Simultaneous attack

[Natasha]

All these terms.
I'm so confused!

[ApocalypseZero]

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.

Volley of Missiles is one attack using a fire control system to fire multiple shots. It's one (1) Strike roll. Paired Weapon/Firearm attacks are a special option (akin to the Auto-Parry and Auto-Dodge rules, and have special rules attached to it). Firing multiple weapons via Computer is sketchy to me. I'd like to see what you are thinking before I clear that one up. What I see, you're trying to lump 'Multiple Shots' and call them 'Multiple Attacks'. In that case, Burst firing is a Multple Attack, which it is not, just a rapid fire of a weapon.

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?

It's possible for someone to attack the person attacking them, wherever they are on the Initiative order. It does not move their Initiative placement or otherwise increase the person's Initiative. And, the same can be done back to the person of lower Initiatve.

What is the point of initiative then?

To establish turn order. NOTE: All Sneak Attacks and Long Ranged attacks Automatically have Initiative and can not be Dodged.

Or auto-dodge?

To allow one to make a Dodge response (normally costing an Attack/Action) without suffering the loss of an Attack/Action. NOTE: Gunfire can only be Dodged if Seen AND if one knows the Attack is coming.

Or parry?

To block or otherwise deflect certain attacks. NOTE: Bullets and Energy Attacks can not (as a rule) be parried.

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.

Just because you have a chance to strike an opponent does not make it the most advantageous one. Instead, using your Attack/Action to bring about the ability to negate both a Dodge (and also then a Simo-Attack) by attacking without being seen or from behind. Why does this include Simo-Attacks? Because to be able to use a Simo-Attack, you must be able to either Parry, Dodge, or Entangle. Can't Entangle a Long Ranged attack, can't Parry a Bullet or Energy Blast, and can't Dodge an attack if it is not seen or from behind. Therefore, if none of the normal defensive options are available, then neither is the special defensive option of Simo-Attack.

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?

Not at all (and I was waiting for this to be brought up). See, since in a gunfight/duel, both Gunmen would start off with pistols in their holsters, the one who has the Initiative will get the chance to deaw their weapon first. Since whoever wins Initiative (and would have to have W.P. Quickdraw in this example) would be able to draw their weapon and fire it (see W.P. Quickdraw) before the opponent could draw their weapon, therefore negative the Simo-Attack because the opponent who lost Initiative has nothing ready to Simo-Attack with. Also, this could qualify for the 'grey area' of 'Knowing the Attack is Coming', which would in turn possibly negate the ability to Dodge, and since they couldn't Parry, Dodge, or Entangle, they could not Simo-Attack either. But, again, you'll prattle about Book and Page Numbers instead of using some logic to assess the situation presented, laying out the rules as they are, and finding what is meant/should happen and not what isn't written in stone.

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.

This is one point where there is more 'grey' that could definately use a bit of attention. It would be nice to know if the Attacker will get their action first (i.e. their attack would be in air) when the Defender Simo-Attacks back. Or does the attacks come at exactly the same time? This is were a G.M. must step in and lay their own law down unless there is something to support one side of the other. I can't even think of a reference to lean one way or the other, except for Initiative, allowing the Attacker to have their action in mid-air. I will inquire about this one more.

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.

Simo-Attack is linked and referenced to Defensive actions that use Attacks/Actions. Again, see the above about the subject.

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?

Wrong. Because the Juicers who are not within your line of vision or otherwise can't be seen will get the Automatic Initiative (Long Ranged Attack) and therefore you will not be able to Parry, Dodge, or Entangle their attacks (which in turn means no Simo-Attacks) and thus are dead.

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

ALL actions in the Palladium System require an Attack/Action except of small, quick dialogues (G.M.'s Discretion). Only we certain criteria are met (no matter how difficult) do certain actions become free from the cost of an Attack/Action.

[Dog_O_War]

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.

I know, I was offering up a seemingly comparible example. And where is this "general rule"?
Beyond that, why does this general rule matter? You just said simo-attack was the exception.

[Dog_O_War]

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.

Volley of Missiles is one attack using a fire control system to fire multiple shots. It's one (1) Strike roll. Paired Weapon/Firearm attacks are a special option (akin to the Auto-Parry and Auto-Dodge rules, and have special rules attached to it). Firing multiple weapons via Computer is sketchy to me. I'd like to see what you are thinking before I clear that one up. What I see, you're trying to lump 'Multiple Shots' and call them 'Multiple Attacks'. In that case, Burst firing is a Multple Attack, which it is not, just a rapid fire of a weapon.

Whilst piloting a SAMSON Missileman suit, I am shooting a pair of NG-45 LP's, and using my headjack to activate the weaponsystem - which I aim at the available targets on my HUD (since the computer was so kind to track them for me). In addition to all that, I'm launching missiles as simo-attacks (all requiring weaponsystems apparently - but is activated hands-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?

It's possible for someone to attack the person attacking them, wherever they are on the Initiative order. It does not move their Initiative placement or otherwise increase the person's Initiative. And, the same can be done back to the person of lower Initiatve.

What is the point of initiative then?

To establish turn order. NOTE: All Sneak Attacks and Long Ranged attacks Automatically have Initiative and can not be Dodged.

There is no "turn order" though, as I am declaring simo-attacks against visible opponents who were apparently supposed to go first.

Or auto-dodge?

To allow one to make a Dodge response (normally costing an Attack/Action) without suffering the loss of an Attack/Action. NOTE: Gunfire can only be Dodged if Seen AND if one knows the Attack is coming.

Or parry?

To block or otherwise deflect certain attacks. NOTE: Bullets and Energy Attacks can not (as a rule) be parried.

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.

Which are all negated because I simo-attacked you.

Just because you have a chance to strike an opponent does not make it the most advantageous one. Instead, using your Attack/Action to bring about the ability to negate both a Dodge (and also then a Simo-Attack) by attacking without being seen or from behind. Why does this include Simo-Attacks? Because to be able to use a Simo-Attack, you must be able to either Parry, Dodge, or Entangle. Can't Entangle a Long Ranged attack, can't Parry a Bullet or Energy Blast, and can't Dodge an attack if it is not seen or from behind. Therefore, if none of the normal defensive options are available, then neither is the special defensive option of Simo-Attack.

You forgot to add the "...and can't dodge or parry" to the 'strike an opponent' line. An assured hit is better than a chance at a failed defence and chance at a failed hit. This counts exceptionally high for gunfire.

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?

Not at all (and I was waiting for this to be brought up). See, since in a gunfight/duel, both Gunmen would start off with pistols in their holsters, the one who has the Initiative will get the chance to deaw their weapon first. Since whoever wins Initiative (and would have to have W.P. Quickdraw in this example) would be able to draw their weapon and fire it (see W.P. Quickdraw) before the opponent could draw their weapon, therefore negative the Simo-Attack because the opponent who lost Initiative has nothing ready to Simo-Attack with. Also, this could qualify for the 'grey area' of 'Knowing the Attack is Coming', which would in turn possibly negate the ability to Dodge, and since they couldn't Parry, Dodge, or Entangle, they could not Simo-Attack either. But, again, you'll prattle about Book and Page Numbers instead of using some logic to assess the situation presented, laying out the rules as they are, and finding what is meant/should happen and not what isn't written in stone.

Both have the same skill though; drawing normally requires an action, and you can do anything in place of an attack (that is why they are attack/actions), so you've put forth a non-point. The other fighter can draw and shoot just the same.

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.

This is one point where there is more 'grey' that could definately use a bit of attention. It would be nice to know if the Attacker will get their action first (i.e. their attack would be in air) when the Defender Simo-Attacks back. Or does the attacks come at exactly the same time? This is were a G.M. must step in and lay their own law down unless there is something to support one side of the other. I can't even think of a reference to lean one way or the other, except for Initiative, allowing the Attacker to have their action in mid-air. I will inquire about this one more.

They won't get their action first though because the definition of simoltaineous is unlikely to change any time soon.

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.

Simo-Attack is linked and referenced to Defensive actions that use Attacks/Actions. Again, see the above about the subject.

Actually it's linked to defensive actions. The loss of attack to perform said action(s) are in the respective actions' descriptors only. Simoltaineous attack has no such descriptor.

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?

Wrong. Because the Juicers who are not within your line of vision or otherwise can't be seen will get the Automatic Initiative (Long Ranged Attack) and therefore you will not be able to Parry, Dodge, or Entangle their attacks (which in turn means no Simo-Attacks) and thus are dead.

