't seen anywhere in the books where the rules allow you to increase your initiative at the sake of defence, which makes the skill quickdraw pointless, don't you think? Two gunfighters square off; one draws and fires, the other declares simoltaineous attack and then strikes on the exact same initiative (which might be impossible given his bonuses, yet he is striking on that initiative anyways). You might rule that the higher initiative hits first, but then that would be abitrary because the attacks are simoltaineous.

On top of all this, it states that if an attack is used for some type of action it shows when and where that attack is lost. With simo-attack it offers no such adjudication.

Infact, simoltaineous attack is so amazing it warps time. How? Say I were playing a 15th level dude with HtH assassin. I rolled a 1 on initiative, and since detoxing from Juicer conversion, I now have a major initiative penalty. Now against 8 other Juicers, you'd figure me for a dead man since they haven't detoxed, are young and 15th level as well. They all rolled natural 20's on initiative and all going at the exact same time. But here's the rub; I have joint pain, am slow, and look 100, but I am wearing some huntsman body armour and wielding a C-29. They are wearing no armour, and carrying wilks' laser pistols (the 1d6 variety). They shoot me and I simoltaineous attack them all, killing them in the 1st second before they even get a single additional attack. Amazing how this supposedly eats up an action (which normally requires time) yet I can make 8 attacks in a single second. So where did my other attacks go? I still have 14 seconds left in this round; am I frozen? Did that super-action warp reality?

No, because simo-attack does not require an action, only that you give up defence.

[Library Ogre]

No, because simo-attack does not require an action, only that you give up defence.

You are wrong.

You are making an attack. Even most defenses require that you sacrifice an action, unless they are specifically marked as automatic. That is inherent to the definition of "Melee Attack" on page 46 of PFRPG 2, and in similar places in other books.

[Dog_O_War]

No, because simo-attack does not require an action, only that you give up defence.

You are wrong.

You are making an attack. Even most defenses require that you sacrifice an action, unless they are specifically marked as automatic. That is inherent to the definition of "Melee Attack" on page 46 of PFRPG 2, and in similar places in other books.

So simo-attacks warp reality then and cause a person to brain-freeze for 14 seconds at a time? And they make initiative pointless since I can always go as fast as everyone else in the round?

[SkyeFyre]

The way I play it, and the way that makes most common sense is that it uses up an action, not just an additional action all the time, but your very next action. So instead of being able to fire when your action comes up, you're using it right away. Now for ranged attacks however I still require a strike roll. Also you can't just keep simul. striking, you can only do it once... for your next action.

Basically if you have two guys on red team, and one on blue.

Red1 fires at Blue1: Blue1 simul. strikes, rolls, and successfully hits (which is lucky, because as he is taking fire he is shooting wild If he's got nerves of steel, experienced character, or someone like a Crazy, then he's shooting normally.) Both parties take damage
Red2 fires at Blue1. Blue1 cannot simul strike, because at this moment he is currently shooting at Red1. Blue1 can try and dodge, thus burning up yet another action, but he cannot simul strike.

[Natasha]

Now for ranged attacks however I still require a strike roll.

And if not ranged attack?

[Dog_O_War]

EDITED for stupidity.

[SkyeFyre]

RUE: 294 left hand side under "Tweaking the rules"

"Rules Lawyers need to grow up"

Basically this seems to be the most logical way to play it. I never claimed it was the official ruling. I clearly stated that it was how I played it.

It makes sense to me, and since there isn't any concrete rules... I repeat... there are NO concrete rules on the matter, we must refer back to page 294.

Play the game. Nobody's going to concede defeat. They all believe they're right. So just go have fun.

[Killer Cyborg]

That's the draw back. You're taking a risk that you're opponant has no back up or has less MDC than you.
Also you can't simul an attack you cant see coming.
Sniper/Spec Ops ftw.

Exactly.
There's plenty of downsides to simo-attacking, the most obvious being the fact that you get shot.

