First strike, attackers, defenders & parry in man-to-man

[harlandski]

I'm trying to get my head around the man-to-man rules in Chainmail, with a view to ultimately using them in OD&D. I think I've understood how first strike/parry works now, but I want to check with the experts!

Reading back and forth, my understanding is as follows. Parts I'm not sure about are in [square brackets].

On the first melee round:

1. The attacker strikes first unless:
a. The defender has a weapon two classes [or more?] higher.
b. The defender has a weapon 4-7 classes lower. In this case, the defender can choose to attack or parry. The defender will also get a second attack [after the attacker has attacked, providing the defender survives.]
c. The defender has a weapon 8+ classes lower. In this case the defender can attack, or parry once and if successful, attack. The defender gets [two] more attacks [after the attacker attacks, if still alive.]
Edit: Unless:
d. The attacker is armed with a pike, spear or lance and charges, in which case the longer weapon strikes first.

This seems to cover all the rules mentioned, including multiple attacks for short weapons, unless I've misunderstood and the defender with a lighter weapon gets all his attacks together, before the attacker.

What's really intriguing me is how you determine who the attacker is. With the move-counter move system I suppose it's the figure which uses its move to close/charge, but with the simultaneous move system how would you determine the attacker? From similar situations in Chainmail I suppose the answer would be to dice for it.

[derv]

I had a discussion with James Richardson about this not too long ago. The thread can be found here. It may answer some of your questions.

[harlandski]

Mar 10, 2017 19:34:00 GMT -6 derv said:

I had a discussion with James Richardson about this not too long ago. The thread can be found here. It may answer some of your questions.

Yes, that discussion does look super relevant, thank you! I had also thought about making a table like James did. I'll need some time to digest it, but then I'll post back here the combat I played yesterday and ask for feedback. When playing some unexpected issues arose, though it looks like they might be covered in your discussion with James.

[harlandski]

OK, I've now read the discussion between derv and James Richardson above, and it covers a lot of the same questions I've been thinking about.

As far as I can tell the main points of interpretation of the rules are:

i. First and second round - exactly two classes/higher lower or two or more classes higher/lower?

1st Round:

First blow is struck by --
a) the attacker, unless
b) the defender has a weapon which is two classes higher

...

2nd Round and therafter:

First blow is struck by --

a) the side which struck first blow previously, unless
b) the opponent has a weapon which is two classes lower, ...

derv suggests "two or three" as a workable interpretation based on heft & length
Not knowing enough about the properties of the weapons themselves, I would find it hard to judge. My initial interpretation was "two or more", but it seems the balance of evidence is towards "exactly two".

ii. Can only 'the defender' parry? (Who then is the defender?)

4b "the defender may parry"
4c "for any defender"
4d "the defender gets"

James Richardson had a similar question and derv answered affirmatively. What is less clear to me is who the defender is - is it the figure who has second strike, or does 'attacker' and 'defender' change depending on who is striking, so after first strike, the figure being attacked by the figure with second strike becomes 'the defender' and can use their abilities if the weapon provides them with more than one strike per round?. (See the combat example and footnote ** below.)

iii. Does a defender with a weapon eight or more classes lower than the attacker get a counter blow or not?

c. "If the parry is successful, the defender gets one counter blow."
d. (does not say this)

Do we assume that a defender with a very short/light weapon also gets a counter-attack, or is it too short/light to allow this? derv suggests we should assume the rule is repeated from 4

The combat example below suggests this is largely semantic, especially if you accept that the extra attacks are taken at the end of a round. If a weapon has three attacks, he has a spare attack left at the end of a round attacking & parrying so can counter attack (if he is still alive).

iv. Extra attacks for exactly 4/8 classes lower or 4-7, 8-11 classes?

The shorter and lighter the weapon, the lower its class. A man wielding a weapon four classes lower (1 vs. 5, 2 vs. 6, and so on) strikes two blows during every melee round. If a man has a weapon eight classes lower, he will strike three blows during every melee round.

