Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #151384
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    We had a curious conversation about this spell yesterday. It says:

    If you successfully affect your Target, upon his next action he must attack the foe of your choice with extreme prejudice, up to and including casting through 4 points of strain.

    The question we had was with two-weapon fighting, but I also see the same issue with say the spell Bleed. If the affected character is hit and uses two-weapon fighting because it is part of a very prejudice attack (IE gives a lot of damage), he makes the first attack, but does he follow through with the second attack. If he doesn’t what happens to his second attack. For spells, like bleed, that can be sustained someone that uses one as a prejudice attack would sustain it, does it stay sustained after the first attack?

    I have been ruling NO as my characters love this spell, but it was a thought we all had. The way we have been playing it is they do their attack, and on their second attack they redirect the attack (or the sustainment its released).

    #263747
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The TWF character can use he second attack on a real for, or tthe attack is wasted, effectively pushing the Hero by that speed. To clarify, you TWF with a Speed 5 weapon, needing 5+2+1 tick of speed. They attack as their action, then one tick later they are free of the spell. They can either attack a nearby enemy, or swing at air. Once started you can’t just “abort” a TWF strike as it is not an interruptable action.

    #263748
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Well, that is where the issue arose, was would the second weapon be considered the same attack and there to strike the designated target. As you are suggesting it only counts for that single tick and the second attack would have to be redirected or wasted. That is what we figured but it was an interesting conversation.

    Some were inclined to see it abused as the TWF would follow through with both attacks as it was a “maneuver,” and the spell caster would sustain the spell until he was enough strain to break the spell.

    #263772
    frootsnax
    Participant

    My guess it’s 1 and done. I don’t think EoME makes you sustain. That’s what Puppet Master and higher level spells are potentially for. TWF might be a closer call since it is one manuever but as a judge I think you snap out of it after the first strike hits (or misses).

    #263777
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    TWF has been ruled in the past to be 2 actions, so only the first attack would be enemy of my enemy. Keep in mind, rarely is a TWF attack the most devastating that a creature has for use with Enemy of my Enemy.

    John

    #263853
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    TWF is a weird case. It is 2 actions for the sake of bonuses and combining maneuvers with TWF. Unless the maneuver being combined with specifically says it applies to the offhand attack, the benefit went to the first attack.

    Here is the way I see Two Weapon Fighting. It is 2 actions, but it is 1 attack. That offhand attack on the next tick can either be wasted or the offhand attack, and no other choice.

    My honest opinion is that as long as there are no interruptions between the main hand attack and offhand attack, it is still part of Enemy of My Enemy influence. If you are pushed in between, it cancels. Never considered the possibility before about how a push affects TWF, but logic would suggest that an action that results in the character getting pushed would interrupt the off-hand action as you stumble before the follow-up.

    #263858
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Here is the way I see Two Weapon Fighting. It is 2 actions, but it is 1 attack. That offhand attack on the next tick can either be wasted or the offhand attack, and no other choice.

    I disagree. It’s a special maneuver that allows for 2 attacks in quick succession, but everything else about it indicates that they are 2 attacks.

    1. They are executed on 2 different ticks
    2. They use separate attack rolls
    3. Any other technique, talent, spell, benefit etc. that is per attack based is only applied to the first attack
    4. They use separate weapons

    If there’s something I’m missing, can you point it out?

    With a sweep of his hat,

    Paul

    #263860
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    On the old boards, it was ruled as:

    1 Maneuver
    2 Actions
    2 Attacks

    John

    #263908
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The issue is, TWF is an action in of itself, despite taking 2 actions to make 2 attack. On your next action, you choose TWF. TWF action is not over until the second attack even if it takes two actions. EoME says one action, not one attack. When it comes to sustain spells, sustaining is its own action.

    The next part, you are attacking with extreme prejudice. That doesn’t mean you throw everything you have into one swing. It means you strike no matter the consequences, collateral damage, or whoever gets in the way.

    To perform a combat maneuver is an action, even if the maneuver takes 2 actions. Encapsulation is fun.

    #263909
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Enemy of my Enemy means that the target will use its “best” attack possible (including casting a spell through 4 points of Strain).

    John

    #263916
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Enemy of my Enemy means that the target will use its “best” attack possible (including casting a spell through 4 points of Strain).

    John

    Then it needs to be errata’d. That is not what extreme prejudice means.

    Further, if the offhand attack “action” of TWF is not subject to EoME, then any caster can automatically beat EoME by choosing to cast an interruptible spell and abandon it next tick. Starting the cast of the 7+ tick spell counts as an action, and the effects are not resolved until the beginning of your next action. As soon as he starts the spell, he wakes up from EoME and can choose to abandon it.

    Ultimately, it takes 2 actions to perform an interruptible action or spell. If the effects of EoME would have the caster complete the spell, then EoME would have a character with TWF to strike with both hits.

    #263919
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    “Extreme Prejudice” means to kill, destroy, or assassinate with deadly force. That would translate to game terms as using your most powerful attack possible to try and kill your target.

    John

    #263921
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    “Extreme Prejudice” means to kill, destroy, or assassinate with deadly force. That would translate to game terms as using your most powerful attack possible to try and kill your target.

    John

    No, it doesn’t. I have had its definition spelled out to me by a marine. Your orders would be “‘kill’ with extreme prejudice” or “‘pursue’ with extreme prejudice”. The “to kill” order must be specified. You act upon the order regardless of civilian casualties. If the target runs into a busy intersection and you have a fully loaded assault rifle, you fire to kill even if you kill several bystanders. If the target runs in front of the emperor and the caster would elect use of AoE, the emperor will be hit. It sounds like “deadly force”, but “deadly force” must be specifically specified.

    This means a character compelled by EoME does not automatically burn his 1 per scene “Smite Infidel” and “Avalanche Rune” under orders of EoME.

    #263923
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I’m guessing that whoever wrote the spell did not consult with marines on it and used the generally accepted term that when it says to “attack (read: kill) with extreme prejudice” meant that you wanted them dead (They’ve already been prejudged) and to do that would use the attack most able to do the most damage or hurt them the most. I would seriously question any GM or Player who did not interpret it this way in the shared campaign. Given that a caster will take up to 8 damage themselves to do this, it seems reasonable.

    This doesn’t mean the target can’t use something like Sweeping/Mighty Swing to get not only their target but their ‘true’ enemies as well, but it does mean you can’t do something that can immediately be broken. That’s not in the spirit of the spell.

    John

    #263926
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Ok, before this gets any more heated, let me suggest that we wait for an official answer or clarification in the errata. I think the opinions otherwise are fairly firmly entrenched and unlikely to be swayed.

    Respectfully and with a sweep of his hat,

    Paul

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • The forum ‘Arcanis: Rules & Rulings’ is closed to new topics and replies.