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's the kicker.........Everything which deals with Defending is declared AFTER the attacker declares their attack.

Not just after the declaration, but after the roll.

The rules go:
- Attacker rolls to strike.
- Defender rolls to defend.

Hm.
Interesting!

I'm going to have to look that over when I get home.

[Library Ogre]

So simo-attacks warp reality then and cause a person to brain-freeze for 14 seconds at a time?

If that's the straw-man you feel like punching, sure.

And they make initiative pointless since I can always go as fast as everyone else in the round?

By that logic, dodge makes initiative pointless, because you can react just as fast as everyone else in the round. So does parry, and roll with punch.

A normal (non-surprise) Palladium combat round assumes that everyone is ready to act; there is no notion of "flat footed". A simultaneous attack takes advantage of the attackers vulnerability to press your own attack, rather than defend yourself. Your initiative isn't "pointless"... that's when you would have acted if someone hadn't given you an opening by swinging at you, or sticking his head above the wall and firing. But, since you got a better opening, you took it.

[Natasha]

That's the draw back. You're taking a risk that you're opponant has no back up or has less MDC than you.
Also you can't simul an attack you cant see coming.
Sniper/Spec Ops ftw.

Exactly.
There's plenty of downsides to simo-attacking, the most obvious being the fact that you get shot.

Not necessarily. Not if you play like I do, anyway. You declare your defense before the attacker rolls to Strike. So if the attacker misses you're still committed.

[Killer Cyborg]

The other house rule that makes some sense would be to roll to see who's shot gets off first (as somebody mentioned already). This still wouldn't make much difference a lot of the time, because getting shot second is still getting shot, BUT it would count for a lot if you manage to kill them with your shot, or to disrupt their attack (via magic net or something).
Hm.
Come to think of it, this might well be a mage-killing rule, though, because it could allow for somebody to effectively interrupt a single-action spell.

exactly, it gives mages in one on one combat almost no chance, unless they have awesome TW or regular weapons, and that kind of takes away the point of being a mage.

Mages got the shaft back when the Two Attacks For Living were added.
And again when they screwed over mages' armo-wearing ability.
All this means is that the shaft is still there.

But I think it's funny that you say that allowing simo attacks "is completely unbalancing to the game," because I think it's the other way around; it helps balance the game by keeping Auto-Dodge from ruling the battlefield.

In any case, if you don't like it, write Kev a letter.

OCC's with Auto-Dodge ARE suppose to rule teh battlfiels,

I disagree.
But I'll change my mind if you can find anything in the books that backs up that claim.

they are the elite soldiers and enhanced people who's training and physical skills has allowed them to do so.....

Them and everybody else in Rifts Earth.
Except Vagabonds.

Everybody's got something special, and having something special doesn't mean that you're automatically supposed to rule over everybody else.

....and like we've discussed before auto-dodge bonuses are very low for non-juicers which makes complete sense...

#1 thing I hate is this, it throws initiative out the window.............somebody rolls a nat 20, other guy rolls a 1..............but he still can simo attack???

Yup.
Unless you house-rule otherwise.

One of the good reasons to try for surprise attacks.

Simo attack basically just helps those with massive amounts of MDC b/c they can just dish out and receive MDC until attrition kicks in and the opponent runs out of MDC.

It's not as bad as you think.
For one thing, it actually hurts the really powerful foes.
Take a Glitterboy who's going up against a group of guys in Plastic Man armor.
Say there's five of them.
Normally, that means that the Glitterboy is going to get shot 10 times during the course of combat (if they're all just standing around shooting at each other), if he wins init.

Without Simo-Attack:
GB kills one guy, the other four shoot him.
GB kills second gun, the other three shoot him.
GB kills third guy, the other two shoot him.
GB kills fourth guy, the last one shoots him.
GB kills last guy.

With Simo-Attack:
GB kills one guy, who simo-shoots him, then the other four shoot him.
GB kills second gun, who simo-shoots him, the other three shoot him.
GB kills third guy, who simo-shoots him, the other two shoot him.
GB kills fourth guy, who simo-shoots him, the last one shoots him.
GB kills last guy who simo-shoots him.