They are all visible, otherwise he would not have known there were 8 of them. And besides as a detoxed Juicer he still is able to react to any attack as per the notation in the Juicer OCC descriptor. He never loses initiative, not that he had it to begin with.

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

ALL actions in the Palladium System require an Attack/Action except of small, quick dialogues (G.M.'s Discretion). Only we certain criteria are met (no matter how difficult) do certain actions become free from the cost of an Attack/Action.

Simo-attack offers no cryteria and no indication that it requires you to "sacrifice" and attack to perform it simoltaineously with your opponent. The only thing stated is that you cannot defend yourself (which for many is a free action thanks to HtH parries and auto-dodges).

[Natasha]

To be honest, if you start requiring that a simultaneous attack be declared before the strike roll is done, then to be fair you have to make the defender declare a dodge or parry before the strike roll as well.

Yip

[Natasha]

All is decided by the power of the dice rolls so really, called or not if you don't get to act first it really won't matter. Ask any Juicer if it matters after he wins the roll and uses your meat sack as a body shield.

It matters since not all defenses are auto defenses; some require you burn an attack, others don't.
And it matters since not every fighter is a juicer.

[ApocalypseZero]

Whilst piloting a SAMSON Missileman suit, I am shooting a pair of NG-45 LP's, and using my headjack to activate the weaponsystem - which I aim at the available targets on my HUD (since the computer was so kind to track them for me). In addition to all that, I'm launching missiles as simo-attacks (all requiring weaponsystems apparently - but is activated hands-free).

Wow, that's quite alot you THINK you can do in one Attack/Action. But let's see here, Shooting the NG-45LP's is considered an Attack/Action (quite possibly without the ability to Parry since your are Dual Striking with them, have to look up Paired Firearms to be certain on that one). Then, using the Headjack to fire the Gun's of the Power Armor is an Attack/Action. (No where does it say that the Headjack is capable of making attacks alongside other actions, it only links you with the Weapon Systems of the vehicle you are jacked into allowing you to fire them through the Headjack as a normal attack.) Also, just because something can Track targets (like convential radars can), this does NOT imply that you can Target them for attacks. And finally, launching missiles as a Simo-Attack can only be done if you are being attacked and that you meet the requirements to allow a Simo-Attack (and have attacks for a Simo-Attack, because the word Attack implies that it takes and Attack/Action just like every other Combat maneuver does).

All in all, I see 3-4 seperate Attack/Actions trying to be made in just 1 round. To borrow your line: "Show me in the books where it says you can do that?" I can save you the trouble, I know it doesn't.

There is no "turn order" though, as I am declaring simo-attacks against visible opponents who were apparently supposed to go first.

See, you're trying to state Simo-Attacks as your Attack/Action regardless of whether you're on the Offense or Defense. That's not how things work. You can't Simo-Attack everything, only Attacks against you. Truthfully, by the rules of the book, I could walk up and shake your hand and you could not Simo-Attack me because I'm not Attacking you.

Which are all negated because I simo-attacked you.

If I'm attacking, I'm not looking to Parry, Dodge, or Entangle, I'm looking to Attack. Whether you Simo-Attack or take a normal Defensive action has no recourse other than 'does my attack hit you'. Again, we're also talking in a way that you will get to Simo-Attack me, which may not always be the case.

You forgot to add the "...and can't dodge or parry" to the 'strike an opponent' line. An assured hit is better than a chance at a failed defence and chance at a failed hit. This counts exceptionally high for gunfire.

An assured hit is not possible here. Whether it be a Simo-Attack or not, there is the chance for Failure in any combat action. Granted, the lack of a Defensive action with Simo-Attack is good, it sacrifices onesefl to the good chance of taking damage also. Whereas, if I were to shoot you from an unseen location, there is no Parry, Dodge, Entangle, or Simo-Attack chance and I still have the good-to-great chance to hit you. The best shot one can make is an Unseen shot, because your opponent has NO Defenisve actions.

Both have the same skill though; drawing normally requires an action, and you can do anything in place of an attack (that is why they are attack/actions), so you've put forth a non-point. The other fighter can draw and shoot just the same.

See, I was going to mention something about drawing a weapon taking an Attack/Action, but that's D&D/D20. I can't find anything printed that states Drawing a Weapon takes an Attack/Action. BUT, since it is typically something that falls into the category of an 'Attack/Action' (it is a movement like walking), then the Gunfighter who wins Initiative would not only be able to draw his gun (akin to a Sneak Attack) and then also be able to fire the gun. Because the Defender does not have his gun drawn, and to do so will take an action, he can not Simo-Attack back. He could Simo-Attack to draw his gun, but by that time he'd be shot and unable to attack back since his Attack/Action was to Draw the gun. Initiative+Quickdraw would allow for the winner to Draw and Fire. Then again, this is not written in stone.

But the logic behind that is Quickdraw offers and Initiative bonus, and since Initiative determine who goes first, we can say that whomever won the Initiative would be allowed a 'Weapon Draw'. In fact, this could be used with all Initiative winners. (And it makes sense with Sleeve Holsters and the Quickdraw rules/description.)

Or, something that would fit the situation the best, the Quickdraw maneuver is considered 'Not Seen Coming' and therefore no Parry, Dodge, Entangle, or Simo-Attacks.

Actually it's linked to defensive actions. The loss of attack to perform said action(s) are in the respective actions' descriptors only. Simoltaineous attack has no such descriptor.

In that respect, Simo-Attacks aren't possible because they are not listed un the 'Steps of Combat' but only under the Combat Terms. Really, find me something that shows Simo-Attack to NOT take an Attack/Action other than 'It's not in the descriptor'. Lasers being noiseless aren't in all the Laser Weapon discriptors. There are plenty of things that are not 'in the descriptor'.

They are all visible, otherwise he would not have known there were 8 of them. And besides as a detoxed Juicer he still is able to react to any attack as per the notation in the Juicer OCC descriptor. He never loses initiative, not that he had it to begin with.

First off, just because there are X Number of People, does not mean I know about all X. I may know I'm fighting 10 people, but only see 5. And, per the descriptor of the Juicer, they can react only if they know the attack is coming (with Auto-Dodge). The Juicer would have to know that someone is behind them and attacking to use Auto-Dodge. EDIT: Juicers get Auto-Dodge against all attacks, even from Behind, and can not be surprised. But, since Simo-Attack is referenced only to Parry, Dodge, and Entangle, and not Auto-Parry or Auto-Dodge, a Juicer could not Simo-Attack anyone who would attack from a Surprise or from Behind (since it can't be Dodged), but the Juicer would still be allowed his Auto-Dodge against them.

Basically: Parry, Dodge, and Entangle are your Defensive options. Auto-Dodge, Auto-Parry, and Simo-Attack are special Defensive options that link to Parry, Dodge, and Entangle, but not to each other (Simo-Attack can't be used if Auto-Dodge or Auto-Parry can, it can only be used in place of the standard Defense actions.)

Simo-attack offers no cryteria and no indication that it requires you to "sacrifice" and attack to perform it simoltaineously with your opponent. The only thing stated is that you cannot defend yourself (which for many is a free action thanks to HtH parries and auto-dodges).

Again, Parries and Dodges are not Free. Only when they become Auto do they essentially become Free. It's not called Auto-Simo-Attack. It's called Simo-Attack. Reference Parry, Dodge, and Entangle, not Auto-Parry and Auto-Dodge.

[Library Ogre]

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.

Where have the attacks gone? You use the actions in your own defense, or in making use of the openings others provide you. They don't disappear into nothing... they're used.

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.

You have a lessened ability to make simultaneous attacks in that you have fewer attacks (and are, possibly, on the ground), since each simultaneous attack requires you to sacrifice one, but I'm utterly failing to see what you're saying here, otherwise.

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.

I think the rules for a simultaneous attack are very simple, and fairly logical.

First, we will ignore for a moment the existence of automatic defenses; they're a separate issue.

When you are attacked, you have three options: You may parry, you may dodge, or you may simultaneously attack. A parry frequently has higher bonuses (from equipment and training), and will negate the damage, but is ineffective against certain types of attacks. A dodge will negate the damage, but has lower bonuses. A simultaneous attack will cause you to take damage, but will also inflict damage upon the enemy. Each of these options requires that you spend one of your melee actions.

Now, we turn to automatic defenses. An automatic dodge or automatic parry means that you may perform either of those actions without spending a melee action. If someone swings a weapon at you, you may attempt to parry without spending an action if you have an automatic parry. If someone fires a laser at you, you may attempt to dodge without spending an action if you have an automatic dodge. To suggest that simultaneous attacks do not require one to spend an action is to give everyone the option of "automatic simultaneous attack", something which has never appeared in game, and there is no textual support for.