The text here strongly suggests 'exactly' - especially with the "1 vs. 5, 2 vs. 6" example. However, that would seem to make little sense logically, as it would mean for example that a dagger would only get extra attacks against a battle axe and polearms/halbards, while it is clearly still much lighter and quicker than all the other weapons in between and above. derv argues for the 4-7, 8-11 interpretation.

v. When do the extra attacks take place?

There is no text to answer this question, though the talk of "first blow" and "return blow" suggests an exchange of blows, rather than a flurry from one side followed by a single response from the other. James Richardson favours the idea of having your extra attacks as part of your initial attack, derv suggests that the extra attacks come at the end of the exchange (if the figure with extra attacks is still alive). I naturally incline towards derv 's suggestion, but maybe because I am used to the idea from AD&D 2e.

So my question is - have I at least correctly defined the points of discussion on the rules? derv has already given possible answers to most of them in his discussion with James Richardson , but if anyone else has their interpretations, I'd be interested to hear them.

---

OK, that's the theory, now to a practical example. We did the combat before I had set out the above questions so, regardless of how you interpret i to v above,  I think we made some mistakes.

To test the system, we randomly rolled figures, meaning we had Plate & shield + Pike (played by me) vs. Plate + dagger. Not sure how that would have worked historically but I'm imagining two armoured foot grabbing the last weapons from fallen comrades to settle the end of a battle.

We used the move/counter move system from Chainmail, and also tracked fatigue (in a slightly modified point-based variant), which did play a role in the combat.

Combat rounds are numbered:

1) Plate & Shield + Pike charge - I did this to make sure I would have first strike. My opponent elected to parry, which he did successfully and took (but failed) his counter-blow*. We then moved on to the next round. However, the dagger probably should have had one more attack at this point, as per v above, right?

2) We decided Plate + dagger now got the first strike, though that was probably wrong as dagger is not exactly two classes less than pike - see i above - (in fact, it's 11 classes lower!). We also decided that Plate + dagger got three strikes in a row, but now I see probably he should have got one strike, and dealt with my blow and then had two more strikes - as per v above - right? My other question is : Could he have used one of his extra attacks to parry my attack? In other words, would he have become the 'defender' at this point? (See ii above). If so, could he even have invoked 4d, and got his second attack before my attack, and then parried with his third**? Plate & Shield + Pike attacked and missed.

3) Although Plate + dagger remained the attacker, he decided to invoke 4d, took an attack, parried my attack successfully and took a counter-attack. I think this was probably a breaking of the rule ii above, and perhaps unnecessary if it is possible to invoke 4d when one becomes the defender in the round.

4) Plate + dagger chose to attack once, then parry and counter. Missed, parried, missed. Despite all the rules mistakes we have made so far, this might actually have been correct (as Plate + dagger was defender, invoked 4d, and had three attacks, usind the second to parry the attacker's).

5) At this point Plate & shield + pike decided to rest to eliminate fatigue, trusting in his 35/36 chance of survival on each roll. Plate + dagger attacked three times and missed. Again, I think this round was by-the-book.

6) Plate + dagger decided to rest. Plate & shield + pike missed.

7) Plate + dagger chose to attack all-out. As we hadn't understood about v, these all happened together. Plate & Shield + Pike missed.

8) Plate + dagger finally rolled a 12, and killed Plate & Shield + Pike. Later the place of Plate & Shield + Pike's burial became a pilgrimage site, and he became the patron saint of bad dice rolls.

Main lesson learned: Plate armour is tough! Also fatigue and parry make quite a big difference.
Secondary lessons learned relate to rules, and I'd welcome some feedback on what we did right and wrong, though I've tried to highlight much of the latter myself.

* Here I see that the idea of whether he gets a counter-blow after a parry is a little semantic, as in any case he would get his extra attacks, right?
** This scenario could possibly explain why there is no counter-blow mentioned in 4d, as in this case the dagger-man would have exhausted his three strikes by this point.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 11, 2017 21:52:39 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Plate & shield + Pike

That combination is wrong in so many ways...

[derv]

I won't go into all the particulars of your scenario harlandski . Instead I'll tell you how I view the system and hopefully that clarifies what I would have done in your shoes.

