Forums of the Megaverse®

Kryzbyn wrote:Umm. Why do you have to make it more difficult than it is? If its not an ambush (aware of each other) the defender can simo.
If you dont like that, Kevin stated other options to use, like the gunfighting rules.

A) Because all other defensive moves in ranged combat are penalized, so Simo should be no different.

B) Kev indeed did mention the Quick Draw skill (RUE 327) might be more appropriate for one one on one situations. And because that skill bestows initiative bonuses to determine who goes first, the initiative-negating Simo move is therefore inapplicable in "Showdown" situations where there are just two opponents and no distractions.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote: And how do we determine awareness in this game in a fair and unbiased way when there are more than two people engaged in a conflict? Why, that would be with a Perception Roll. At this juncture it's not a matter of whether its appropriate, but exactly when and what degree of difficulty should be ascribed to the roll.

We determine awareness however the GMs decide to do it.

Even the GM isn't above having to abide by the rules, and using Perception Rolls is the only way to make it fair.

Another issue Kev raised is the fairness of allowing it when characters are not evenly matched. This can be due to circumstances or differing levels of ability. Whether this uneveness comes about from a Vagabond trying to match reflexes with a Juicer, or the defender spying a shooter out of the corner of his eye from the far right with only a split second to respond, the result is the same. The character on the bad end of the mismatch is pressed and either should not be allowed to preform the ranged Simo, or to be kind, at the very least should be stuck with a Wild Shooting penalty.

Which part of what he said do you think supports that?

Where he spoke of evenly matched opponents. And as I stated before, what makes characters evenly matched or not can result form ability or situation. When such an imbalance exists you have only two options; either you can disallow Simos or allow them with a fair penalty such as Wild Shooting.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I was right.
You were wrong.
It's really that simple.

See, that's where we're different on this issue. You're arguing so "you" can be right. I'm arguing for what's right for the game and everyone else.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:Kevin's "clarification" was merely a repeat of his consistent message of "it's up to the GM".

It was confirmation that he sees no reason why NOT to play that way.
Which puts the kibosh on the "It's not supposed to be played that way" crowd.
Or rather, it puts the kibosh on their argument.
Some of them seem to be sticking around.

It also puts the kibosh on the notion that Ranged Simo is without restriction, which you are now brazenly ignoring. Those restrictions being, (A) the requirement for mutual awareness of both combatants, and (B) that the two be roughly equally matched. To determine awareness when there are multiple combatants in the fray we have the Perception Roll (if it's obvious then make it an "Easy" roll requiring a 4 or better, and if there's ample distraction and chaos in the area and make it "Challenging" requiring a 14 or better). And should it be that the two are not evenly matched, then either the Simo should be either disallowed for the character at the disadvantage (again, due to ability or circumstance) or allowed with a penalty (with Wild Shooting being the most applicable).

whipped4073 wrote:This argument makes me glad I use the full simo-attack description from N&S.
You know, the one where the simo-attack gets no bonuses to strike.

That's something, though I still think Wild Shooting is more appropriate in general. But it's nice to see that the book agrees that there should be some penalty with the Simo.

Dr. Doom III wrote:Also none of the points made by the "you shouldn't use Simos in ranged combat" posters were addressed. Not surprising since he was responding to a question from the pro side and most likely didn't even see our concerns/points.

Yea, that crossed my mind too.

lather wrote:There needs to be some clarification though.
Can I simultaneously attack with a called or aimed shot?

I'll state the obvious here:
No. A simo-attack has to be able to be done in a single action.
I suppose you could simo-attack by aiming at the attacker, since that would just be one attack, but I don't see much point in it.

Is that going to use up one, two, or three of my attacks?

Whatever it normally uses up, which is why you can't do it.

Actually, you could do it under the following circumstances:
You have already spent the required number of attacks aiming, and are ready to fire.

Say you're making an Aimed, Called shot (3 attacks), and you've already spent 2 attacks aiming at the guy's head (or whatever), then he attacks you in the next round, before your init.

K20A2_S wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
You can't dodge, parry, roll, or simo-attack unless you're actually attacked.

So you can't simo a mage doing a defensive spell/armor ect who is concentrating/speaking/channeling his PPE b/c he's not attacking you, but you can simo somebody who is taking evasive maneuvers but firing wildly at you which takes considerable less concentration and time than to cast a spell..................that makes sense.....lol.....

Every set of rules breaks down after a certain point, and this is one of those points.
Would it make sense for you to be able to dodge or parry somebody who isn't attacking you?
No, not really.

There's no way for the rules to make 100% sense here (or, really, anywhere).

lather wrote:What I mean is that these attacks count as two of your available attacks but are actually just one attack. Why do you have to wait until he's done "winding up" to simultaneously attack? A true simultaneous attack would be you attack simultaneously, which means while he's "winding up".

No, a true simultaneous attack would be attacking back while you're being attacked.
Not attacking somebody while they're preparing to attack you.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Lenwen wrote:Why is this thread even continueing ... the GOD of gods in the megaverse has spoketh ... there is 100% no doubt as to how it can be done now ...

Yeah Doom posted a while ago.

I dont understand how this thread is even going with KS himself who already answered it lmao ..

Because his answer amounted to "Yeah sure do what you want. Here's what I'd do." He says it can be used under some circumstance and gives one example of being "aware" and "evenly matched". Then he gives another house rule where you basically re-roll initiative. Aware is taken by some to mean anytime your not being surprised you can do it. Of course that wouldn't be a "certain circumstance" that would be virtually all of combat. Then there is evenly matched which is any GM's guess.

Already addressed.

Also none of the points made by the "you shouldn't use Simos in ranged combat" posters were addressed. Not surprising since he was responding to a question from the pro side and most likely didn't even see our concerns/points. Frankly It was an answer reminiscent of the old FAQ.

None of their points were worth addressing.

Dead Boy wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:Umm. Why do you have to make it more difficult than it is? If its not an ambush (aware of each other) the defender can simo.
If you dont like that, Kevin stated other options to use, like the gunfighting rules.

A) Because all other defensive moves in ranged combat are penalized, so Simo should be no different.

B) Kev indeed did mention the Quick Draw skill (RUE 327) might be more appropriate for one one on one situations. And because that skill bestows initiative bonuses to determine who goes first, the initiative-negating Simo move is therefore inapplicable in "Showdown" situations where there are just two opponents and no distractions.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote: And how do we determine awareness in this game in a fair and unbiased way when there are more than two people engaged in a conflict? Why, that would be with a Perception Roll. At this juncture it's not a matter of whether its appropriate, but exactly when and what degree of difficulty should be ascribed to the roll.

We determine awareness however the GMs decide to do it.

Even the GM isn't above having to abide by the rules, and using Perception Rolls is the only way to make it fair.

Not really.
I'd say the fairest way is to take a realistic look at the situation and judge from there.
If there's two guys out in the open in front of you who are a threat, then there's no need for a check; you see them.
If there's a guy behind you, hiding in the bushes with a successful Prowl roll, there's no need for you to make a check; you don't see him.

You want to argue about when, where, and how Perception checks should be made, start a thread on it.

Another issue Kev raised is the fairness of allowing it when characters are not evenly matched. This can be due to circumstances or differing levels of ability. Whether this uneveness comes about from a Vagabond trying to match reflexes with a Juicer, or the defender spying a shooter out of the corner of his eye from the far right with only a split second to respond, the result is the same. The character on the bad end of the mismatch is pressed and either should not be allowed to preform the ranged Simo, or to be kind, at the very least should be stuck with a Wild Shooting penalty.