[bigbobsr6000]

These comments found at FAQ

Question:Simultaneous attacks. Ah, sweet little dear that answered the paired weapons question.
Now:
1. Does it apply to ranged attacks? And if it does (god help us!), are there any restrictions at all?
2. Are there any restrictions on it that off set it's negative side.
3. Can a simo attack negate an autododge?
4. Is it listed in a book somewhere that each simo attack uses up one of that guys attacks, or has this just been agreed to by group consensus? Not arguing, just asking.
5. Does it say anywhere you can't simo a sneak attack? Or is it group net consensus again.
Answer: 1. This is something that has been much debated, but never adequately resolved. Many people assume that Simo-attacks are for melee combat only, but I have no idea where they got that assumption. As far as I know none of the books have said or implied that simo-attacks are not to be used with ranged weapons. My group has always (since 1991) played with ranged simo-attacks and have noticed no real downside to it.
2. As for restrictions, some GMs only allow it if the character has the initiative, but the only really restrictions are, you have to have attacks left in that melee round to use it, and you'll take damage (mostly) without a chance to defend.
3. Yes. The defender and the attack both lose the ability to defend, unless they've got special circumstances like paired weapons (or several of the N&S moves, but we really don't need to cover that).
4. Not per se, however Simultaneous Attack isn't listed as an automatic move, so by default it costs an attack.
5. Again, not specifically, but a Simultaneous Attack can only be used in place of a dodge, parry, entangle, etc. and since you can't do those against a Sneak Attack (without special abilities at least), you wouldn't be able to perform a Simultaneous Attack.

Question:1. How do Simultaneous Attacks work?
2. Can a Great Horned Hatchling Dragon have Simultaneous Attacks?
3. If so, what would the player need to do/choose when making the hatchling in order to have Simultaneous Attacks?
Answer: 1. The "defender" can choose to Simultaneous Attack in place of a Dodge, Parry, etc. It costs an attack to do so.
2. Yes. Anyone can do it.
3. Nothing.

Question: A few questions
a) Do all characters automatically start out with auto parry (a parry which uses no attacks) or is this gained through specific HTH skills?
b) If you do have auto parry, do you add your normal parry bonuses to it, or only ones specifically for your auto parry (and pp bonuses, similar to autododge.)
c) In rifts japan it states that if a simultaneous strike is used a character loses his auto parry. BUT, rather than reverting to a normal parry, it states that no parry can be used, only a dodge. Does this mean that auto parry is the only type of parry, or that simply one cannot parry after the use of a simultaneous strike?
d) It also states that a strike and parry can be used simultaneously with two weapons. Does this mean that after I parry an attack with one weapon, I can strike using the other in the SAME ATTACK/ACTION? (and if so, does it use up another attack?)
Answer: 1) No, it's gained through specific HTH skills.
2) You add normal parry bonuses.
3) You can't parry after a simultaneous strike.
4) Yes and it only uses one attack.

Question: Super-high Autododgeman is fighting against Powerhouseman. Powerhouseman has only about 30% more points than Super-high Autododgeman, and figures he'll lose if he tries to fight it out normally. Powerhouseman decides to use all of his attacks for simultaneous attacks when Super-high Autododgeman attacks. Can Super-high Autododgeman still dodge?
Answer: No.

Enjoy

[SkyeFyre]

Thank you BigBob, I knew I had read an answer like that somewhere.

[bigbobsr6000]

Thanks

[tundro]

It does say in the GMG on page 32 that simultaneous attacks use up an attack. It goes on to say that the attack WILL hit unless a 1-4 is rolled, and that after a character is out of attacks, all you can do is parry or dodge. Parrying will not use up attacks, dodging will use attacks from the NEXT melee round.

[SkyeFyre]

Figures, I was just looking at page 32 when I posted the rule on dodging.

I didn't think the way I played it was a house rule, but it's been such a long time since I've looked through my GMG that I forgot about it.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

I know, I was offering up a seemingly comparible example.

It's not all that comparable.

And where is this "general rule"?

As far as I know, it isn't written down.
Which is why I didn't say "the specific rule.

Beyond that, why does this general rule matter? You just said simo-attack was the exception.

Uh.. no, I really didn't.
I said: "there isn't any written exception for simo-attacks."
This means that there are not any written exceptions (for simo-attacks) to the general rule that you only get one attack per round of attacks.

[Dead Boy]

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

No, no, no. You're acting like I'm griping about a rule that's clearly spelled out in the books and that your interpretation is set in stone for all to live with when that clearly isn't the case. Nerf the game all you like in your house rules, but don't tell me that's they way it officially is.

The maneuver is never once even hinted at in any of the ranged combat sections of ANY book, and only appears in melee combat along side entangles and sweeps. So unless it's also your contention that you can use entangles and foot sweeps with laser rifles, then your SOL for even trying to make a convincing argument for allowing simo's with ranged. But I'll tell you what, if you find the Simultaneous Attack in an example in so much as the same paragraph as a ranged attack in ANY book, I'll consider changing my mind on this. Hell, finding it even on the same PAGE might be too much of a challenge.

And, yes, I did read Big Bobs post from the FAQ. And for an FAQ response, that has the least commitment to an answer as I've ever seen there, effectively reading, "we don't know and really don't want to commit one way or the other".

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

That's right. And what makes some OCCs special is that they get Auto-Dodge. By allowing ranged simo's you're stripping that special attribute from them, or at the very least mitigating it into something that's less than what it should be. And as your Glitter Boy example showed, this hurts special characteristics form those blessed with extra MDC too.

And incidently, Auto-Dodge does not make it possible for characters to "rule over everybody else". All it effectively does is double their existing MDC... maybe a tad more with the occasional bonus they get, (remember, normal dodge bonuses do not apply). And that's assuming explosives or magic aren't in play which already mitigate this ability's overall effectiveness. Letting everbody and their dog opt to do a ranged simo pushes the mitigating factors into overkill.

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.

Hmm. Duly noted.

[Kagashi]

Ive always read it as, by simply not dodging, that was a simultaneous attack. Simultaneous attack does not effectively double your base attacks. And to answer the topic of thee thread, I said the defender decides after the intent of the attacker is made.

Guy A and B both have 4 attacks. Guy A wins initiative. Guy A decides to attack first:

Guy A shoots (1st attack): roll to strike = 15
Guy B declares he will dodge this attack (1st attack): roll to dodge = 16
Lucky...

Guy A shoots (2nd attack): roll to strike = 10
Guy B decides he will shoot back (Simu attack, 2nd attack): roll to strike = 10
They both hit and damage is deducted from both of their armors.

Guy A closes the distance to get into melee range (3rd attack)
Guy B shoots at the charging Guy A (3rd attack): roll to strike = 4
The strike misses the target completely

Guy A strikes with his vibro sword (4th attack): roll to strike 10
Guy B has auto parry (does not take up an action to perform): parry = 15. He still has an attack. He shoots Guy A point blank = 15. Guy A has already committed to an attack this round, and thus can not dodge. In effect its a simu attack.

Next round...roll init.

----------------------------------------------------------

As for the defender declaring his actions after the attacker, as a GM, ill just tell the player that his opponent has shot at him. I will not let him know if the shot will hit, or even what the roll was. There is still that chance that the attacker flat out missed his shot, and the player will "waste" an attack on dodging a roll he doesnt need to dodge.

[Killer Cyborg]

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

No, no, no. You're acting like I'm griping about a rule that's clearly spelled out in the books and that your interpretation is set in stone for all to live with when that clearly isn't the case. Nerf the game all you like in your house rules, but don't tell me that's they way it officially is.

I am telling you the way that it officially is.
The rules never say anything to indicate that ranged simo-attacks are impossible; that's just something that people made up on their own for some reason.
I asked Kev about it in person, just to get an official answer, and the short answer is "yes" you can make simo-attacks with ranged weapons.

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

That's right. And what makes some OCCs special is that they get Auto-Dodge. By allowing ranged simo's you're stripping that special attribute from them, or at the very least mitigating it into something that's less than what it should be. And as your Glitter Boy example showed, this hurts special characteristics form those blessed with extra MDC too.

There isn't a single class in the game that ONLY has auto-dodge to make them special.

[Dead Boy]

I asked Kev about it in person, just to get an official answer, and the short answer is "yes" you can make simo-attacks with ranged weapons.