Fundamentally, I think the man-to-man system is built upon the starting concept of two men of equal standing. That is, two men using the same class of weapon. Therefore there is an attacker, who gets the first blow, and there is a defender, who can parry or return the blow. This principle should carry through in all cases- attacker strikes and defender counter strikes and only defenders have the option of parrying. Parrying is a defensive move.

So, when you have a situation where the original defender has a weapon that allows him the first blow, he has now become the attacker and the parry is no longer an option. In your scenario above, I might allow the dagger to parry on the 2nd round, but not there after. I would now consider him the attacker. Since the pike cannot parry this would result in dagger strike, pike counters, followed by two more strikes with the dagger. Again, the daggers extra two blows would come at the end because of the starting principle I mentioned above. Not to mention that I think first strike is an advantage and two first strikes is an unnecessary advantage that disincentivises the parry.

You certainly could rule that the dagger could continue to parry until his weapon was broke or he scored a kill. I would not, especially in such an extreme example. More likely, the man with the pike would draw his own dagger after the first or second round if this were to be the case.

[harlandski]

Mar 13, 2017 8:20:22 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Mar 11, 2017 21:52:39 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Plate & shield + Pike

That combination is wrong in so many ways...

Yeah, I see that now...

[harlandski]

Thank you derv for responding. I am grateful that there is somewhere on the web where it's possible to discuss this stuff! I'll respond blow-by-blow ;-)

Mar 13, 2017 21:48:37 GMT -6 derv said:

I won't go into all the particulars of your scenario harlandski . Instead I'll tell you how I view the system and hopefully that clarifies what I would have done in your shoes.

Fair enough - I know I probably went into excessive detail, but it really helped to clarify things in my own mind.

Mar 13, 2017 21:48:37 GMT -6 derv said:

Fundamentally, I think the man-to-man system is built upon the starting concept of two men of equal standing. That is, two men using the same class of weapon. Therefore there is an attacker, who gets the first blow, and there is a defender, who can parry or return the blow. This principle should carry through in all cases- attacker strikes and defender counter strikes and only defenders have the option of parrying. Parrying is a defensive move.

Yes, with more balanced weapons, things are much simpler. We experienced this when we had another practice bout, with mace vs sword.

Mar 13, 2017 21:48:37 GMT -6 derv said:

So, when you have a situation where the original defender has a weapon that allows him the first blow, he has now become the attacker and the parry is no longer an option. In your scenario above, I might allow the dagger to parry on the 2nd round, but not there after. I would now consider him the attacker.

I see that your interpretation is valid - that in one round a certain figure is either "attacker" or "defender", and different rules apply to each. However, I now think that "attacker" is the figure who is delivering a particular blow, which means that in each round both sides are attacker and defender. If a weapon allows more than one attack, then a figure could be attacker-defender-attacker(-attacker) within one round, using the second attack as a parry if desired. This seems to be one way of making sense of the multiple attack and parry rules, taken together.

Mar 13, 2017 21:48:37 GMT -6 derv said:

Since the pike cannot parry this would result in dagger strike, pike counters, followed by two more strikes with the dagger. Again, the daggers extra two blows would come at the end because of the starting principle I mentioned above. Not to mention that I think first strike is an advantage and two first strikes is an unnecessary advantage that disincentivises the parry.

I now completely agree with you that extra attacks should come at the end of the round.

Mar 13, 2017 21:48:37 GMT -6 derv said:

You certainly could rule that the dagger could continue to parry until his weapon was broke or he scored a kill. I would not, especially in such an extreme example. More likely, the man with the pike would draw his own dagger after the first or second round if this were to be the case.

I agree it is an extreme example, and I admit that it is pretty implausible, though it was interesting "stress testing" the system with such an extreme case. For a real skirmish, or when we use the system for D&D weapon combinations will be bounded by historical/game logic, and may indeed change based on the situation, as you suggest.

Thanks again for your feedback! Things are much clearer in my own mind now.

