Swift Attack as a Half Action

Ok, Combat probably becomes deadlier, but it would remove the flexibility hurdle and I don't think it would be that unbalancing.

(Obviously charge would change so you got your full attacks too, and swift parry would need some form of change.)

I mean, why doesn't it work like this anyway? It seems to me to be a mechanic taken from D&D?.

Hmm... I've been mulling this over for a bit, as well... How about as a different option:

1) Remove the Swift Attack option completely.

2) Amend the restriction that you can only use one action that says "Attack" per round to be limited by your Attacks Rating instead.

So an Attacks Rating of 2 simply means you can use two actions that say "attack" in the same round. The default state would be two Standard Attacks. Characters with more than 2 attacks would have to spend Fortune Points to "fuel" those extra attacks by purchasing an extra half-action during combat.

This tweak would also allow some more interesting combat options -- such as Charge Attack as a full action, then if you have an Attacks Rating of 2, you could spend a Fortune Point to follow that up with a Standard Attack...

Or make a Standard Attack first, then spend a Fortune Point to be able to make a Guarded Attack and provide some defense until your next round...

Or make a Standard Attack, then take a Move Action to position yourself, then spend a Fortune Point to follow-up with your second Standard Attack against a different opponent.

This would also prevent the "damage burn" of some actions -- you take a Swift Attack action, end up rolling Ulric's Fury on your first attack, killing your opponent, then essentially lose your other Attacks for the round when there are no more opponents adjacent to you.

jadrax wrote:I mean, why doesn't it work like this anyway? It seems to me to be a mechanic taken from D&D?.

Because D&D too requires a full action to get all your attacks?

CapnZapp wrote:
Because D&D too requires a full action to get all your attacks?

Maybe I was not clear, my question was "is there any reason for this anyone can think of, apart from it was taken from D20?"

ynnen wrote:Hmm... I've been mulling this over for a bit, as well... How about as a different option:

I'm not sure this accomplishes what I see as the main issue with the RAW: that you are forced to choose between making one (or two) attacks and taking a move, maneuver etc.

In most cases, you want to down your opponent ASAP and then there's no real choice.

Contrast this with the situation at Attacks 1. You get your attack plus you get a half action which can't be used for attacks.

This makes combat much more varied and flowing - you get to choose between aiming, moving, feinting etc each and every round.

The big deal is that you no longer take a move, maneuver etc only when forced to - you can also do so to liven up the fight, express your PCs fighting style or for any other of a number of "soft" reasons.

my mind rebels at the idea, but the more I think about it the more I like it.

Warhammer has the "style" of giving melees benefits without requiring choices. Shield gives free parry, dodge gives free dodge, strike mighty blow gives free dmg bonus. The only exception I can think of is to use extra attacks requires using the swift attack action.

This clearly makes melees more powerful. I don't see that as a huge problem as melees tend to be underpowered as mages reach their high ends.

If I did this I would certainly allow addtional parries in a turn for taking the parrying stance action.

jadrax wrote:Maybe I was not clear, my question was "is there any reason for this anyone can think of, apart from it was taken from D20?"

As far as I remember (the idea has come up before), the main reasons not to do it would be concerns there would be a large leap in deadliness between A 1 and A 2, now that you no longer need to sacrifice your move, maneuver etc to get that second attack. That, and a sharp drop in popularity for the other full action attack actions unless, as you say, all full action attack actions are reduced to half actions.

Maybe I'm forgetting something. A search should turn up the old link(s).

CapnZapp wrote:Maybe I'm forgetting something. A search should turn up the old link(s).

mmm, I can find an old post with you suggesting the idea, but no actual real discussion about it.

jadrax wrote:mmm, I can find an old post with you suggesting the idea, but no actual real discussion about it.

That's probably it, then. Well, I can only hope I'm saying now what I was saying then...

Anyone else with ideas regarding this?

CapnZapp wrote:

ynnen wrote:Hmm... I've been mulling this over for a bit, as well... How about as a different option:

I'm not sure this accomplishes what I see as the main issue with the RAW: that you are forced to choose between making one (or two) attacks and taking a move, maneuver etc.

I think this may be one of those situations where WFRP not taking a page out of D&D 3.5 is evident -- the ubiquitous 5' step... Even with a full-round attack action in D&D, a character can still make a minor adjustment to movement, a single square before or after their action.