It's times just like this when I really wish Kev stopped by the boards himself to throw in his two cents. Because though I'm not calling you a liar, I'd still be more accepting of this claim if it came from an official source and not by way of hearsay.

And that brings up the question of what Kev was thinking just then, because we all know he changes the rules quite frequently for his own gaming table. So that makes me wonder if that's what he intended all along, if that's just how he was doing it at that particular time, or if he even plays it that way any more.

Sorry, but lacking a page number or a post from Kev himself, I'm still having a hard time seeing it your way. It's kind of like Entangle and Disarm melee maneuvers; sure it's only listed in hand to hand, but nothing says it can't be done with telekinesis at range. Nothing in the psychic combat section says they're exclusive to melee combat, but that doesn't automatically mean it should be allowed.

[bigbobsr6000]

GM rules on this issue.

'nuff said.

[Killer Cyborg]

I asked Kev about it in person, just to get an official answer, and the short answer is "yes" you can make simo-attacks with ranged weapons.

It's times just like this when I really wish Kev stopped by the boards himself to throw in his two cents. Because though I'm not calling you a liar, I'd still be more accepting of this claim if it came from an official source and not by way of hearsay.

Ask him yourself sometime.

And that brings up the question of what Kev was thinking just then, because we all know he changes the rules quite frequently for his own gaming table. So that makes me wonder if that's what he intended all along, if that's just how he was doing it at that particular time, or if he even plays it that way any more.

Sorry, but lacking a page number or a post from Kev himself, I'm still having a hard time seeing it your way.

RUE, 346
Simultaneous Attack is defined in the "Combat Terms and Moves" section, not in the "Melee combat only" section.

For that matter, in the original Rifts book, p. 36-37.
Because that's where Simultaneous Attack is originally defined, and that is also in the "Combat Terms" section, NOT the "Melee Combat Only" section, despite what some people wish to believe.
It's right there with terms like "Throw," "Sneak Attack," "Strike,"Natural Twenty," "Long-Range Attack, "Initiative," "Dodge," and other terms that I have NEVER seen you or anybody else claim should only apply to melee combat.

Try as you might to justify your view, you're simply seeing something that isn't there.

It's kind of like Entangle and Disarm melee maneuvers; sure it's only listed in hand to hand, but nothing says it can't be done with telekinesis at range. Nothing in the psychic combat section says they're exclusive to melee combat, but that doesn't automatically mean it should be allowed.

It doesn't mean that it shouldn't either.

Why wouldn't you be able to use TK to disarm somebody?

[Library Ogre]

See, I can go either way on the canonicity of "simultaneous attacks with ranged weapons", but tend to come down on the side of allowing it, though it would, of course, be a wild shot. He's taking a stance to fire on you, meaning he's unable to dodge out of the way; you're betting he's going to miss, so you shoot him back.

[Dead Boy]

It's times just like this when I really wish Kev stopped by the boards himself to throw in his two cents.

Ask him yourself sometime.

Time and geographic distance make that an impossibility. And for some reason he has never answered any of the letters I've ever sent him, (no idea why).

RUE, 346 ... It's right there with terms like "Throw," "Sneak Attack," "Strike,"Natural Twenty," "Long-Range Attack, "Initiative," "Dodge," and other terms that I have NEVER seen you or anybody else claim should only apply to melee combat.

Yea, because common sense tell us they belong. There's nothing intuitive or natural about including Simo in the list of moves permissible in ranged attacks.

For instance, take the duels in the New West. Two people square off at high noon and draw. Character with the highest initiative wins and shoots first. But if ranged Simos are allowed all of that goes out the window. It doesn't matter who gets the initiative because the other guy will just call Simo.

It's kind of like Entangle and Disarm melee maneuvers; sure it's only listed in hand to hand, but nothing says it can't be done with telekinesis at range. Nothing in the psychic combat section says they're exclusive to melee combat, but that doesn't automatically mean it should be allowed.

It doesn't mean that it shouldn't either.

Why wouldn't you be able to use TK to disarm somebody?

Disarm was a bad example and I should have edited it out when I had the chance. But you're completely ignoring Entangles, and Death Blows, and Body Flips, and Kick Attacks? Nothing in the psychic combat rules exclude them from being executed with TK at range. Nor should the be allowed because it's nonsense to allow such things, (... not without some sort of special skill like your proposed psychic HtH skills in the Psi Bat thread, which was pure genius on your part might I say... so much so I might have to steal it some day ).

See, I can go either way on the canonicity of "simultaneous attacks with ranged weapons", but tend to come down on the side of allowing it, though it would, of course, be a wild shot.

Now there's a thought. IF simo is officially usable with ranged weapons, it would make sense to impose the -6 To Hit penalty on the hastily made move. And technically speaking, the character is "shooting while under heavy fire", which is one of the qualifying conditions.

[Killer Cyborg]

RUE, 346 ... It's right there with terms like "Throw," "Sneak Attack," "Strike,"Natural Twenty," "Long-Range Attack, "Initiative," "Dodge," and other terms that I have NEVER seen you or anybody else claim should only apply to melee combat.

Yea, because common sense tell us they belong. There's nothing intuitive or natural about including Simo in the list of moves permissible in ranged attacks.

I disagree; I think that it's absolutely intuitive, to the point that I have no idea how anybody could assume otherwise.

For instance, take the duels in the New West. Two people square off at high noon and draw. Character with the highest initiative wins and shoots first. But if ranged Simos are allowed all of that goes out the window. It doesn't matter who gets the initiative because the other guy will just call Simo.

Same thing happens with two samurai in a sword-fight.
It's not a problem with range, it's a problem with simo-attacks.

Why wouldn't you be able to use TK to disarm somebody?

Disarm was a bad example and I should have edited it out when I had the chance. But you're completely ignoring Entangles, and Death Blows, and Body Flips, and Kick Attacks?

Well, of those, you only mentioned Entangle, which should be able to be done with TK.
Death Blows? Sure, if you have a weapon, and the ability to perform a Death Blow.
Body Flips? Never thought about it, but that's a damned good way to deal with tossing somebody around with TK.
Kick attacks? No... because you need a leg for that.

Nothing in the psychic combat rules exclude them from being executed with TK at range.

You're getting pretty far off-topic here, since simo-attacks aren't psychic combat.

See, I can go either way on the canonicity of "simultaneous attacks with ranged weapons", but tend to come down on the side of allowing it, though it would, of course, be a wild shot.

Now there's a thought. IF simo is officially usable with ranged weapons, it would make sense to impose the -6 To Hit penalty on the hastily made move. And technically speaking, the character is "shooting while under heavy fire", which is one of the qualifying conditions.

No, it wouldn't.
Shooting back wouldn't be any hastier than any other one-action attack, and you're not under fire until you're HIT (or closely missed), which would be on the attack after you get shot, by which time you've already simo-ed.

[Dr. Doom III]

How Doom does it.

You can only Simultaneous attack when you have initiative.
A Simultaneous attack is basically waiting for the other guy to attach and BAM! you attack at the same time unexpectedly. If you don't have the initiative you don't have that wait time. That's what having the initiative means.

[Dead Boy]

For instance, take the duels in the New West. Two people square off at high noon and draw. Character with the highest initiative wins and shoots first. But if ranged Simos are allowed all of that goes out the window. It doesn't matter who gets the initiative because the other guy will just call Simo.

Same thing happens with two samurai in a sword-fight.
It's not a problem with range, it's a problem with simo-attacks.

Not the same thing. In that melee scenario the victim samurai may be able to use his wakizashi to parry the Simo counter if he has the Paired Weapon's skill or ability. No such defense exists in melee combat, going back to one of my earlier arguments as to why it's unbalancing in ranged combat. Especially since it's all but impossible to parry bullets and lasers.

Well, of those, you only mentioned Entangle, which should be able to be done with TK.
Death Blows? Sure, if you have a weapon, and the ability to perform a Death Blow.
Body Flips? Never thought about it, but that's a damned good way to deal with tossing somebody around with TK.
Kick attacks? No... because you need a leg for that.

Really now? Now you're getting into sticky territory, I hope you realize. Entangle comes with it's own bonuses in the various hand to hand skills, as do flips. And there's nothing in the hand to hand skills that require a weapon to deliver a Death Blow, so why insist that TK ranged attacks need one? And as for Kick Attacks, the power of TK Punch does say it "delivers a powerful punch of kick-like force", so apparently it can emulate a kick. Add to the fact that you just applied skills to telepathic powers and you get into an ever messier area because there's no level-based regulations on TK powers like there are physical skills, so there's no reason to prevent a 1st level psychic from doing a TK Death Blow based on just rationale.