[derv]

Mar 14, 2017 0:28:02 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Mar 13, 2017 21:48:37 GMT -6 derv said:

So, when you have a situation where the original defender has a weapon that allows him the first blow, he has now become the attacker and the parry is no longer an option. In your scenario above, I might allow the dagger to parry on the 2nd round, but not there after. I would now consider him the attacker.

I see that your interpretation is valid - that in one round a certain figure is either "attacker" or "defender", and different rules apply to each. However, I now think that "attacker" is the figure who is delivering a particular blow, which means that in each round both sides are attacker and defender. If a weapon allows more than one attack, then a figure could be attacker-defender-attacker(-attacker) within one round, using the second attack as a parry if desired. This seems to be one way of making sense of the multiple attack and parry rules, taken together.

I build off of the basic concept I laid out above. There is always an initial attacking blow and a defensive counter. If you allow the defenders counter blow to be parried you essentially are creating a situation of defender vs. defender.

The rules can certainly be used this way, as written. It simply does not fit in with how I conceptualize combat. The initial blow and counter blow or parry are immediate. If you allow the attacker to also parry the defenders counter blow you are essentially allowing the attacker two initial blows- much the same as if you would allow him two strikes before the defender could respond with a counter.

Mar 14, 2017 0:28:02 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Mar 13, 2017 21:48:37 GMT -6 derv said:

You certainly could rule that the dagger could continue to parry until his weapon was broke or he scored a kill. I would not, especially in such an extreme example. More likely, the man with the pike would draw his own dagger after the first or second round if this were to be the case.

I agree it is an extreme example, and I admit that it is pretty implausible, though it was interesting "stress testing" the system with such an extreme case. For a real skirmish, or when we use the system for D&D weapon combinations will be bounded by historical/game logic, and may indeed change based on the situation, as you suggest.

The weapon choices are not implausible, really. You will find historic accounts of tactics where light troops would attempt to get into the midst of tightly bunched pike formations to reek havoc by hamstringing them.

[harlandski]

Once again I am grateful to you, derv , for your comments, which have helped me to clarify my own position, even if we disagree in places.

I've been struggling with this material all week, and while it's clear in my mind, I want to put down my current understanding of the rules, and would be grateful for any comments from other players. My decisions are all subject to playtesting, further discussion, and modification.

I now agree with derv that "attacker" and "defender" is determined on a round-by-round basis, but I think that an attacker with more than one blow may sacrifice one of these blows for a parry.

Now I'll answer my own questions i. - v. above, then follow that up with some illustrative examples from play.

i. First and second round - exactly two classes/higher lower or two or more classes higher/lower?

Exactly two classes higher. This is the point I am least sure about, and will be watching carefully for its effect in play, and considering the historical and practical logic of this.

ii. Can only 'the defender' parry? (Who then is the defender?)

Generally yes, but an attacker with more than one attack may sacrifice his last attack to parry instead, as I explain above, and demonstrate in the examples below.

iii. Does a defender with a weapon eight or more classes lower than the attacker get a counter blow or not?

I would argue that yes, as long as the counter blow does not exceed the three blows the figure gets per round. Otherwise the third "blow" of the much shorter weapon seems to be wasted. See example 4b ii below.

iv. Extra attacks for exactly 4/8 classes lower or 4-7, 8-11 classes?

4-7 and 8-11. This makes sense in terms of the overall logic of shorter weapons versus longer ones.

v. When do the extra attacks take place?

If the figure with the lower class of weapon starts the round as the attacker, then the figure can use its first blow(s) to strike, then use its last blow either to strike or to parry the opponent's blow, which comes last. This is the only way I can make sense of being the attacker (and thus faster) giving an advantage over being a defender (and thus able to strike or parry first anyway). Compare examples 3a and 3b below for what I mean by this, and imagine the situation if there was simply a one-for-one exchange of blows.

This means I've changed my mind about this. I think this makes sense that a shorter lighter weapon can make a flurry of blows, whilst a longer heavier weapon needs longer to wield.

So, now to some concrete examples using my understanding. Note that in all examples, any blow after the first is only possible if the previous blow did not kill the figure.