Which part of what he said do you think supports that?

Where he spoke of evenly matched opponents.[/quote]

Yeah, I was hoping for a direct quote there, so I don't have to do your work to support your opinion.
If you don't feel like quoting it, then I'll look it up myself later and guess what you're talking about. Maybe.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I was right.
You were wrong.
It's really that simple.

See, that's where we're different on this issue. You're arguing so "you" can be right. I'm arguing for what's right for the game and everyone else.

No, all I've been doing it telling you how the game works.
I'm not trying to be right; I just AM right.
Kev confirmed it.

At this point, you just seem to be desperately trying NOT to admit "Okay, KC. I was wrong. You CAN make simo-attacks in ranged combat, and every argument I made to the contrary was just stuff that I was projecting, stuff that isn't actually supported by the rules."
So you're trying to find something, somewhere in what Kev said that you can feel you were right about.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:Kevin's "clarification" was merely a repeat of his consistent message of "it's up to the GM".

It was confirmation that he sees no reason why NOT to play that way.
Which puts the kibosh on the "It's not supposed to be played that way" crowd.
Or rather, it puts the kibosh on their argument.
Some of them seem to be sticking around.

It also puts the kibosh on the notion that Ranged Simo is without restriction, which you are now brazenly ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it.
I addressed it last time you brought it up, and I'm happy to do it again:

I never said that ranged simo-attacks were completely unrestricted.
It's pretty obvious that you have to both have ranged weapons, you both have to have attacks available, and you both have to see each other.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:There needs to be some clarification though.
Can I simultaneously attack with a called or aimed shot?

I'll state the obvious here:
No. A simo-attack has to be able to be done in a single action.

Try stating the rules instead.

It just says simultaneous attack uses up an attack. There's no indication I can't leap kick in response. There's nothing to indicate it has to be able to be done in a single action; it mentions that simply because sometimes parry, a defense it replaces, does not take up a single action.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:What I mean is that these attacks count as two of your available attacks but are actually just one attack. Why do you have to wait until he's done "winding up" to simultaneously attack? A true simultaneous attack would be you attack simultaneously, which means while he's "winding up".

No, a true simultaneous attack would be attacking back while you're being attacked.
Not attacking somebody while they're preparing to attack you.

It's still one attack. And since we're going with the obvious now, the obvious says that when someone is leaping at you, you are under attack. At least it's obvious to anyone that's ever been lept at.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Lenwen wrote:Why is this thread even continueing ... the GOD of gods in the megaverse has spoketh ... there is 100% no doubt as to how it can be done now ...

Yeah Doom posted a while ago.

I dont understand how this thread is even going with KS himself who already answered it lmao ..

Because his answer amounted to "Yeah sure do what you want. Here's what I'd do." He says it can be used under some circumstance and gives one example of being "aware" and "evenly matched". Then he gives another house rule where you basically re-roll initiative. Aware is taken by some to mean anytime your not being surprised you can do it. Of course that wouldn't be a "certain circumstance" that would be virtually all of combat. Then there is evenly matched which is any GM's guess.

Already addressed.

Also none of the points made by the "you shouldn't use Simos in ranged combat" posters were addressed. Not surprising since he was responding to a question from the pro side and most likely didn't even see our concerns/points. Frankly It was an answer reminiscent of the old FAQ.

None of their points were worth addressing.

That's funny because what you did address it with wasn't worth reading.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dr. Doom III wrote:Also none of the points made by the "you shouldn't use Simos in ranged combat" posters were addressed.

None of their points were worth addressing.

That's funny because what you did address it with wasn't worth reading.

No surprise there.
Truisms and common sense rarely are worth reading.

Killer Cyborg wrote:No surprise there.
Truisms and common sense rarely are worth reading.

With that attitude I understand why you've not been swayed by my arguments.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:No surprise there.
Truisms and common sense rarely are worth reading.

With that attitude I understand why you've not been swayed by my arguments.

Nice attempt at "I'm rubber, you're glue," but in order for it to work you'd have had to make some actual arguments for me to read, instead of just spamming the place up with wishful thinking.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Nice attempt at "I'm rubber, you're glue," but in order for it to work you'd have had to make some actual arguments for me to read, instead of just spamming the place up with wishful thinking.

More proof you didn't read them.

macksting wrote:While I don't have issue with that particular interpretation of Simultaneous Attack, it should be noted that only N&SS has so far been mentioned as having that caveat. You can't cherry pick too much from N&SS, since N&SS's rules differ from other Palladium products on a great many points.

Quite true, but some support is better than none at all.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Even the GM isn't above having to abide by the rules, and using Perception Rolls is the only way to make it fair.

Not really.
I'd say the fairest way is to take a realistic look at the situation and judge from there.
If there's two guys out in the open in front of you who are a threat, then there's no need for a check; you see them.

That's a grossly overly simplistic way to look at it, and most circumstances won't be that neat and clean. A more likely scenario is the shooting starts and in no time there are baddies to your left, foes to your right, someone else dead ahead, and who knows how many in any given direction. Very few characters have 360-degree vision and unless your character is going to Simo the guy in front where his eyes most likely are, there's no clear cut way to simply decide who is aware of what. Clearly a Perception Roll is called for.

You want to argue about when, where, and how Perception checks should be made, start a thread on it.

Why when it's so painfully obvious that it's relevant here?

Another issue Kev raised is the fairness of allowing it when characters are not evenly matched. This can be due to circumstances or differing levels of ability. Whether this uneveness comes about from a Vagabond trying to match reflexes with a Juicer, or the defender spying a shooter out of the corner of his eye from the far right with only a split second to respond, the result is the same. The character on the bad end of the mismatch is pressed and either should not be allowed to preform the ranged Simo, or to be kind, at the very least should be stuck with a Wild Shooting penalty.

Which part of what he said do you think supports that?

Where he spoke of evenly matched opponents.

Yeah, I was hoping for a direct quote there, so I don't have to do your work to support your opinion.

*sigh* You're just determined to drag your heal every inch of the way, aren't you. Fine.

"BUT I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and especially if they are fairly evenly matched."

These are Kev's own words, verbatim. And in his unprecedented reply he emphasized the issue of both the combatants in the Simo being "evenly matched", especially so. And as I've had to state at least three times now, this can just as easily be due to the individual abilities of the characters involved as it could from circumstance.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I was right.
You were wrong.
It's really that simple.

See, that's where we're different on this issue. You're arguing so "you" can be right. I'm arguing for what's right for the game and everyone else.

No, all I've been doing it telling you how the game works.
I'm not trying to be right; I just AM right.
Kev confirmed it.

Right... hence why you wanted me to bow before your superior might and openly hail you as the victor before all who still bother to read this string. "You" being right had nothing to do with it.

And yet again, Kev did NOT proclaim you the grand victor. Yes, he said that Ranged Simultaneous Attacks are permissible. No, contrary to your claims all along to that point, it is not free of restrictions and possible penalties beyond the need for both adversaries to be armed.

At this point, you just seem to be desperately trying NOT to admit "Okay, KC. I was wrong. You CAN make simo-attacks in ranged combat, and every argument I made to the contrary was just stuff that I was projecting, stuff that isn't actually supported by the rules."