With Simo attacks, the GB can still rely on his hefty MDC and damage to carry him through, but he's going to end up getting shot 5 more times than he would normally.

Also, under RUE rules, there's something else to consider: it's practically impossible to simo-attack somebody who is behind cover.
You can try, of course, but if they're taking one attack to shoot you, you can't spend the 2-3 attacks it would require to simo-attack with a Called Shot. All you can do is to make a standard shot or a burst, which is going to hit whatever cover his main body is behind.
(Granted, if this is SDC cover it isn't going to help much).

[Dog_O_War]

RUE: 294 left hand side under "Tweaking the rules"

"Rules Lawyers need to grow up"

Basically this seems to be the most logical way to play it. I never claimed it was the official ruling. I clearly stated that it was how I played it.

It makes sense to me, and since there isn't any concrete rules... I repeat... there are NO concrete rules on the matter, we must refer back to page 294.

Play the game. Nobody's going to concede defeat. They all believe they're right. So just go have fun.

While I know what I said was dumb, this comment is ignorant. Do you think this line flies when a sporting event takes place, or you are having a friendly game of cards with a friend and he begins to look through the deck to pick the cards he needs in order to win?

NOT learning the rules is something children do. THAT shows disrespect to everyone else at the table because it shows that the offender couldn't be bothered to learn what his fellow players have. This is akin to letting others do your work for you, and IIRC nobody liked that kid in school.

[Killer Cyborg]

No, because simo-attack does not require an action, only that you give up defence.

You are wrong.

You are making an attack. Even most defenses require that you sacrifice an action, unless they are specifically marked as automatic. That is inherent to the definition of "Melee Attack" on page 46 of PFRPG 2, and in similar places in other books.

So simo-attacks warp reality then and cause a person to brain-freeze for 14 seconds at a time? And they make initiative pointless since I can always go as fast as everyone else in the round?

What makes you think that you can make more than one simo-attack in a single round of attacks?

[Dog_O_War]

So simo-attacks warp reality then and cause a person to brain-freeze for 14 seconds at a time?

If that's the straw-man you feel like punching, sure.

Is the truth of the matter (re: game is broken and poorly worded at best) to much to defend? Seriously, what sense does it make; no straw-man, just an honest opinion is required. Why are my attacks gone, yet I still have 14 seconds left in the round? You work for KS; go ask him why this is.

And they make initiative pointless since I can always go as fast as everyone else in the round?

By that logic, dodge makes initiative pointless, because you can react just as fast as everyone else in the round. So does parry, and roll with punch.

Exactly.

A normal (non-surprise) Palladium combat round assumes that everyone is ready to act; there is no notion of "flat footed". A simultaneous attack takes advantage of the attackers vulnerability to press your own attack, rather than defend yourself. Your initiative isn't "pointless"... that's when you would have acted if someone hadn't given you an opening by swinging at you, or sticking his head above the wall and firing. But, since you got a better opening, you took it.

Actually, this is a lie. If an attacker body flips you, you lose initiative and an attack, but what you don't lose is the ability to make simo-attacks. So how is what you wrote here correct? You just lost initiative, yet you can still strike at the same time as anyone attacking you... infact you've lost an attack now as well, and are on the ground - how is any of this advantageous? And yet, simoltaineous attack every time.

Okay, so I have been assaulting you with unanswerable questions; questions that point out the very flaws in the game, and make those attempting to defend such a position look dumb because they end up agreeing with something that is "right" and illogical and contraditory to another rule or statement made elsewhere.
But what I have been attempting to show you is that simo-attack is dumb and lacks both proper rules back-up and credibility; something I hate to see in a game I like.

[SkyeFyre]

RUE: 294 left hand side under "Tweaking the rules"

"Rules Lawyers need to grow up"

Basically this seems to be the most logical way to play it. I never claimed it was the official ruling. I clearly stated that it was how I played it.