You're getting pretty far off-topic here, since simo-attacks aren't psychic combat.

No, I'm making a point. It is your contention that even though there is no mention of Simultaneous Attacks in the ranged combat section of any book, it's still OK to use it with guns just because it's listed in the general Combat Terms & Moves elsewhere. I'm saying, IF that's true, then there's nothing to stop people from using the same general list and applying its contents to others sections, like the one for Psychic Combat (RUE 366).

I'm not necessarily advocating the use of this reach of logic, but I am saying if one is true, then so must be the other.

See, I can go either way on the canonicity of "simultaneous attacks with ranged weapons", but tend to come down on the side of allowing it, though it would, of course, be a wild shot.

Now there's a thought. IF simo is officially usable with ranged weapons, it would make sense to impose the -6 To Hit penalty on the hastily made move. And technically speaking, the character is "shooting while under heavy fire", which is one of the qualifying conditions.

No, it wouldn't.
Shooting back wouldn't be any hastier than any other one-action attack, and you're not under fire until you're HIT (or closely missed), which would be on the attack after you get shot, by which time you've already simo-ed.

Think about that one for a second. The person calling the Simo isn't making a thought out move, but reacting to something in a split second. Just look at the qualifies for Wild Shooting: "when the character is terrified, angry/enraged, panicked, off balance...", and here's the one you should pay attention to the most, "...dodging..." (RUE 361).

No what was the simo defined as again? I believe it was tanking a defensive action "instead of defending with a parry, dodge, or entangle..." (RUE 347) So for all intents and purposes, Simo is effectively just like a dodge in terms of being a hastily made move since the two are so interchangeable. Ergo, it's a Wild Shot and suffers a -6. Of course this doesn't apply to Simo's in melee combat since the Wild Shot penalty is exclusive to the Ranged Combat section (as of RUE), so our Samurais are safe whether they simo or not.

[Kryzbyn]

Silly me. I figured this thread would end shortly after the FAQ was posted.

[Vrykolas2k]

I've always used the first choice.
And...
I think some of you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

[Kryzbyn]

How Doom does it.

You can only Simultaneous attack when you have initiative.
A Simultaneous attack is basically waiting for the other guy to attach and BAM! you attack at the same time unexpectedly. If you don't have the initiative you don't have that wait time. That's what having the initiative means.

That's a better way of running it.

And even then should be used only in hth melee combat, b/c I just have a hard time trying to time a laser coming at you or when somebody is going to pull the trigger.


all in all................simo attack is broken, the game losses nothing if you get rid of it...........

It's not broken. You have to realize that even though the rules are turn based, somewhat, whats transpiring happens fluidy over a 15 second time frame.
I don't understand why you think this mechanic is broken or should not be allowed for ranged combat

[Kryzbyn]

How Doom does it.

You can only Simultaneous attack when you have initiative.
A Simultaneous attack is basically waiting for the other guy to attach and BAM! you attack at the same time unexpectedly. If you don't have the initiative you don't have that wait time. That's what having the initiative means.

so that makes it your house rule, I take it, since you don't like the official rule (i.e. a defensive action used in place of a parry or dodge)?

How is attackin somebody a defensive action?

Juicer rolls a nat 20 for initiative, vegabond rolls a 1................Juicer attacks with his rifle, vegabond will simo everytime with his rifle...........vegabond happens to have more MDC and rifle does more damage than the Juicer............the Vegabond will win due to attrition..........yeah, that makes perfect sense..........if this doesn't prove it's not broken I don't know what will.

If your players fight with 18th century tactics where they stand scross the field from each other and just simo all day...
The juicer in your example would be an idiot to continue to fight that way.
Either that or he's drawing fire for a sniper, who can hit the vagabond without risk of a simo.
Tactics, man.
EDIT: I think the initiavtive point of contention is bogus anyway. If you have 3 people rolling for init, one gets a 20 one gets a 19 and the other an 18, the 18 is pretty much has to survive 2 actions from those above him before he can react at all, including a simultaneous attack. I'm pretty sure the rules state you can not do anything but use "free" defensive actions until your init comes up. IIRC.

[Natasha]

How Doom does it.

You can only Simultaneous attack when you have initiative.
A Simultaneous attack is basically waiting for the other guy to attach and BAM! you attack at the same time unexpectedly. If you don't have the initiative you don't have that wait time. That's what having the initiative means.

so that makes it your house rule, I take it, since you don't like the official rule (i.e. a defensive action used in place of a parry or dodge)?

How is attackin somebody a defensive action?

Juicer rolls a nat 20 for initiative, vegabond rolls a 1................Juicer attacks with his rifle, vegabond will simo everytime with his rifle...........vegabond happens to have more MDC and rifle does more damage than the Juicer............the Vegabond will win due to attrition..........yeah, that makes perfect sense..........if this doesn't prove it's not broken I don't know what will.

Vaggies run out of attacks before kitchen appliances do.

[Dog_O_War]

I was wrong.


Apon deeper review I am now inclined to that it does use up an attack, instead of being free.

However, it does not change the cheese factor of this rule. It is still broken and unfair and should be discluded as it serves to provide the weak an easy means of destroying the strong.

Basically the rule of simoltaineous attack offers that initiative means nothing, dodge means nothing, and parry is only worth it if you have paired weapons. But even then you cannot parry ranged attacks, making it worth far less than it should be.

I've read through the last few posts here, and have some comments to add;

Think about that one for a second. The person calling the Simo isn't making a thought out move, but reacting to something in a split second. Just look at the qualifies for Wild Shooting: "when the character is terrified, angry/enraged, panicked, off balance...", and here's the one you should pay attention to the most, "...dodging..." (RUE 361).

This is dumb.
Tell me where a soldier, juicer, crazy, or a cyborg simo-attacking a farmer who happens to have some crappy wilks laser will be any of the above; lasers offer no force and cannot "off-balance" an opponent (even if you shot a limb off or otherwise destablized the ground he is currently on - after all the attacks happen simoltaineously, therefore any effect that would happen occurs after his shot has gone off).
Infact most people that employ the simo-attack option do so out of a feeling of invicibility or through strategicly clear thought. How is this clear thought? Only someone crazy thinks the better option is dodging an energy blast (because that often works); a clear head would indicate that if the armour will hold against an attack, ensuring a strike on your opponent is better than wasting time "being evasive". The most evasive you'll get is seeking cover - and you can simo-attack from cover. Besides, armour provides protection against all but the most powerful attacks (re:boomgun, missiles - and often must be atleast small or larger to completely destroy armour, very large main cannons, etc...), and even then the other (really dumb) rule where the armour takes one last hit before crumbling offers that no single hit will kill you, even if your armour would be wiped out.
Shooting wild is for NPC's and people attempting to do a dozen things at once; simo-attacks alone do not qualify.

And that brings up the question of what Kev was thinking just then, because we all know he changes the rules quite frequently for his own gaming table. So that makes me wonder if that's what he intended all along, if that's just how he was doing it at that particular time, or if he even plays it that way any more.

I wouldn't put too much thought into this. From what I've read, the guy hasn't actually played an RPG in 10 years. Even though his "rulings" would be final (since he is the game's creator and all) it does not make them logical or even right (sometimes). Basically by having KS rule against something he wrote down and published is a complete discredit to the books, and only serves to prove that these rules are infact illogical, broken, and badly in need of an update.
H-core fans are the only ones KS seems to want to listen to, and these H-core fans simply take KS's words as littany - creating an agreement loop that the books are fine an need no changes. This is also known as a fatal flaw in business management.

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.

Where have the attacks gone? You use the actions in your own defense, or in making use of the openings others provide you. They don't disappear into nothing... they're used.

I am in agreement now.

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.

You have a lessened ability to make simultaneous attacks in that you have fewer attacks (and are, possibly, on the ground), since each simultaneous attack requires you to sacrifice one, but I'm utterly failing to see what you're saying here, otherwise.

What I'm saying is that the guy who goes first will be in danger of being simo-attacked no matter what his initiative is. This eliminates his dodge and his parry (unless he has paired weapons) and means that initiative does not matter as you could roll a 20, and your opponent a 1, but he's still attacking at the same time you are and offering that you can't defend yourself. Initiative just became pointless because at any moment your opponent says that he strikes at the same time as you. That is what I'm saying here.

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.