After Kev posted his reply (and I saw it, which regrettably there was a lag there), at what point did I say Ranged Simo's were still impossible? Dude, unlike some of the others I didn't even so much as whine even a little bit. All that I'm doing is continuing the "If it's possible"-points I made before that are clearly SUPPORTED by what Kev said, which I previously sated that I would if so warranted... and they were. If you want to keep screaming "It ain't so!" then you go right ahead and house rule your game that way.

But noooooooooo. In stead of being productive and participating in the exploration of how the listed restrictions should be best applied and regulated in a fair way, not only are you still seeking absolute victory for your original all-or-nothing contention, but you're demanding all bow down to the great and powerful Killer Cyborg, Master of all that is Right. Get with the program already and hit the pressure-release valve on that ego. What we (not just I, but others too) are trying to sort out is the best way to deal with this new quasi-canon rule, and your productive inputs would be welcomed to that end. Don't like what I'm proposing? Propose something else! And trying to minimize Kev's ruling to mitigate its limiting effect on your game and future arguments is not "productive".

I never said that ranged simo-attacks were completely unrestricted.
It's pretty obvious that you have to both have ranged weapons, you both have to have attacks available, and you both have to see each other.

And how are you going to determine who is aware of what? If the GM is in control of that determination all the time it's going to lead to abuse. If the player gets to call it, then it's really going to be abused. The only fair way and middle road to be had is to let the dice sort it out.

In addition to that, yet again, you're ignoring Kev's second condition; that the two characters be reasonable evenly matched. So what's your plan on determining when this situation exists and how to you suggest it be dealt with?

It's time past-due to get on the train to Productiveville. Tickets, please.

Dead Boy wrote:That's a grossly overly simplistic way to look at it, and most circumstances won't be that neat and clean.

Obviously, I disagree.

You want to argue about when, where, and how Perception checks should be made, start a thread on it.

Why when it's so painfully obvious that it's relevant here?

Because it's no more relevant with simo-attacks than with normal attacks.

*sigh* You're just determined to drag your heal every inch of the way, aren't you. Fine.

Pot, kettle.

"BUT I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and especially if they are fairly evenly matched."

These are Kev's own words, verbatim. And in his unprecedented reply he emphasized the issue of both the combatants in the Simo being "evenly matched", especially so. And as I've had to state at least three times now, this can just as easily be due to the individual abilities of the characters involved as it could from circumstance.

Note the word "especially."

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not trying to be right; I just AM right.
Kev confirmed it.

Right... hence why you wanted me to bow before your superior might and openly hail you as the victor before all who still bother to read this string. "You" being right had nothing to do with it.

Actually, I'm modest enough that I don't need any bowing and scraping.
I had expected, Lord knows why, that when Kev gave his answer, that you would do the old "Okay, I was wrong about the rules, but the rules are stupid" routine and this would be over.
In which case, I wouldn't have had any more to say on the issue.
But for some reason, you can't seem to do even that much recognition of reality, so you can keep trying to pretend that you were not wrong, but I'll keep pointing out that you were.
And since you keep pretending that I was NOT right, I'll just keep pointing out that I am.

Yes, he said that Ranged Simultaneous Attacks are permissible.

And YOU had been saying, for pages, that they were NOT permissible.
Does this make you:
a) right?
b) wrong?

No, contrary to your claims all along to that point, it is not free of restrictions and possible penalties beyond the need for both adversaries to be armed.

They also need to see each other.
I never said otherwise.

At this point, you just seem to be desperately trying NOT to admit "Okay, KC. I was wrong. You CAN make simo-attacks in ranged combat, and every argument I made to the contrary was just stuff that I was projecting, stuff that isn't actually supported by the rules."

After Kev posted his reply (and I saw it, which regrettably there was a lag there), at what point did I say Ranged Simo's were still impossible?

Never.
And you never once said, "Okay, I was wrong. They are possible."

Instead, you immediately tried to make up some new angle in which you were right about something, and I was wrong about something, instead of making any acknowledgment of the really-real world where you've spent page after page after page going on and on and on about how obvious it was that you can't make ranged simo-attacks, only to discover that (gasp) I've been right since page one.

What we (not just I, but others too) are trying to sort out is the best way to deal with this new quasi-canon rule, and your productive inputs would be welcomed to that end.

No, you're not.
You're still so determined that the rules shouldn't be this way that you're trying to find something to confirm that emotional response.
You still feel that ranged simo-attacks are wrong, so you're trying to come up with anything you can to cripple them, even though it's pretty obvious that they're NOT wild shots, and that they don't need any more of a perception check than normal attacks.
If there were any such penalties, then they would have been described somewhere during the roughly 20 years that the rules have been in effect.
Just like dodge penalties have been described multiple times, just like parry penalties have been described multiple times, etc.

trying to minimize Kev's ruling to mitigate its limiting effect on your game and future arguments is not "productive".

Exactly.
So quit it.

I never said that ranged simo-attacks were completely unrestricted.
It's pretty obvious that you have to both have ranged weapons, you both have to have attacks available, and you both have to see each other.

And how are you going to determine who is aware of what? If the GM is in control of that determination all the time it's going to lead to abuse. If the player gets to call it, then it's really going to be abused. The only fair way and middle road to be had is to let the dice sort it out.

Not at all.
I never had any issues before Nightbane introduced Perception, and I never had any issue since then either.
Not that I've ever used the Perception skill in any case; I always just used Detect Concealment and Detect Ambush.

Is Perception even IN RUE?

In addition to that, yet again, you're ignoring Kev's second condition; that the two characters be reasonable evenly matched. So what's your plan on determining when this situation exists and how to you suggest it be dealt with?

None.
Kev has NO problem with ranged simo attacks, if the shooters see each other.
This means that he has zero problem with it.

The notion that he especially has zero problem if the shooter are evenly matched is irrelevant: he can't exactly have [i]more[i] zero problem than usual.



It's time past-due to get on the train to Productiveville. Tickets, please.[/quote]

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

K20A2_S wrote:Simo is broken in so many ways, it begs to be abused and should either be removed or have a whole page dedicated to the rules of simo.

How exactly do you think that it can be abused?

Makes auto-dodge redundant which means Juicers are easy pickings in both melee and ranged combat. Really, that cyborg doesn't care if you can hit for MD; he can too and he hits harder.

Not easy pickings, but certainly easier.
Which is how it's meant to be.

Auto-dodge is still useful, because the only person who can simo-attack you is somebody that you're attacking.
In one-on-one combat this means that a juicer has two choices:
-attack normally and risk getting simo-attacked.
-set up the situation (before attacking) to where simo-attacks are not effectively possible.
For example, find some cover before you start shooting.
Or chuck down a smoke grenade or something to impair their visibility (they can't simo-attack if they don't know when you're shooting at them).

Basically, put some thought into things instead of just blindly attacking and assuming that you'll come out on top.

Still, it's counter-productive to an initiative bonus. I mean basically you're saying that you must always wait for your opponent to attack before you can attack. This does not help in timed events, such as a bomb ticking down.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Makes game flaws readily apparent, such as a 14 second "brain-fart" because simoltaineous attack allows a person to use all their attacks in a single second (albiet under special circumstances).

I've already explained why I don't think that interpretation is correct:
You only get one attack per turn, and you use it up simo-attacking.

Can I prove that?
Maybe. If you REALLY want to argue about it, feel free to start another thread.