Example 1

Two figures with similar weapons e.g. mace vs sword.

As the difference between weapon classes is only one, the order of attack will be maintained, and the defender may parry.

All rounds

- Attacker gets first blow and strikes.
- Defender gets second blow and may parry or strike, but does not get a counter-blow after a successful parry.

Example 2

Difference of 2 classes (e.g. sword vs morning star)

Whether or not he attacks, the figure with the morning star will get first blow, as morning star is two classes higher than a sword. Similarly, the sword will get first blow in the second round in any case.

1st Round

- Morning star gets first blow and strikes.
- Sword gets second blow and may parry or strike, but does not get a counter-blow after a successful parry.

2nd Round

- Sword gets first blow and strikes.
- Morning star gets second blow and may only strike. No parry allowed.

Example 3

Difference of 4-7 classes (e.g. dagger vs battle axe).

3a. Dagger attacks.

All rounds

- Dagger gets first blow and strikes.
- Dagger can strike again, OR decide to parry.
- Battle axe strikes (either parried at -2 or not. Dagger does not get counter-strike if parry successful, as this goes directly against the rules-as-written, and would also amount to three "blows").

3b. Battle axe attacks.

1st round

- Dagger may choose to take first blow (i) OR to parry (ii) (4c).

i.

Dagger takes first blow and strikes.
Battle axe takes second blow and strikes.
Dagger takes third blow and strikes.

ii.

Battle axe strikes, parried by dagger at -2.
Dagger makes counter-blow.

2nd round

i. Dagger now starts the round as the attacker, so situation is identical to 3a.

ii. Battle axe starts the round as the attacker, so siutation is identical to 3b, 1st round.

Example 4

Difference of 8-11 classes (e.g. dagger vs pike)

4a. Dagger attacks (no charge)

All rounds

Dagger gets first strike.
Dagger gets second strike.
Dagger may choose to parry, or take third strike.
Pike strikes (possibly at parry -1)

4b. Pike attacks (no charge)

1st round

- Dagger may choose to take first blow (i) OR to parry (ii) (4c).

i.

Dagger strikes.
Pike strikes.
Dagger strikes.
Dagger strikes.

ii.

Pike strikes, parried by dagger at -1.
Dagger makes counter-blow.
Dagger strikes.

2nd round

i. As 4a, above.
ii. As 4b, 1st round, above

4c. Charge (I'm not sure from the rules if this means pike charges, or either side charges).

1st round

Pike strikes
Dagger strikes
Dagger strikes
Dagger strikes

2nd round

As 4b, 1st round, above.

[derv]

I'm glad I could be of some help. You seem to still be wrestling with example 4. I think what ends up happening is people struggle with reconciling the mechanics with their concepts of combat, because you are actually dealing with the separate issues of length and heft of weapons rolled into one mechanic with these examples. Maybe someone else will chime in to reinforce some of your ideas.

[harlandski]

Mar 17, 2017 5:49:26 GMT -6 derv said:

I'm glad I could be of some help. You seem to still be wrestling with example 4. I think what ends up happening is people struggle with reconciling the mechanics with their concepts of combat, because you are actually dealing with the separate issues of length and heft of weapons rolled into one mechanic with these examples. Maybe someone else will chime in to reinforce some of your ideas.

Yes it would be great to hear some feedback from others. Honestly speaking I'm not sure I have a clear concept of actual combat or how length and heft would influence things, though I am learning! Can you put you finger on where I'm going wrong in example 4? For me it's just an extension of the principles of example 3.

[Deleted]

I wish I could help, but honestly, this is part of why I switched to 1:20 when I play CHAINMAIL.

[Deleted]

Also... and this is NOT intended to be a statement of "how it should be," but purely an anecdote... the Lake Geneva group didn't use any of that. Longer weapon or attacker got the first attack, and that was it. We never used the "smaller weapon multiple attack" thing. For what it's worth.