I think the rules for a simultaneous attack are very simple, and fairly logical.

First, we will ignore for a moment the existence of automatic defenses; they're a separate issue.

When you are attacked, you have three options: You may parry, you may dodge, or you may simultaneously attack. A parry frequently has higher bonuses (from equipment and training), and will negate the damage, but is ineffective against certain types of attacks. A dodge will negate the damage, but has lower bonuses. A simultaneous attack will cause you to take damage, but will also inflict damage upon the enemy. Each of these options requires that you spend one of your melee actions.

Except that you can't parry ranged weapons, and attempting to dodge them is often pointless...

Now, we turn to automatic defenses. An automatic dodge or automatic parry means that you may perform either of those actions without spending a melee action. If someone swings a weapon at you, you may attempt to parry without spending an action if you have an automatic parry. If someone fires a laser at you, you may attempt to dodge without spending an action if you have an automatic dodge. To suggest that simultaneous attacks do not require one to spend an action is to give everyone the option of "automatic simultaneous attack", something which has never appeared in game, and there is no textual support for.

Simo-attack eliminates these options for the attacker's defence, making the tougher opponent the winner in almost any conflict. A really good example of this is when you are in melee combat and a stronger and dextrous opponent decides to simo-attack you with a grapple; you cannot parry or dodge, and breaking free proves fruitless. Because you went first, you have sealed your own fate due to a rules miscalculation.

A ranged attack example is available in one of my other posts here (re: detoxed juicer with a good gun warps time), as again this poorly worded and conceptually dumb rule offers that a person can attack-dump in the first second of combat, leaving him motionless for the remaining 14 seconds. Does that seem logical, or even make a shred of sense? I'm thinking 'no'.

[Dog_O_War]

No, they don't. 2 for living, 2 for even HtH basic, 1 from boxing...bam. A Vagabond has as many attacks as a CS grunt.

Simo-attacks make absolutely no sense since they completely ignore initiative. Hell, if you can do simultaneous actions without worrying about who has the initiative then even if the person who wins initiative doesn't attack the other person can just simo-move and vacate the premises. It's just a mechanic that should never have been implemented.

...Except that you no longer get two for living. You only get one attack if you have no HtH skill, as noted in R:UE.

[Natasha]

You guys get my point, juicer has 45 MD plate wth 1d6 laser pistol........

Sure, I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I don't see how simultaneous attacks applies to shooting. I'll have to dig out my R:UE book but the one I have with me, Systems Failure, speaks of blows, not shooting; it speaks of parrying and dodging, which is hand to hand, not shooting.

[Natasha]

No, they don't. 2 for living, 2 for even HtH basic, 1 from boxing...bam. A Vagabond has as many attacks as a CS grunt.

Simo-attacks make absolutely no sense since they completely ignore initiative. Hell, if you can do simultaneous actions without worrying about who has the initiative then even if the person who wins initiative doesn't attack the other person can just simo-move and vacate the premises. It's just a mechanic that should never have been implemented.

Vagabond doesn't mean worthless chump.

[Natasha]

I was wrong.


Apon deeper review I am now inclined to that it does use up an attack, instead of being free.

However, it does not change the cheese factor of this rule. It is still broken and unfair and should be discluded as it serves to provide the weak an easy means of destroying the strong.

Basically the rule of simoltaineous attack offers that initiative means nothing, dodge means nothing, and parry is only worth it if you have paired weapons. But even then you cannot parry ranged attacks, making it worth far less than it should be.

Well you still have to roll to make a successful counterstrike.

Although I know it's wrong that attacking and defending at the same is impossible.

[Dog_O_War]

I was wrong.


Apon deeper review I am now inclined to that it does use up an attack, instead of being free.

However, it does not change the cheese factor of this rule. It is still broken and unfair and should be discluded as it serves to provide the weak an easy means of destroying the strong.

Basically the rule of simoltaineous attack offers that initiative means nothing, dodge means nothing, and parry is only worth it if you have paired weapons. But even then you cannot parry ranged attacks, making it worth far less than it should be.

Well you still have to roll to make a successful counterstrike.

Although I know it's wrong that attacking and defending at the same is impossible.

You gotta make an 8 with bonuses. WP pistol gives you +1 off the bat, and a multitude of guns offers an additional +1, as well as cybernetics, offering another +1, meaning you have a 75% chance to hit. That "roll to hit" is far too often a joke.

[Natasha]

I was wrong.


Apon deeper review I am now inclined to that it does use up an attack, instead of being free.

However, it does not change the cheese factor of this rule. It is still broken and unfair and should be discluded as it serves to provide the weak an easy means of destroying the strong.

Basically the rule of simoltaineous attack offers that initiative means nothing, dodge means nothing, and parry is only worth it if you have paired weapons. But even then you cannot parry ranged attacks, making it worth far less than it should be.

Well you still have to roll to make a successful counterstrike.

Although I know it's wrong that attacking and defending at the same is impossible.

You gotta make an 8 with bonuses. WP pistol gives you +1 off the bat, and a multitude of guns offers an additional +1, as well as cybernetics, offering another +1, meaning you have a 75% chance to hit. That "roll to hit" is far too often a joke.

Are we sure simultaneous attacks are possible outside hand to hand combat?

[Dog_O_War]

I was wrong.


Apon deeper review I am now inclined to that it does use up an attack, instead of being free.

However, it does not change the cheese factor of this rule. It is still broken and unfair and should be discluded as it serves to provide the weak an easy means of destroying the strong.

Basically the rule of simoltaineous attack offers that initiative means nothing, dodge means nothing, and parry is only worth it if you have paired weapons. But even then you cannot parry ranged attacks, making it worth far less than it should be.

Well you still have to roll to make a successful counterstrike.

Although I know it's wrong that attacking and defending at the same is impossible.

You gotta make an 8 with bonuses. WP pistol gives you +1 off the bat, and a multitude of guns offers an additional +1, as well as cybernetics, offering another +1, meaning you have a 75% chance to hit. That "roll to hit" is far too often a joke.

Are we sure simultaneous attacks are possible outside hand to hand combat?

Yes. And honestly, why wouldn't they be? It takes less time to pull a trigger than it does to swing a sword, and beyond that you can use firearms in HtH, offering that it is merely "combat" with the words Hand to Hand being a traditional saying. Besides, there are HtH skills (re: assassin) that give bonuses to ranged strike rolls. By all accounts, HtH is combat with ranged weapons acting as really long arms. (heh, "firearms" infact)

[Natasha]

I was wrong.


Apon deeper review I am now inclined to that it does use up an attack, instead of being free.

However, it does not change the cheese factor of this rule. It is still broken and unfair and should be discluded as it serves to provide the weak an easy means of destroying the strong.

Basically the rule of simoltaineous attack offers that initiative means nothing, dodge means nothing, and parry is only worth it if you have paired weapons. But even then you cannot parry ranged attacks, making it worth far less than it should be.

Well you still have to roll to make a successful counterstrike.

Although I know it's wrong that attacking and defending at the same is impossible.

You gotta make an 8 with bonuses. WP pistol gives you +1 off the bat, and a multitude of guns offers an additional +1, as well as cybernetics, offering another +1, meaning you have a 75% chance to hit. That "roll to hit" is far too often a joke.

Are we sure simultaneous attacks are possible outside hand to hand combat?

Yes. And honestly, why wouldn't they be? It takes less time to pull a trigger than it does to swing a sword, and beyond that you can use firearms in HtH, offering that it is merely "combat" with the words Hand to Hand being a traditional saying. Besides, there are HtH skills (re: assassin) that give bonuses to ranged strike rolls. By all accounts, HtH is combat with ranged weapons acting as really long arms. (heh, "firearms" infact)

I still disagree that simultaneous attack is for ranged combat. I really don't know how to answer your question why wouldn't simultaneous attack be possible outside hand to hand combat. I just don't think it is and nothing tells me it is.

If you are going to allow simultaneous attack for ranged weapon then the defender should have to roll wholly unmodified roll on a called shot type of thing; it shouldn't be cake.

And then if that doesn't hold up all I can say else is that this is a very dangerous world in which we live.

[Natasha]

No, they don't. 2 for living, 2 for even HtH basic, 1 from boxing...bam. A Vagabond has as many attacks as a CS grunt.

Simo-attacks make absolutely no sense since they completely ignore initiative. Hell, if you can do simultaneous actions without worrying about who has the initiative then even if the person who wins initiative doesn't attack the other person can just simo-move and vacate the premises. It's just a mechanic that should never have been implemented.