But for now, it looks like you've fallen into the common trap of picking a bizarre and broken interpretation of the rules, then complaining that the rules suck, even though there is a much more logical and balanced interpretation to be picked.

While I have as much evidence as you on this subject, I won't push the issue. As for falling into the "trap", it is neither uncommon nor bizarre (or even a broken interpretation) to consistently use this rule against a juicer. As a player with characters that rarely has a PP bonus at or above +1 yet are cybered to the gills, I tend to see this as the best possible option when combating both Juicers and Cyberknights. It comes up often enough that I consider this "normal" and not bizzare. And the rule is meant to be used this way (re: not broken).

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Through a very elaborate series of multi-player coordination you could literally "call down the thunder" by area-nuking the spot a friend is at and completely destroy an enemy without reprisal.

That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

1. You can only simo-attack somebody who is attacking you, so that would mean attacking the mage. Although other enemies might get caught up in the blast radius.

Exactly. And with immune to energy up he need not worry about the plasma damage, nor...

Killer Cyborg wrote:2. The mage is invisible, so he can't be simo-attacked (except by people who can see the invisible).

...revealing himself to ensure rules abuse, because all the enemies around him are now dead.

Killer Cyborg wrote:3. You raise an interesting question about exactly who can simo-attack at what times. I'd say that only the single person targeted by the grenade could simo-attack. That would be a GM's call, but so would ruling that everybody in the blast radius gets a simo-attack (unless there's something I'm missing that says that they'd all get a dodge under normal circumstances? AFAIK, that's something that they never really said one way or the other).
IF it is a GM's call here, and you're making one that you don't like, that's nobody's fault but your own.

What sense does that make? Why does only one person get a defense they can sacrifice? Or are you saying they all don't get to defend themselves? That's a house rule to prevent abuse; something that shouldn't have to happen, which is why I posted this scenario - to show a possible legit abuse of the rules, and why the rule isn't a good one to use in the first place. Really, the only time a simo-attack should occur is when two people have the same initiative.

Dog_O_War wrote:That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

How are they all dead then?

Kryzbyn wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

How are they all dead then?

Plasma mini-missiles have an AoE of 30 feet (15ft radius). The scenario was under the assumption that they would be caught in such a large blast area.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

How are they all dead then?

Plasma mini-missiles have an AoE of 30 feet (15ft radius). The scenario was under the assumption that they would be caught in such a large blast area.

The guys with the mini missile launchers wearing MD armor are dumb enough to shoot point blank at a guy that threw an SDC grenade at them?

K20A2_S wrote: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).........

Agreed.

K20A2_S wrote:Do you think simulataneous attack should be available only in HtH?

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

The problem is that simultaneous attacks and ranged combat is far less clear cut than simultaneous attacks and hand to hand combat. Ranged combat is fast, but I can see simultaneous attack working in some ranged combat situations, but I'd have to judge the situations individually. A soldier with extensive close quarters combat training and experience, for example, would likely be able to simultaneous attack an enemy soldier that popped around the corner and won initiative. However, a soldier scanning down the street with his scope and sees a rifle trained on him and the muzzle flash probably wouldn't; although it's not clear. And that's the main problem I have. It's just not clear whereas most hand to hand situations are quite clear. That's why it has to be judged on an individual basis. That's why the main thing we should take from Kevin's post - I'm not even going to call it a clarification - is that we need to use "commonsense" when deciding whether or not it can be done.

I do think that simultaneous attack at range is the exception, not the rule.

There are no wrong answers here, just a bunch of right answers. Not that it really matters beyond mere inane ego-stroking.

Let's act like the adults we ought to act like, please.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

How are they all dead then?

Plasma mini-missiles have an AoE of 30 feet (15ft radius). The scenario was under the assumption that they would be caught in such a large blast area.

The guys with the mini missile launchers wearing MD armor are dumb enough to shoot point blank at a guy that threw an SDC grenade at them?

No. I'll re-explain it.

A mage sneaks up invisible to a group of CS soldiers for example. They guard a doorway to a building the PCs wish to storm. The mage sees his allies in position, drops the invisibility (but not before putting up energy immunity) and throws a grenade at his friends - who them hit him with a dozen plasma mini-missiles. The CS soldiers would've been caught "suprised" and thus removed the need for simo-attack, but in order to get into position they had to be within visual of the mage, and thus the soldiers as well.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Auto-dodge is still useful, because the only person who can simo-attack you is somebody that you're attacking.
In one-on-one combat this means that a juicer has two choices:
-attack normally and risk getting simo-attacked.
-set up the situation (before attacking) to where simo-attacks are not effectively possible.
For example, find some cover before you start shooting.
Or chuck down a smoke grenade or something to impair their visibility (they can't simo-attack if they don't know when you're shooting at them).

Basically, put some thought into things instead of just blindly attacking and assuming that you'll come out on top.

Still, it's counter-productive to an initiative bonus. I mean basically you're saying that you must always wait for your opponent to attack before you can attack. This does not help in timed events, such as a bomb ticking down.

It's counter-productive to initiative bones in a situation where two opponents are out in the open, aware of each other, where the one with the highest init plans to attack the other one, and where both are willing to get shot in order to attack the other one.

If a GB wins init against somebody in light armor, the smaller guy could simo-attack, but it might be better if he just dodged.
If a CS Grunt wins init against a mage and opens fire, the mage can simo-attack, if he has a gun handy, but he might prefer to take the hit, then cast AoI or some other defensive spell.
If a mage wins init against a CS Grunt, then he's probably better off casting a buffing spell instead of attacking, since he can't be simo-ed that way.
If two men-at-arms out in the wilderness attack each other, and it's miles of rough terrain and dangerous creatures between them and an armor-repair shop, then simo-attacking is probably not a good option for either of them.

The general rule in combat is STILL "Don't Get Shot."
There will be exceptions to this rule, but those are exceptions.
The downside of simo-attacking is that you get shot, and that's a hell of a downside. You might win the battle, if you have better armor and/or weapons, but it will leave you damaged for the next encounter, and that might well mean your death.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I've already explained why I don't think that interpretation is correct:
You only get one attack per turn, and you use it up simo-attacking.

Can I prove that?
Maybe. If you REALLY want to argue about it, feel free to start another thread.

But for now, it looks like you've fallen into the common trap of picking a bizarre and broken interpretation of the rules, then complaining that the rules suck, even though there is a much more logical and balanced interpretation to be picked.

While I have as much evidence as you on this subject, I won't push the issue.

As long as you see where I'm coming from, I don't feel a need to head-butt each other on this issue.

As for falling into the "trap", it is neither uncommon nor bizarre (or even a broken interpretation) to consistently use this rule against a juicer. As a player with characters that rarely has a PP bonus at or above +1 yet are cybered to the gills, I tend to see this as the best possible option when combating both Juicers and Cyberknights. It comes up often enough that I consider this "normal" and not bizzare. And the rule is meant to be used this way (re: not broken).

IF you can make multiple simo-attacks in one turn, sure.
But what I was saying is that it's broken and bizarre to assume that you can make multiple simo-attacks in one turn.
And I don't know how it would help against a lone juicer/CK at any rate.