[harlandski]

Mar 17, 2017 12:08:53 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Also... and this is NOT intended to be a statement of "how it should be," but purely an anecdote... the Lake Geneva group didn't use any of that. Longer weapon or attacker got the first attack, and that was it. We never used the "smaller weapon multiple attack" thing. For what it's worth.

Very interesting, thank you! Having struggled to make the various man-to-man rules fit with one another, I can see the sense in dropping one part of them. Though I understand you don't want us to take the way you played as "canon", it's still very enlightening to hear about how you actually played and used the rules.

[harlandski]

Mar 17, 2017 12:06:38 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I wish I could help, but honestly, this is part of why I switched to 1:20 when I play CHAINMAIL.

This fits with my very limited experience so far, that the 1:20 rules are much easier to play with. May I ask - did you (do you) use the 1:20 rules in your D&D games for man-to-man combat, or only for 1:20 scale battles?

[derv]

Mar 17, 2017 12:57:33 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Can you put you finger on where I'm going wrong in example 4? For me it's just an extension of the principles of example 3.

It's not that you are getting anything wrong per se.

For me, there is a problem when a figure armed with a dagger could get two strikes before a pike or polearm even gets one, charge or no charge. So, the problem will generally lie with rule 4d and how a person chooses to reconcile this rule with the rest, based on their perception of how melee actually unfolds. Essentially, I think it also ends up weakening polearms as a good weapon choice.

edit: I may not have explained my last point adequately. Consider the M2M combat table and the probabilities of a kill with each weapon. Now, think of a scenario where soldiers are armed with swords or a mace, for example, facing halberdiers (a two handed weapon) who are in their charging distance. "Ah look, halberds. I think I'll sheath my sword or hang my mace on my belt and draw my dagger before I charge." This sounds funny, but that is what I think it would encourage in practice.

[Deleted]

I use the D&D "alternate" combat system for non-mass combats.

[Deleted]

Also, one of the purposes of these rules is once melee is established it encourages pike and polearm troops to drop their weapons and draw a secondary weapon, which is historically accurate. That's how the Spanish used their sword and bucker men to tear up pike formations.

[derv]

I'm surprised that another question has not been brought up about the parry rules harlandski. I've actually never heard anyone raise the question before. It seems relevant to your scenario of the two knights who have picked up chance weapons off the field. What happens on the following round after a weapon used to parry is broken? Chainmail offers nothing when it comes to unarmed combat. It seems to assume that a person always has a secondary weapon. Yet, in my mind, a dagger is usually a last ditch weapon in a field of broad swords and battle axes.

[Starbeard]

A good point. One easy way to handle it is to rule that a broken weapon continues to use its number class, but otherwise fights as a dagger. Wrestling could be a dagger attack, but 'kills' instead are tackles/pins (treat the opponent as bound and/or prone). I'd make unarmed combatants always attack last, and unable to parry.

[harlandski]

Interesting discussion derv and @gronanofsimmerya! I can see that a lot hinges on the interpretation of what happened in practice. It is interesting derv and Starbeard that there are no rules for unarmed combat on the table. As the numbers you need to roll are dependent on interaction between particular weapons and types of armour, I'm not sure which I'd choose, or if there should be some other number instead. The person I'm playing with knows more about medieval arms and armour than me, and he's lent me a copy of the 15th century Codex Wallerstein, which shows a surprising amount of grappling, even in armour. No decisions on this yet, but if we do come up with some workable rules, I'll post them on these forums. Thanks to all of you for helping me to realise that men might change weapons based on circumstance - that simple idea had passed me by.

[derv]

I've come to feel that the man-to-man rules require a bit of adjudication. That is why I do not think the spirit of the rules is easily captured in a table. Ultimately, the implication of a broken weapon or unarmed combat is going to have to be decided if you are using the parry rules. Lower defensive class, free strike, automatic rout, a chance roll to pick up a random weapon? The judge will have to be able to make an informed decision, sometimes on the spot.

[harlandski]

I've now come back to this question with fresh eyes, and understand things quite differently. I'll offer my new understanding up here, and would be grateful for any feedback.