It makes sense to me, and since there isn't any concrete rules... I repeat... there are NO concrete rules on the matter, we must refer back to page 294.

Play the game. Nobody's going to concede defeat. They all believe they're right. So just go have fun.

While I know what I said was dumb, this comment is ignorant. Do you think this line flies when a sporting event takes place, or you are having a friendly game of cards with a friend and he begins to look through the deck to pick the cards he needs in order to win?

NOT learning the rules is something children do. THAT shows disrespect to everyone else at the table because it shows that the offender couldn't be bothered to learn what his fellow players have. This is akin to letting others do your work for you, and IIRC nobody liked that kid in school.

I was just quoting KS. Basically he says to use common sense and tweak the rules as needed.

I also stated though, that there are no rules. The rules that cover this one particular part of game play do NOT exist. How can you learn the rules if there are no rules to learn?

[Natasha]

So simo-attacks warp reality then and cause a person to brain-freeze for 14 seconds at a time?

If that's the straw-man you feel like punching, sure.

Is the truth of the matter (re: game is broken and poorly worded at best) to much to defend? Seriously, what sense does it make; no straw-man, just an honest opinion is required. Why are my attacks gone, yet I still have 14 seconds left in the round? You work for KS; go ask him why this is.

I always saw it as a melee round lasts as long as there are attacks left. That makes the duration of a round variable but since spells and psionics are durations in melee rounds I don't think it really hurts anything.

[Dog_O_War]

No, because simo-attack does not require an action, only that you give up defence.

You are wrong.

You are making an attack. Even most defenses require that you sacrifice an action, unless they are specifically marked as automatic. That is inherent to the definition of "Melee Attack" on page 46 of PFRPG 2, and in similar places in other books.

So simo-attacks warp reality then and cause a person to brain-freeze for 14 seconds at a time? And they make initiative pointless since I can always go as fast as everyone else in the round?

What makes you think that you can make more than one simo-attack in a single round of attacks?

What makes you think I can't?
I know a person can only sacrifice attack actions to regular dodge, but nothing states how often I can do this in a given round; only that it eats up my next attack (which is given no "time" designation). So where does it say that simo-attack works differently?

[Killer Cyborg]

No, because simo-attack does not require an action, only that you give up defence.

You are wrong.

You are making an attack. Even most defenses require that you sacrifice an action, unless they are specifically marked as automatic. That is inherent to the definition of "Melee Attack" on page 46 of PFRPG 2, and in similar places in other books.

So simo-attacks warp reality then and cause a person to brain-freeze for 14 seconds at a time? And they make initiative pointless since I can always go as fast as everyone else in the round?

What makes you think that you can make more than one simo-attack in a single round of attacks?

What makes you think I can't?

The general rule that you can only make one attack in a given round of attacks, and the fact that there isn't any written exception for simo-attacks.

I know a person can only sacrifice attack actions to regular dodge, but nothing states how often I can do this in a given round; only that it eats up my next attack (which is given no "time" designation).

Simo-attack isn't a dodge.

[SkyeFyre]

No, because simo-attack does not require an action, only that you give up defence.

You are wrong.

You are making an attack. Even most defenses require that you sacrifice an action, unless they are specifically marked as automatic. That is inherent to the definition of "Melee Attack" on page 46 of PFRPG 2, and in similar places in other books.

So simo-attacks warp reality then and cause a person to brain-freeze for 14 seconds at a time? And they make initiative pointless since I can always go as fast as everyone else in the round?

What makes you think that you can make more than one simo-attack in a single round of attacks?

What makes you think I can't?
I know a person can only sacrifice attack actions to regular dodge, but nothing states how often I can do this in a given round; only that it eats up my next attack (which is given no "time" designation). So where does it say that simo-attack works differently?

It states that you can do it as long as you have actions, once you are out of actions it takes actions away from your next melee round. GMG pg. 32