Simo-attacking a juicer is a good bet if you can afford to take the hits.
Which means that the best tactic for the Juicer is to not attack you directly unless he's behind cover or otherwise protected from simo-attacks, or until after you use up your attacks.
Because odds are he's going to have more attacks than you are. So he can essentially wait until you run out, then shoot you twice. You can dodge these two attacks, but it will take attacks off of your next round, which will leave you doubly screwed then.
This puts the non-juicer into the position of either waiting out the juicer, or finding cover, or simply attacking and hoping that the Juicer doesn't auto-dodge of the way.

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. You can only simo-attack somebody who is attacking you, so that would mean attacking the mage. Although other enemies might get caught up in the blast radius.

Exactly. And with immune to energy up he need not worry about the plasma damage, nor...

I thought that's where you were going, but I wasn't sure.

Killer Cyborg wrote:2. The mage is invisible, so he can't be simo-attacked (except by people who can see the invisible).

...revealing himself to ensure rules abuse, because all the enemies around him are now dead.

You lost me.
You mean use Invisibility Superior, which would turn you visible as you throw the grenade, letting other people see him?
I don't think that people could simo-attack him in that situation, because they don't know his attack is coming until it's headed for them (or they don't know where it's coming from).
You need to see the attacker in order to dodge or simo-attack.

Killer Cyborg wrote:3. You raise an interesting question about exactly who can simo-attack at what times. I'd say that only the single person targeted by the grenade could simo-attack. That would be a GM's call, but so would ruling that everybody in the blast radius gets a simo-attack (unless there's something I'm missing that says that they'd all get a dodge under normal circumstances? AFAIK, that's something that they never really said one way or the other).
IF it is a GM's call here, and you're making one that you don't like, that's nobody's fault but your own.

What sense does that make? Why does only one person get a defense they can sacrifice? Or are you saying they all don't get to defend themselves? That's a house rule to prevent abuse; something that shouldn't have to happen, which is why I posted this scenario - to show a possible legit abuse of the rules, and why the rule isn't a good one to use in the first place. Really, the only time a simo-attack should occur is when two people have the same initiative.

Do you know of any rules saying that people in the blast radius of an explosion get a dodge?
I don't.
I'm not saying that it's definitely against the rules for people other than the main target to dodge the attack, just that it's unclear whether they do or not.
IF they do, then you're right that they'd technically be able to simo-attack (if the mage were visible at the start of his attack).
But IF they don't get to dodge, then they don't get to simo, because they can't give up a dodge.

(This is a topic that can, unless you have something definite and canon, quickly derail the thread, so it might make a good topic in its own right if you wish to argue about it)

Kryzbyn wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

How are they all dead then?

Plasma mini-missiles have an AoE of 30 feet (15ft radius). The scenario was under the assumption that they would be caught in such a large blast area.

The guys with the mini missile launchers wearing MD armor are dumb enough to shoot point blank at a guy that threw an SDC grenade at them?

Not really.

I'll explain what he's saying.

The party of adventurers has a plan to deal with the group of enemies (say CS Grunts).

The mage turns invisible, sneaks into the middle of the enemy soldiers (who are all within a 30' area), then throws an SDC grenade at his own allies.
His own allies simo-attack the mage, because they know that the mage is impervious to plasma missile, but the Grunts are not.
So say the mage has 5 allies.
Each ally fires 2 plasma missiles at the mage. The mage takes no damage, but each Grunt in the blast radius takes 1/2 damage from each missile that hits the mage.

IF the rules work like Dog believes, then it's a pretty clever plan that abuses the nature of Simo-attack.
I just don't think that they work like he believes.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That is; take a magic-user with immune to energy up; he throws an SDC grenade at you and your allies, who all happen to have rocket-launchers with plasma missiles loaded, MD armour on, and are all within the radius of the grenade. This matters because your mage-friend was invisible amoungst the enemies, And since you cannot simo-attack a simo-attack (as you are disallowed defenses when being simo-attacked), they cannot fire back. You've just destroyed your opponent without allowing him a defense, without hurting your friend, and without taking more than a second or two to do it; infact since your buddy is an easy target he is basically impossible to miss as well. All within the rules, all a total abuse of the rules, and all of it pretty damn stupid that the rules would allow this because they were not thought through properly the first (or second!) time(s).

How are they all dead then?

Plasma mini-missiles have an AoE of 30 feet (15ft radius). The scenario was under the assumption that they would be caught in such a large blast area.

The guys with the mini missile launchers wearing MD armor are dumb enough to shoot point blank at a guy that threw an SDC grenade at them?

Not really.

I'll explain what he's saying.

The party of adventurers has a plan to deal with the group of enemies (say CS Grunts).

The mage turns invisible, sneaks into the middle of the enemy soldiers (who are all within a 30' area), then throws an SDC grenade at his own allies.
His own allies simo-attack the mage, because they know that the mage is impervious to plasma missile, but the Grunts are not.
So say the mage has 5 allies.
Each ally fires 2 plasma missiles at the mage. The mage takes no damage, but each Grunt in the blast radius takes 1/2 damage from each missile that hits the mage.

IF the rules work like Dog believes, then it's a pretty clever plan that abuses the nature of Simo-attack.
I just don't think that they work like he believes.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Are these Polish PC's? If they can sneak up within range of the grunts to shoot mini missiles, why don't they just do that in the first place? Why have the mage even go up there?
Besides the mage is the only one that cant dodge, technicly, if he's the target of the simul.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'll explain what he's saying.

The party of adventurers has a plan to deal with the group of enemies (say CS Grunts).

The mage turns invisible, sneaks into the middle of the enemy soldiers (who are all within a 30' area), then throws an SDC grenade at his own allies.
His own allies simo-attack the mage, because they know that the mage is impervious to plasma missile, but the Grunts are not.
So say the mage has 5 allies.
Each ally fires 2 plasma missiles at the mage. The mage takes no damage, but each Grunt in the blast radius takes 1/2 damage from each missile that hits the mage.

IF the rules work like Dog believes, then it's a pretty clever plan that abuses the nature of Simo-attack.
I just don't think that they work like he believes.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Are these Polish PC's? If they can sneak up within range of the grunts to shoot mini missiles, why don't they just do that in the first place? Why have the mage even go up there?

The idea is to kill all of the enemy soldiers before they have a chance to react. But yes, they could just do that anyway, with a series of surprise attacks, if they're hidden.
The only real advantage in Dog's plan is if the grunts and PCs see each other, and if the Mage has a higher init than most of the Grunts.

Besides the mage is the only one that cant dodge, technicly, if he's the target of the simul.

I agree.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:IF the rules work like Dog believes, then it's a pretty clever plan that abuses the nature of Simo-attack.
I just don't think that they work like he believes.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Are these Polish PC's? If they can sneak up within range of the grunts to shoot mini missiles, why don't they just do that in the first place? Why have the mage even go up there?
Besides the mage is the only one that cant dodge, technicly, if he's the target of the simul.

You had me rolling at 'Polish PC's'. But in all seriousness, it is in the rules that you cannot defend against a simo-attack. Unfortunately it never states that the simo-attack has to be against you, and has no "within the radius" clause.

And they didn't just "shoot in the first place" because they recieved some fire on the way in to that position - remember they had to be close enough for the mage to throw a grenade.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Do you know of any rules saying that people in the blast radius of an explosion get a dodge?
I don't.

Sure you do. You heard all about it in the "PA pilot versus battle magus" thread. The very missile rules state that you cannot dodge missiles in volleys of 4 or more, which means that missiles in volleys of 3 or less are dodgeable. I believe there is even a "takes a number of dodges per a certain radius" clause in the missiles rules as well.