I now understand the idea of 'the attacker' mainly to be of relevance in the first round of combat. The attacker is the man who attacked (!), either by moving into range and attacking, or attacking from stationary. (My addition: If both sides move and/or declare attacks, then the status of attacker should be diced for.)

To answer my original questions:

i. First and second round - exactly two classes/higher lower or two or more classes higher/lower?

Two or more - the longer weapon gets the first blow by default in the first round, and the shorter in the second. However, a significantly (4-7 categories) shorter weapon may elect to take the first blow instead of parrying the attacker, and a much shorter (8-11 categories) gets the first blow in any case, with the exception of a charge involving pike. Actually, this supports the 'two or three categories longer' idea of derv, as once an attacking weapon is four categories longer, the parry rule kicks in.

ii. Can only 'the defender' parry? (Who then is the defender?)

Yes and no. In my understanding, there is only really a 'defender' in the first round, and the rules-as-written only cover this scenario. From the second round, weapons 2+ categories shorter gets the first attack, so hopefully do not need to parry. But there is still the question, not covered by the rules, of whether someone with a weapon 4-7 or 8-11 categories can then parry the opponent's counter-attack. I would argue yes, they can, and those with 8-11 even get another attack after that (to make the total number of attacks up to the three given to such quick weapons).

iii. Does a defender with a weapon eight or more classes lower than the attacker get a counter blow or not?

I would argue that yes. Otherwise the third "blow" of the much shorter weapon seems to be wasted. This is an opinion I haven't changed!

iv. Extra attacks for exactly 4/8 classes lower or 4-7, 8-11 classes?

4-7 and 8-11. This makes sense in terms of the overall logic of shorter weapons versus longer ones.

v. When do the extra attacks take place?

By analogy with the parry rules, someone who is due two attacks and gets first strike gets them both, or can use the second strike to parry. Someone who is due three attacks can take all three first, or use the third to parry. In these cases there is no counter-strike after the parry, as the total number of strikes has been exhausted.

I need to work these through with examples tomorrow and playtest them (and I may find that I'm wrong), but this is my new insight and it seems workable.

[derv]

Look forward to hearing your findings harlandski. My only suggestion before hand would be to keep aware of limiting player choice through your rulings. Some things seem clear when thinking about the M2M system abstractly. In practice, snags sometimes appear.

[harlandski]

Nov 25, 2017 13:49:53 GMT -6 derv said:

Look forward to hearing your findings harlandski. My only suggestion before hand would be to keep aware of limiting player choice through your rulings. Some things seem clear when thinking about the M2M system abstractly. In practice, snags sometimes appear.

Great to hear from you and thanks for the encouragement, and word of caution! I've just re-read your previous conversation (http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/12033/man-melee-rules) about this, and it makes much more sense now I've struggled with the question myself. I'm now in doubt about my new interpretation again. Your interpretation there - that there is an "exchange of blows" and that, by taking first strike you become the attacker, makes sense in terms of taking a defensive or offensive position. As long as someone elects to stay defensive, they may parry, but once they take the decision to press the attack, that becomes the priority (so parrying ceases to be an option.) Need to sleep on it, and playtest it both ways!

[derv]

Ah, give it a go. I'm not really giving so much a word of caution, more a word of awareness to how these things effect play. It comes down to being satisfied with the results, either way.

[clownboss]

Back when I was studying thoroughly D&D rules, I put stuff like these in a Word document to remember them. Here is how I interpreted the weapon classes rules myself, although if you'll pardon, contains some vocabulary that I like sticking to. Every time I look at this table, the rules become clear as day:

[harlandski]

Dec 6, 2017 11:23:26 GMT -6 clownboss said:

Back when I was studying thoroughly D&D rules, I put stuff like these in a Word document to remember them. Here is how I interpreted the weapon classes rules myself, although if you'll pardon, contains some vocabulary that I like sticking to. Every time I look at this table, the rules become clear as day:

Sorry for the twelve-month delay in replying, but this is a really clear table, and captures my current understanding of the rules. With your permission, I'd like to use it at a con game I'm running next weekend

[clownboss]

Yeah man, knock yourself out.