Vagabond doesn't mean worthless chump.

Doesn't change the mechanic from being stupid and excessively easy to abuse.

Stupidity and ease of abuse are in the eye of the beholder.

Because a vagabond could fight a CS grunt doesn't make it stupid or excessively easy to abuse. A vagabond could fight one without simultaneous attack. For me, that's not at all difficult to believe.

As a hand to hand tactic, it's fine, I think so. If you allow it for ranged attacks, then I think you're doing it wrongly to begin with so ease of abuse doesn't get a chance to rear its head.

[Natasha]

No, they don't. 2 for living, 2 for even HtH basic, 1 from boxing...bam. A Vagabond has as many attacks as a CS grunt.

Simo-attacks make absolutely no sense since they completely ignore initiative. Hell, if you can do simultaneous actions without worrying about who has the initiative then even if the person who wins initiative doesn't attack the other person can just simo-move and vacate the premises. It's just a mechanic that should never have been implemented.

Vagabond doesn't mean worthless chump.

Doesn't change the mechanic from being stupid and excessively easy to abuse.

Stupidity and ease of abuse are in the eye of the beholder.

Because a vagabond could fight a CS grunt doesn't make it stupid or excessively easy to abuse. A vagabond could fight one without simultaneous attack. For me, that's not at all difficult to believe.

As a hand to hand tactic, it's fine, I think so. If you allow it for ranged attacks, then I think you're doing it wrongly to begin with so ease of abuse doesn't get a chance to rear its head.

Except it is written as a tactic that can be used at all ranges which makes it too easy to abuse. I find it to be stupid in HtH as well because someone who is much faster than you throwing a punch isn't going to give you the opportunity to let you throw one at the same time. Simo-attacks should ONLY be allowed if whoever has the initiative holds his action until the slower person acts. Otherwise it's simply stupid. It's very design and implementation are horrid.

Like I said, I have to re-read my Rifts book to see where it says simultaneous attacks can be used at all ranges. I agree that using outside hand to hand is bad. Inside hand to hand, though, it's not all that bad. All my hand to hand trainings have focused much on simultaneous attack if I don't get the jump on my opponent; and a lot of hand to hand attacks give the defender an opportunity to simultaneously counterstrike. So speaking from my personal experience, I don't think it's all that bad.

[Killer Cyborg]

For instance, take the duels in the New West. Two people square off at high noon and draw. Character with the highest initiative wins and shoots first. But if ranged Simos are allowed all of that goes out the window. It doesn't matter who gets the initiative because the other guy will just call Simo.

Same thing happens with two samurai in a sword-fight.
It's not a problem with range, it's a problem with simo-attacks.

Not the same thing. In that melee scenario the victim samurai may be able to use his wakizashi to parry the Simo counter if he has the Paired Weapon's skill or ability. No such defense exists in melee combat, going back to one of my earlier arguments as to why it's unbalancing in ranged combat. Especially since it's all but impossible to parry bullets and lasers.

But if the Samurai doesn't have Paired Weapons, then it works out just the same as with ranged weapons.
Which, if you are going to be consistent, means that you think simo-attacks are "unbalanced" in melee combat where the participants don't have paired weapons.

And you can think that, but it doesn't change the rules.

Well, of those, you only mentioned Entangle, which should be able to be done with TK.
Death Blows? Sure, if you have a weapon, and the ability to perform a Death Blow.
Body Flips? Never thought about it, but that's a damned good way to deal with tossing somebody around with TK.
Kick attacks? No... because you need a leg for that.

Really now? Now you're getting into sticky territory, I hope you realize. Entangle comes with it's own bonuses in the various hand to hand skills, as do flips. And there's nothing in the hand to hand skills that require a weapon to deliver a Death Blow, so why insist that TK ranged attacks need one?

Last I knew, Death Blow was a specific ability handed out by HTH Assassin, and other HTH forms, at certain levels. But it's been a while since I brushed up on this.

And as for Kick Attacks, the power of TK Punch does say it "delivers a powerful punch of kick-like force", so apparently it can emulate a kick.

Only if you think that a punch is the same as a kick.

You're getting pretty far off-topic here, since simo-attacks aren't psychic combat.

No, I'm making a point. It is your contention that even though there is no mention of Simultaneous Attacks in the ranged combat section of any book,

I'm sorry: hold up a sec.

What "ranged combat sections" are you referring to?

it's still OK to use it with guns just because it's listed in the general Combat Terms & Moves elsewhere. I'm saying, IF that's true, then there's nothing to stop people from using the same general list and applying its contents to others sections, like the one for Psychic Combat (RUE 366).

Except that psychic combat still isn't the same as ranged combat.
Unless it is actually being used as ranged combat, as with a Mind Bolt or a PK Fireball.
In which case, it uses all the normal combat rules.

I'm not necessarily advocating the use of this reach of logic, but I am saying if one is true, then so must be the other.

You are saying that, but you are wrong.

Now there's a thought. IF simo is officially usable with ranged weapons, it would make sense to impose the -6 To Hit penalty on the hastily made move. And technically speaking, the character is "shooting while under heavy fire", which is one of the qualifying conditions.

No, it wouldn't.
Shooting back wouldn't be any hastier than any other one-action attack, and you're not under fire until you're HIT (or closely missed), which would be on the attack after you get shot, by which time you've already simo-ed.

Think about that one for a second. The person calling the Simo isn't making a thought out move, but reacting to something in a split second. Just look at the qualifies for Wild Shooting: "when the character is terrified, angry/enraged, panicked, off balance...", and here's the one you should pay attention to the most, "...dodging..." (RUE 361).

No what was the simo defined as again? I believe it was tanking a defensive action "instead of defending with a parry, dodge, or entangle..." (RUE 347) So for all intents and purposes, Simo is effectively just like a dodge in terms of being a hastily made move since the two are so interchangeable.

So... because it's something that's NOT a dodge, it should suffer the same penalties that you get if you're dodging?

I disagree.

Also, I'll point out that shooting while Dodging doesn't give you penalties because it's a hasty action, but rather because you're trying to do two things at once: shoot and move.
Really, all that passage does is make me wonder who it is that can shoot and dodge at the same time. Robot Vehicles, perhaps... with the pilot dodging, and the gunner simo-attacking.
Or perhaps it means that if you just dodged, then your next attack will be Wild because you haven't recovered yet.

[lather]

Like I said, I have to re-read my Rifts book to see where it says simultaneous attacks can be used at all ranges. I agree that using outside hand to hand is bad. Inside hand to hand, though, it's not all that bad. All my hand to hand trainings have focused much on simultaneous attack if I don't get the jump on my opponent; and a lot of hand to hand attacks give the defender an opportunity to simultaneously counterstrike. So speaking from my personal experience, I don't think it's all that bad.

RUE's wording is much less clear than Systems Failure's wording, but I'd agree that it's not for ranged attacks.

And I think what you meant and what you said are slightly different. Your hand to hand training focuses a lot on simultaneously parrying/dodging and striking. It's one of the first things you learn in any self defense system worth anything.

[Killer Cyborg]

Vaggies run out of attacks before kitchen appliances do.

You guys get my point, juicer has 45 MD plate wth 1d6 laser pistol........
Vegabond has 60 MD bushman but laser rifle that does 1d6x10....

Not going to matter how many more atacks teh Juicer has b/c the Vegabond only needs one or two simo attacks to finish him off...........

Yes, when two people are just standing still, blazing away at each other, the guy with the bigger gun and better armor is pretty likely to win.
I'm not sure where the problem is.

Of course tactics come in, but what if you're in a big Tolkeen war where you have thousands of people fighting, sometimes you will be just shooting at each other from 200-300-400-500 whatever feet away.....

And sometimes you'll be carpet-bombed.
Life isn't always fair.

A samas tactics to beat a Glitterboy are too be fast and dodge his attacks..............so now all a Glitteboy has to do is simo all the time b/c he's not afraid of the 1d4x10 rail gun.......

That's all the Glitterboy ever had to do.
But even without Simo-Attack, a lone SAMAS never stood a chance against a GB, not by the rules.

Simo. attacks does nothing to better the game whatsoever, just helps people with power creep who can take overwelming amounts of MDC or a one trick pony character who will always use same tactics over and over using simo attacks as part of his attack........

As I pointed out, it helps out the little guys too, because it lets them get off one more shot before they die.

And from my perspective, the only people it really hurts are the ponies whose one trick is standing stock still in the open, shooting at the enemy.