Kryzbyn wrote:Are these Polish PC's?

Not cool, man.

sasha wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:Are these Polish PC's?

Not cool, man.

I'm Polish

Alejandro wrote:How is this an abuse unless the CS grunts are facing the PC's with missiles?

1) If they mage is invisible then the party wouldn't know when he's attacking as they'd be unaware, something Siembieda just said was a prerequisite.

2) If the grunts are unaware, then there is no initiative roll and hence it's an ambush which lets the PC's fire away without problems anyway.

3) If the grunts are aware of the PC's, and the PC's can see the mage attack, and the PC's attack the mage with missiles...then the grunts can simo attack the missiles and detonate them which leaves all the PC's open to attack now if the grunts take out the entire missile volley and still have people with leftover simo attacks to declare.

There are more problems with this plan, but as a clever idea it doesn't succeed.

It becomes more clever the more accurately you read it.

I said the mage drops the invis.
I said that the PCs needed to get within throwing range, not that they snuck up on the grunts.
The grunts are aware of all the PCs, except the mage (who snuck up invisible).
The grunts become aware of the mage, but are considered suprised as far as the mage is concerned.
They are not suprised as far as the rest of the party is concerned.
The rest of the party knew the mage was there and were ready for him to reveal himself; he throws a grenade and they simo-attack him.

macksting wrote:Don't intend to nitpick too much, but that's still not in the best of taste. It probably encourages the behaviour.

On a not entirely related note, when I'm playing a racist Coalition soldier, citizen or sympathizer, I tend to take any opportunity to say "d-bee minesweeper" or to make comparisons between stupidity and d-bees.
Carry on.

Similar to the old epic of how the CS invaded Tolkeen?

Walked in backwards to fool the Tolkeenites into thinking they were retreating! /cheese

K20A2_S wrote:Nobody has answered what the game loses if you restrict simo. attack to hth only???

It loses ranged simultaneous attacks.

I'd say it loses nothing.

Although like I've and others have said: IF you're going to use it in ranged situations, you need special considerations and possibly restrictions.

K20A2_S wrote:Nobody has answered what the game loses if you restrict simo. attack to hth only???

It "loses" nothing, because it has already lost by keeping the rule. Besides, its most significant impact is in melee, where Juicers get no auto-dodge and fall prey to parapalegic children in wheelchairs.

That aside, I find it handy to keep if only to enforce it when two people actually have the same initiative and are going actually going simoltaineously. This works well too since I use a different initiative and attacks system.

Kryzbyn wrote:

sasha wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:Are these Polish PC's?

Not cool, man.

I'm Polish

I don't know that. Still don't. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I know some Poles that worked their asses off in Iraq, so I'm a little touchy by default, I guess.

No hard feelings since it's been clarified.

Alejandro wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Alejandro wrote:How is this an abuse unless the CS grunts are facing the PC's with missiles?

1) If they mage is invisible then the party wouldn't know when he's attacking as they'd be unaware, something Siembieda just said was a prerequisite.

2) If the grunts are unaware, then there is no initiative roll and hence it's an ambush which lets the PC's fire away without problems anyway.

3) If the grunts are aware of the PC's, and the PC's can see the mage attack, and the PC's attack the mage with missiles...then the grunts can simo attack the missiles and detonate them which leaves all the PC's open to attack now if the grunts take out the entire missile volley and still have people with leftover simo attacks to declare.

There are more problems with this plan, but as a clever idea it doesn't succeed.

It becomes more clever the more accurately you read it.

I said the mage drops the invis.
I said that the PCs needed to get within throwing range, not that they snuck up on the grunts.
The grunts are aware of all the PCs, except the mage (who snuck up invisible).
The grunts become aware of the mage, but are considered suprised as far as the mage is concerned.
They are not suprised as far as the rest of the party is concerned.
The rest of the party knew the mage was there and were ready for him to reveal himself; he throws a grenade and they simo-attack him.

Which is dumb because now the grunts, who as you said are already aware of the PC's, now get to simo attack them because they're attacking as well.

This is where the legalese comes in. You cannot defend against a simoltaineous attack. The grunts were not attacked, but rather in the radius of a simoltaineous attack.
And before you snap and say "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!" I agree, it is the dumbest thing you've ever heard, and one of the dumbest scenarios I've ever laid out. But by the rules everything I've laid out is legit, and a loop-hole in all its twisted horror.

sasha wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

sasha wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:Are these Polish PC's?

Not cool, man.

I'm Polish

I don't know that. Still don't. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I know some Poles that worked their asses off in Iraq, so I'm a little touchy by default, I guess.

No hard feelings since it's been clarified.

What are the Polish doing in Iraq? I thought they would be Americans who drew heritage from Poland, as I do not recall Poland sending troops over there (unless NATO were involved).

sasha wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

sasha wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:Are these Polish PC's?

Not cool, man.

I'm Polish

I don't know that. Still don't. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I know some Poles that worked their asses off in Iraq, so I'm a little touchy by default, I guess.

No hard feelings since it's been clarified.

Understandable. My grandfather was 1st generation Polish-American on one side of my family. Still have the "Ellis Island" last name to show for it

Alejandro wrote:I never said it was the dumbest, to clarify I did only say it was dumb.

I'm trying to work on the legalese portion here because I know what you've laid out...and if it's written that you can only simo-attack someone who is directly attacking YOU...then yes by the rules you have pointed out one of the most hideously abusable problems with said rule and only steeled my case against this rule even further.

Yes, but then this falls into a meta-gaming vs. roleplay argument.
I doubt any character is gonna say "Hey you guys, I'll go invis and sneak up there, then throw a grenade at you so you can simo me!!"

Alejandro wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Alejandro wrote:I never said it was the dumbest, to clarify I did only say it was dumb.

I'm trying to work on the legalese portion here because I know what you've laid out...and if it's written that you can only simo-attack someone who is directly attacking YOU...then yes by the rules you have pointed out one of the most hideously abusable problems with said rule and only steeled my case against this rule even further.

Yes, but then this falls into a meta-gaming vs. roleplay argument.
I doubt any character is gonna say "Hey you guys, I'll go invis and sneak up there, then throw a grenade at you so you can simo me!!"

Everyone metagames at some point or another...rules lawyers are just the worst offenders.

So, so far we have a very sepcific and rediculous example of why simo should not be allowed, and even that would never make it through role-play.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Do you know of any rules saying that people in the blast radius of an explosion get a dodge?
I don't.

Sure you do. You heard all about it in the "PA pilot versus battle magus" thread. The very missile rules state that you cannot dodge missiles in volleys of 4 or more, which means that missiles in volleys of 3 or less are dodgeable. I believe there is even a "takes a number of dodges per a certain radius" clause in the missiles rules as well.

Hm.
I think we're missing each other again.
What I'm saying is that I don't remember any rules stating that anybody other than the primary target of a missile can make a dodge roll.
The RUE rules for dodging out of the blast radius were only talking about the primary target: the one guy hit by the missile.

K20A2_S wrote:Nobody has answered what the game loses if you restrict simo. attack to hth only???

Actually, I answered that.

Alejandro wrote:I haven't seen a single example of why it should be allowed. Since there's an example of why it shouldn't and yet none for why it should then the balance is tipped unfavorably for the rule.