While it seems minor to almost not be worthy of note, the ability to move some amount, even just a teensy bit, is a huge benefit in combat -- defend a position, move closer to allies, flank an opponent, move toward a new enemy, seal a gap in the line, etc.

The fact that WFRP forces an "all or none" approach to combat is what I think part of the real issue is... If you swift attack and use 2+ more attacks, you don't get to move - at all. No minor adjustment. No shifting to engage another opponent.

Then I start to consider that perhaps it's not the Swift Attack action or need to forgo movement. Maybe it's a failure in clearer combat examples, positioning and adjudicating tactics and advantages. Perhaps it's not the rule that needs to be revised, but the context the rule is placed in.

I'm curious how characters with 2+ attacks fare in combat... Are they generally adjacent to more than one foe? If so, those foes get a bonus to attack the lone combatant, and the single combatant may have a penalty for facing more than one foe at a time... Why don't those foes disengage and move back so the character has to choose one or the other to pursue, mitigating the tactical advantage of 2+ attacks -- forcing the character to burn rounds/actions to maneuver to get off the multiple attacks... Knowing they might not be long for the world, are the foes attacking with All Out Attacks to improve their chances and weaken the combatant - perhaps forcing him to consider disengaging rather than Swift Attacking?

I guess what I'm getting at is that clarifications made to adjudicating combat and improved descriptions of encounter/creature tactics can go a long way toward both making combat a more engaging part of the game, but also tempering the effect Swift Attacks may have on how combat resolves...

you can of course put in a to hit penalty.

Attack - half action, attack with no to hit penalty
Fast Attack - half action, 2 attacks with -20% to hit on each attack (requires A=2)
Swift Attack - half action, 3 attacks with -30% to hit on each attack (requires A=3)

assume WS 35 for starting character +10% from career = 45%
attack = 45% chance of hit
fast attack = 50% chance of hit (25% x2)

throw in aim for +10%
attack = 55%
fast attack = 70% (35% x2)

Not a huge jump in effectiveness. It does go up as you increase in WS. Actually less of a jump for 2 attacks since it has a penalty built in for 2 attacks. Right now 2 attacks costs you Aim's +10% or a parry (which it doesn't cost you if you have a shield).

thinking about it -

making swift attack a half action with a -10% to hit with all attacks means that if combined with the Aim action and assuming the Aim gives a +10% to all attacks would make that combination the same as the current swift attack as a full action.

Of course, I also made the fatal assumption that this was all about melee beasts... At least melee warriors put themselves in the thick of things and can often be exposed to as much risk as they dish out.

The real issue for me with Swift Attacks (especially as a half action) would be missile combat... Once you have Rapid Reload, using a crossbow is a waste -- you're better off feathering out 2+ arrows in a round from a longbow.

And if the Swift Attack option is only a half action, a missile combatant could easily move out from cover, fire off their full complement of attacks, then move back into cover by spending a Fortune Point... That's a lot of potential damage to dish out, all at virtually no risk/exposure to the attacker.

Just another thing to consider with this proposal... you know, playing devil's advocate and all that.

The whole use of multi-attacks for missiles is a bit odd right now anyway. Can't an archer with rapid reload fire twice in a round?

I don't have a problem with sniping from behind cover if you pay a fortune point to do it.

I can see making swift attack for melee function differently than swift attack for missile.

I dont think making swift attack as a half action really solves anything, it just makes the combat bit more unrealistic when you execute 3 attacks in 5 seconds. My biggest problem concerning attacks was the fact that many basic careers get more attacks, so most fighter careers start with 2 attacks because it would be stupid to not to take it as a free advance. In my games only advanced careers get more attacks.
I have also thought of giving masterful feint and masterful maneuvre talents(from tilean swordmaster unofficial career.) to all careers that get +2 attacks. None of my players have 3 attacks yet, so i havent tested it but it should bring some variety to combat at higher "levels".

There is an optional rule in the RAW combat section already that should solve the Swift Attack boredom problem. I haven't used it yet, but I think I'll give it a go next session.

It's the box where they give suggestions to speed up combat. One of the options is to give an additional Half Action per round to everyone.

That means being able to Swift Attack and Move, or Feint and Swift Attack...

Doesn't that solve everything ?