...........one good example is how Killer Cyborg used the TW snare gun, he doesn't care if he gets hit first b/c he'll just simo and hopefully make a successfull roll strike to snare someone up and they're done for teh rest of the fights, where if it were a regular attak, he would have to roll to strike and then the opponenet still has a chance to dodge..

Yup.
Except that my plan's only good for certain types of one-on-one combat where I'm not expecting another fight soon.
Simo-attacking means that you get hit, which means that if you do it enough times, you die.
The standard rule of "Don't Get Shot" is still the best rule for combat overall; it just wasn't very feasible in the scenario you outlined.

[Kryzbyn]

That's all the Glitterboy ever had to do.
But even without Simo-Attack, a lone SAMAS never stood a chance against a GB, not by the rules.

Not true, even a old school Sam with Missle Rifle who has a EOD specialist buddy rework his plasma missles that now do 2d4x10 by the CWC book, fires a volley of 4, average damage of 200 MDC, boom gun only has 175 MDC and takes full damage from a direct hit and the gun is so big there are no minuses to strike it, and the hands of the glitterboy only have 100 MDC and they will take half damage accordin to RUE b/c it's in the blast radius so both hands get blown off so even if he had another weapon in the other hand he can't use it anymore, so one attack he can disable his boom gun and blow his hands off b/c with plasma everything in the blast radius takes damage.

Finish off the rest of your missles then switch to rail gun. GB is too slow to get away, with no weapons, he's done.

Wow, now that I think about it this simo attack may benefit the Sam more b/c he can basically disable the GB in one attack while the average damage for the GB boom gun is 100-110 MDC............the GB may knock the Sam so hard he losses a turn or two, but when the GB has no more weapons he's done for. Assuming he hasn't decked out his GB with mini missles galore and what not......

Either way who ever it benefits, I don't like it......

Or the GB shoots your volley and you fly through your own plasma cloud...
That doesn't even take a simo.
So why is shooting missiles in response of an attack acceptable, but a simo isn't? Haven't heard anyone argue against that...yet.

[Kryzbyn]

Or the GB shoots your volley and you fly through your own plasma cloud...
That doesn't even take a simo.
So why is shooting missiles in response of an attack acceptable, but a simo isn't? Haven't heard anyone argue against that...yet.

Obviously that does't take a simo, but when you're on the receiving end of a simo attack you're defenseless, so the GB wouldn't be able to shoot the volley or dodge.

Shotting missles response if acceptable b/c it's a defensive maneuver that doesn't effect the other person who has either won initiative or is counterattacking.

So then, why is it an inccredible leap into the ludicrous that instead of shooting the missiles, he shoots the SAMAS?

[Dog_O_War]

That's all the Glitterboy ever had to do.
But even without Simo-Attack, a lone SAMAS never stood a chance against a GB, not by the rules.

Not true, even a old school Sam with Missle Rifle who has a EOD specialist buddy rework his plasma missles that now do 2d4x10 by the CWC book, fires a volley of 4, average damage of 200 MDC, boom gun only has 175 MDC and takes full damage from a direct hit and the gun is so big there are no minuses to strike it, and the hands of the glitterboy only have 100 MDC and they will take half damage accordin to RUE b/c it's in the blast radius so both hands get blown off so even if he had another weapon in the other hand he can't use it anymore, so one attack he can disable his boom gun and blow his hands off b/c with plasma everything in the blast radius takes damage.

Finish off the rest of your missles then switch to rail gun. GB is too slow to get away, with no weapons, he's done.

Wow, now that I think about it this simo attack may benefit the Sam more b/c he can basically disable the GB in one attack while the average damage for the GB boom gun is 100-110 MDC............the GB may knock the Sam so hard he losses a turn or two, but when the GB has no more weapons he's done for. Assuming he hasn't decked out his GB with mini missles galore and what not......

Either way who ever it benefits, I don't like it......

Or the GB shoots your volley and you fly through your own plasma cloud...
That doesn't even take a simo.
So why is shooting missiles in response of an attack acceptable, but a simo isn't? Haven't heard anyone argue against that...yet.

You're right, that qualifies for the "natch 20". Seriously; you have to hit four targets moving at 1200mph, with a weapon only capable of single shots. And even then when you shoot a missile it does not go off, it is destroyed.

[Kryzbyn]

That's all the Glitterboy ever had to do.
But even without Simo-Attack, a lone SAMAS never stood a chance against a GB, not by the rules.

Not true, even a old school Sam with Missle Rifle who has a EOD specialist buddy rework his plasma missles that now do 2d4x10 by the CWC book, fires a volley of 4, average damage of 200 MDC, boom gun only has 175 MDC and takes full damage from a direct hit and the gun is so big there are no minuses to strike it, and the hands of the glitterboy only have 100 MDC and they will take half damage accordin to RUE b/c it's in the blast radius so both hands get blown off so even if he had another weapon in the other hand he can't use it anymore, so one attack he can disable his boom gun and blow his hands off b/c with plasma everything in the blast radius takes damage.

Finish off the rest of your missles then switch to rail gun. GB is too slow to get away, with no weapons, he's done.

Wow, now that I think about it this simo attack may benefit the Sam more b/c he can basically disable the GB in one attack while the average damage for the GB boom gun is 100-110 MDC............the GB may knock the Sam so hard he losses a turn or two, but when the GB has no more weapons he's done for. Assuming he hasn't decked out his GB with mini missles galore and what not......

Either way who ever it benefits, I don't like it......

Or the GB shoots your volley and you fly through your own plasma cloud...
That doesn't even take a simo.
So why is shooting missiles in response of an attack acceptable, but a simo isn't? Haven't heard anyone argue against that...yet.

You're right, that qualifies for the "natch 20". Seriously; you have to hit four targets moving at 1200mph, with a weapon only capable of single shots. And even then when you shoot a missile it does not go off, it is destroyed.

A Boomgun fires a round holding 200 2 inch long flechette rounds, not slugs.
Easier to hit 4 missiles with a super-sonic shotgun.

[Dog_O_War]

That's all the Glitterboy ever had to do.
But even without Simo-Attack, a lone SAMAS never stood a chance against a GB, not by the rules.

Not true, even a old school Sam with Missle Rifle who has a EOD specialist buddy rework his plasma missles that now do 2d4x10 by the CWC book, fires a volley of 4, average damage of 200 MDC, boom gun only has 175 MDC and takes full damage from a direct hit and the gun is so big there are no minuses to strike it, and the hands of the glitterboy only have 100 MDC and they will take half damage accordin to RUE b/c it's in the blast radius so both hands get blown off so even if he had another weapon in the other hand he can't use it anymore, so one attack he can disable his boom gun and blow his hands off b/c with plasma everything in the blast radius takes damage.

Finish off the rest of your missles then switch to rail gun. GB is too slow to get away, with no weapons, he's done.

Wow, now that I think about it this simo attack may benefit the Sam more b/c he can basically disable the GB in one attack while the average damage for the GB boom gun is 100-110 MDC............the GB may knock the Sam so hard he losses a turn or two, but when the GB has no more weapons he's done for. Assuming he hasn't decked out his GB with mini missles galore and what not......

Either way who ever it benefits, I don't like it......

Or the GB shoots your volley and you fly through your own plasma cloud...
That doesn't even take a simo.
So why is shooting missiles in response of an attack acceptable, but a simo isn't? Haven't heard anyone argue against that...yet.

You're right, that qualifies for the "natch 20". Seriously; you have to hit four targets moving at 1200mph, with a weapon only capable of single shots. And even then when you shoot a missile it does not go off, it is destroyed.

A Boomgun fires a round holding 200 2 inch long flechette rounds, not slugs.
Easier to hit 4 missiles with a super-sonic shotgun.

Except that by the rules you get to hit one target, not as many as you want.

[Kryzbyn]

Or the GB shoots your volley and you fly through your own plasma cloud...
That doesn't even take a simo.
So why is shooting missiles in response of an attack acceptable, but a simo isn't? Haven't heard anyone argue against that...yet.

Obviously that does't take a simo, but when you're on the receiving end of a simo attack you're defenseless, so the GB wouldn't be able to shoot the volley or dodge.

Shotting missles response if acceptable b/c it's a defensive maneuver that doesn't effect the other person who has either won initiative or is counterattacking.

So then, why is it an inccredible leap into the ludicrous that instead of shooting the missiles, he shoots the SAMAS?

That is what I assumed at first.

What are you arguing?

In favor of simul attacks. Why can he shoot at the missiles but not at the guy who fired them at him and soak the missile damage?