Reasons why it should be allowed:
-Because simo-attacks in melee are already allowed, so if you nix simo-attacks with ranged weapons, you end up with stupid situations where you can't SHOOT somebody who throws a punch at you, even though you have your gun pointed at them: you could only club them with the gun.
-It doesn't take any more time to shoot a gun than it does to swing a sword, so it's silly to claim that you can simo-attack with a sword but not a gun.
-Because ranged simo-attacks add another level to combat, one that makes people think twice before just standing there in the open with their guns blazing. (Granted, this is a reason against ranged simos if you're a hack & slasher)
-Because simo-attacks help keep auto-dodge from being overpowered.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Reasons why it should be allowed:
-Because simo-attacks in melee are already allowed, so if you nix simo-attacks with ranged weapons, you end up with stupid situations where you can't SHOOT somebody who throws a punch at you, even though you have your gun pointed at them: you could only club them with the gun.

No one but you that I'm aware of brought up mixing HTH with Ranged attacks with a Simo. So your assumption that not allowing it in ranged combat would preclude that is unsupported as no one but you gave an opinion on that.

-It doesn't take any more time to shoot a gun than it does to swing a sword, so it's silly to claim that you can simo-attack with a sword but not a gun.

No one claimed that. I've see and made claims that it firing a gun is faster than swinging a sword however. That was demonstrating that ranged combat happens at a whole other speed level than HTH combat. That's pulling triggers vs. pulling triggers.

-Because ranged simo-attacks add another level to combat, one that makes people think twice before just standing there in the open with their guns blazing. (Granted, this is a reason against ranged simos if you're a hack & slasher)

If someone stands in the open guns blazing it says to me that they don't mind taking a few hits. I don't see that as another dimension.

-Because simo-attacks help keep auto-dodge from being overpowered.

How is Auto-dodge overpowered at all. You have lower than normal dodge bonuses, few characters with the ability and hefty minuses to dodge in ranged combat to begin with.
Of course there's a pretty common defense to a simo in ranged combat for someone with a common skill of paired weapons but no such one in ranged combat. That makes simos in ranged combat unbalanced.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Reasons why it should be allowed:
-Because simo-attacks in melee are already allowed, so if you nix simo-attacks with ranged weapons, you end up with stupid situations where you can't SHOOT somebody who throws a punch at you, even though you have your gun pointed at them: you could only club them with the gun.

No one but you that I'm aware of brought up mixing HTH with Ranged attacks with a Simo. So your assumption that not allowing it in ranged combat would preclude that is unsupported as no one but you gave an opinion on that.

You must have missed it when it was brought up earlier, then.

But okay, we'll do it your way.
Then we end up with the stupid situation where you can make a simo attack with a pistol in melee combat, but not in ranged.
Not an improvement.

-It doesn't take any more time to shoot a gun than it does to swing a sword, so it's silly to claim that you can simo-attack with a sword but not a gun.

No one claimed that.

It's kind of part of the difference between ranged and melee.

I've see and made claims that it firing a gun is faster than swinging a sword however. That was demonstrating that ranged combat happens at a whole other speed level than HTH combat. That's pulling triggers vs. pulling triggers.

Except they happen at the same speed.

-Because ranged simo-attacks add another level to combat, one that makes people think twice before just standing there in the open with their guns blazing. (Granted, this is a reason against ranged simos if you're a hack & slasher)

If someone stands in the open guns blazing it says to me that they don't mind taking a few hits. I don't see that as another dimension.

Standing there getting shot isn't the new dimension.
NOT standing there getting shot would be.

-Because simo-attacks help keep auto-dodge from being overpowered.

How is Auto-dodge overpowered at all. You have lower than normal dodge bonuses, few characters with the ability and hefty minuses to dodge in ranged combat to begin with.

It's a free action instead of taking an attack.
Even with penalties, that means you have a decent shot at not getting shot without spending any actions on defense.

Of course there's a pretty common defense to a simo in ranged combat for someone with a common skill of paired weapons but no such one in ranged combat. That makes simos in ranged combat unbalanced.

Once again, it's absurd to say that because some characters who have paired weapons and the paired weapons skill can parry a simo-attack, that somehow that means that simo-attacks are balanced.
Or that since ranged simo attacks can't be parried, that they're unbalanced.
Guess what?
Most ranged attacks can't (as a rule) be parried. Does that mean that ranged attacks are inherently imbalanced?
Nope.

Alejandro wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Alejandro wrote:I haven't seen a single example of why it should be allowed. Since there's an example of why it shouldn't and yet none for why it should then the balance is tipped unfavorably for the rule.

Reasons why it should be allowed:
-Because simo-attacks in melee are already allowed, so if you nix simo-attacks with ranged weapons, you end up with stupid situations where you can't SHOOT somebody who throws a punch at you, even though you have your gun pointed at them: you could only club them with the gun.
-It doesn't take any more time to shoot a gun than it does to swing a sword, so it's silly to claim that you can simo-attack with a sword but not a gun.
-Because ranged simo-attacks add another level to combat, one that makes people think twice before just standing there in the open with their guns blazing. (Granted, this is a reason against ranged simos if you're a hack & slasher)
-Because simo-attacks help keep auto-dodge from being overpowered.

I said simo-attack, I didn't specify whether it was ranged or melee which means that I meant the entire mechanic.

You're did; I was tired and missed it.
My bad.

Simo-attacks do not add another level to combat as dodging already takes up an attack which prevents this concept of "standing in one place and shooting in the open". The only other available options are auto parry or auto dodge. Since auto parry still results in damage it is already a good deterrent from "standing in the open, guns blazing".

I guess you haven't noticed that a lot of people don't dodge at all in ranged combat?

This brings us to auto dodge, an ability that a) not everyone has, and b) is already countered by its lower bonus which prevents it from being overpowered...which is already hilarious given how many times I've had to read through defenses of other things in Rifts not being overpowered because "Rifts isn't supposed to be balanced".

Your description and defense of simo-attack hasn't appeared to defend the importance of a mechanic but rather to completely invalidate another one because you don't like it.

Obviously, I disagree with that assessment.
But that's okay, because you're likely to disagree with my assessment that there are no problems with having simo-attacks in the game; you just don't like them.

Alejandro wrote:1) S'ok.

2) Maybe I'm just in those rare games where people dodge. Lord knows I try to dodge...but my d20's hate me and I rarely dodge. More like I flounder around on fire.

This is why a lot of people don't dodge unless they really have to; a lot of the time, what seems to happen is that you lose an attack in order to get shot.

3) Shocking news today as Killer Cyborg and Alejandro disagreed with each other and look to most likely not be able to come to an agreement. Other unforseen news disturbs the populace as the sun has set despite many expert opinions that said we would be able to enjoy constant sunshine for another 20 years.

Unlikely anyway, since the world's going to end in 2012.

(Hm. Unless it's a particularly sunny apocalypse this time.)

Killer Cyborg wrote:You must have missed it when it was brought up earlier, then.

But okay, we'll do it your way.
Then we end up with the stupid situation where you can make a simo attack with a pistol in melee combat, but not in ranged.
Not an improvement.

Ranged conbat happens faster then HtH combat as you've already stated. Therefore it's not stupid.

It's kind of part of the difference between ranged and melee.

Yeah but your using it wrong. Guns are faster then Melee weapons therefore simoing a gun with a gun is hard but simoing a sword with a gun is not.

Except they happen at the same speed.

Game mechanically but not plausibly.

Standing there getting shot isn't the new dimension.
NOT standing there getting shot would be.

You lost me. That makes no sense.

It's a free action instead of taking an attack.
Even with penalties, that means you have a decent shot at not getting shot without spending any actions on defense.

As does auto-parry in HtH combat. What's your point? Just pushing an Anti-Auto-Dodge agenda?

Once again, it's absurd to say that because some characters who have paired weapons and the paired weapons skill can parry a simo-attack, that somehow that means that simo-attacks are balanced.
Or that since ranged simo attacks can't be parried, that they're unbalanced.
Guess what?
Most ranged attacks can't (as a rule) be parried. Does that mean that ranged attacks are inherently imbalanced?
Nope.

Once again you're not making any sense. Are you saying Simo-attacks are just unbalanced? That's a whole other issue.
It seems clear to me that your idea of what's unbalanced and what's not is clouding your judgment on the issue. This is Rifts all things are not equal.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You must have missed it when it was brought up earlier, then.

But okay, we'll do it your way.
Then we end up with the stupid situation where you can make a simo attack with a pistol in melee combat, but not in ranged.
Not an improvement.

Ranged conbat happens faster then HtH combat as you've already stated. Therefore it's not stupid.

Ranged combat takes the same amount of time as melee combat.
That's why ranged attacks use melee attacks.

It's kind of part of the difference between ranged and melee.

Yeah but your using it wrong. Guns are faster then Melee weapons therefore simoing a gun with a gun is hard but simoing a sword with a gun is not.

(in addition to the last comment I made)

I don't see why that would make simo-ing a gun hard.
They've got a gun, you've got a gun.
Both of you are fast.

Except they happen at the same speed.

Game mechanically but not plausibly.

Well, we're talking about the game, not reality.

Standing there getting shot isn't the new dimension.
NOT standing there getting shot would be.

You lost me. That makes no sense.

You seemed to think that I was saying that standing around getting shot would be the new dimension, but that's not what I said.
What I said was that simo-attacks would make people think more carefully about how they go into combat, instead of charging blindly in, or just standing there shooting.

It's a free action instead of taking an attack.
Even with penalties, that means you have a decent shot at not getting shot without spending any actions on defense.

As does auto-parry in HtH combat. What's your point? Just pushing an Anti-Auto-Dodge agenda?

Nope. Just showing how it's over powered.
Since you asked.

Auto-parry is already balanced by the the fact that a lot of attacks aren't parry-able.

Once again, it's absurd to say that because some characters who have paired weapons and the paired weapons skill can parry a simo-attack, that somehow that means that simo-attacks are balanced.
Or that since ranged simo attacks can't be parried, that they're unbalanced.
Guess what?
Most ranged attacks can't (as a rule) be parried. Does that mean that ranged attacks are inherently imbalanced?
Nope.

Once again you're not making any sense. Are you saying Simo-attacks are just unbalanced? That's a whole other issue.

Nope.

Maybe if you study the post a bit, you can catch on.
Let me know if that happens.

It seems clear to me that your idea of what's unbalanced and what's not is clouding your judgment on the issue. This is Rifts all things are not equal.

Are you on crack or something?
You asked questions, I answered them.
People (YOU, IIRC) claimed that ranged simo attacks were unbalancing, I pointed out that they're not.
I'm not the one ***** about simo-attacks being unbalanced.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Why when it's so painfully obvious that it's relevant here? (regarding Perception Rolls)

Because it's no more relevant with simo-attacks than with normal attacks.

In general principle, you're right. But by the letter of what Kev wrote, he raised the issue of Awareness being a key criteria. And given the cracker-jack precision timing of Simo (simultaneously), it bears weight here to determine awareness in circumstances where there is ample distraction all about.

KC wrote:

"BUT I have no problem with a simultaneous long range attack, if the shooters see each other, and especially if they are fairly evenly matched."

These are Kev's own words, verbatim. And in his unprecedented reply he emphasized the issue of both the combatants in the Simo being "evenly matched", especially so. And as I've had to state at least three times now, this can just as easily be due to the individual abilities of the characters involved as it could from circumstance.

Note the word "especially."

Yea. Hence the second criteria I and others have been pointing out since Kev posted that. I see no other interpretation than if the two are not on equal footing (by ability or circumstance) then either no Simo is possible or at the very least a penalty is required for the character at the disadvantage.

A better question is, how can you read that, go so far as to point out the word "especially", and NOT see a key restriction/limitation in the move as Kev described it?

Killer Cyborg wrote:... you immediately tried to make up some new angle in which you were right about something, and I was wrong about something, instead of making any acknowledgment of the really-real world where you've spent page after page after page going on and on and on about how obvious it was that you can't make ranged simo-attacks, only to discover that (gasp) I've been right since page one.

Please review the post then to refresh your recollection, because it didn't go down that way at all. The issue of applying the Wild Shot penalty to a ranged Simo was actually raised by Mark Hall on page 2 of this never-ending monster of a string. His exact quote was...

"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."

I agreed with him and took up his standard from there because it made a great deal of sense then, as it does now.

And as for Perception Rolls... frankly Kev brought that up when he mandated that awareness be a key factor as well.

If there were any such penalties, then they would have been described somewhere during the roughly 20 years that the rules have been in effect.
Just like dodge penalties have been described multiple times, just like parry penalties have been described multiple times, etc.

Just like how rSimo's have have always mentioned that the opponents need to be evenly matched. Just like how the Auto-Dodge was clearly described in the Rifts Main Book (had to wait till CWC for that one). Just like there has always been a -10, No Bonus penalty to dodge... no wait, that one came and went. Dude, the rules have been pretty fluid from day one, and Simultaneous Attack has been one of the (if not THE) most contested, argued, and ambiguous moves of them all, especially in the whole melee v ranged arena. What Kev wrote is all new, and it's not exactly a free pass to use at will no matter how you spin things.

Is Perception even IN RUE?

You haven't even bothered to look?!? *sigh* Page 367

Kev has NO problem with ranged simo attacks, if the shooters see each other.
This means that he has zero problem with it.

Not what he said. Kev said "Sure, why not, depending on the circumstance."

And those circumstances are (A) mutual awareness, and (B) "if they are fairly evenly matched".

That's a far cry from zero problems with it. In fact the word "zero" was never once mentioned in any context whatsoever.

Also note that in alternative he listed using the Quick Draw skill in lieu of the simo is some instances, and that's a roll for initiative with bonuses... far from simultaneous.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I've been right since page one.

No, you just post more often.

The fact of the matter is, based off what Kev wrote, we were both right, and we were both wrong. Yes, the ranged Simo is permissible. No, they are not as free to use as you keep making them out to be.

Natasha wrote:Although like I've and others have said: IF you're going to use it in ranged situations, you need special considerations and possibly restrictions.

Yes.

Some people claiming to be right since page one have been arguing that simultaneous attack has no special considerations or restrictions in ranged combat as their justification for allowing simultaneous attack in ranged combat.

Kevin's post placed special considerations and restrictions for allowing simultaneous attack in ranged combat.

What Kevin posted was the same thing Natasha said all the way back on page one. Invoking arguments made on page one mean we've said everything we have to say. Playing games of five year olds means we've run out of meaningful things to say. Which means that this thread has run its course.

Locked by me. This topic has run its course and is going nowhere.