Or switch everything over to DH rules with 5 second rounds (2 attacks and not moving seems more palatable now), the Attack characteristic disappears except for monsters (as zapp suggested) and Swift Attack becomes a full action Talent, with Lightning Attack, another full action, replacing it later on for 3 attack per round - a 5 second round, remember.

If you don't want to do all that (and I don't know why not, it's easy to convert), you might instead integrate this talent from DH as either a talent or maybe a new manoeuvre. It's the Furious Assault talent, which states:

Whenever you successfully hit an opponent whilst using the All Out Attack manoeuvre you may spend your Reaction to make an extra attack, retaining any bonuses or penalties from the original attack.

In Warhammer parlance it translates to: If you make a successful attack with All Out Attack, until the beginning of your next turn, you forego any opportunity to Dodge Blow or Parry to make an additional attack on your opponent.

Perhaps ignore the All Out Attack prerequisite and make this a simple Half Action manoeuvre to replace Swift Attacks? (i.e. you attack, if successful you forego Dodge/Parry for another attack.)

1010 Cloud Deck wrote:Or switch everything over to DH rules with 5 second rounds (2 attacks and not moving seems more palatable now), the Attack characteristic disappears except for monsters (as zapp suggested) and Swift Attack becomes a full action Talent, with Lightning Attack, another full action, replacing it later on for 3 attack per round - a 5 second round, remember.

If you don't want to do all that (and I don't know why not, it's easy to convert), you might instead integrate this talent from DH as either a talent or maybe a new manoeuvre. It's the Furious Assault talent, which states:

Whenever you successfully hit an opponent whilst using the All Out Attack manoeuvre you may spend your Reaction to make an extra attack, retaining any bonuses or penalties from the original attack.

In Warhammer parlance it translates to: If you make a successful attack with All Out Attack, until the beginning of your next turn, you forego any opportunity to Dodge Blow or Parry to make an additional attack on your opponent.

Perhaps ignore the All Out Attack prerequisite and make this a simple Half Action manoeuvre to replace Swift Attacks? (i.e. you attack, if successful you forego Dodge/Parry for another attack.)

This would seem to have the exavt opposite effect to my intent, I.e. making combat even more rigid?

"...It's the Furious Assault talent, which states:

Whenever you successfully hit an opponent whilst using the All Out Attack manoeuvre you may spend your Reaction to make an extra attack, retaining any bonuses or penalties from the original attack."

Excuse me but that talent stinks with WH40K rule, when every assaulting unit receives an extra attack during charge. Thanks, but no thanks.

And regarding Swift Attack, couple of ideas. They`re not tested so Your opinions please Ladies & Gentlemen:

1) While making a Swift Attack action You`re executing first attack at -10, second at-20 and third (if available) at -30.

2) This one`s a bit more complicated. While making a Swift Attack action You`re executing attacks until the moment of inflicting injury, but if any of Your attacks fails to hit You loose the rest. Example: Swift Attack action. First strike - hit inflicted but parried. You proceed to second strike. If it would miss, You would loose the rest of attacks. But if Your opponent wouldn`t parry, You would inflict damage and cease to attack. Opinions welcome.

Vlkodlak wrote:

1) While making a Swift Attack action You`re executing first attack at -10, second at-20 and third (if available) at -30.

This is already given as an optional rule in the rulebook, and it is the one I'd use.

Dr. Rudolf von Richten wrote:

Vlkodlak wrote:

1) While making a Swift Attack action You`re executing first attack at -10, second at-20 and third (if available) at -30.

This is already given as an optional rule in the rulebook, and it is the one I'd use.

Yep. Same here... Now if a player wants to spend a Fortune Point to get a free half action before using the Swift Attack to Aim, I let the bonus apply to all the attacks -- they were willing to pony up a Fortune Point, after all.

1010 Cloud Deck wrote:Perhaps ignore the All Out Attack prerequisite and make this a simple Half Action manoeuvre to replace Swift Attacks? (i.e. you attack, if successful you forego Dodge/Parry for another attack.)

We mix the dark heresy rules too. I dunno bout this. Looks too gnerous.

Vlkodlak wrote: Excuse me but that talent stinks with WH40K rule, when every assaulting unit receives an extra attack during charge. Thanks, but no thanks.

Charging and All Out Attack as one action? You talking about Berserk Charge? If not, nice house rule for fawtyk, have to give that one a whirl. But in WFRP you either charge or All Out AttaCK, not both, so I dunno where you getting that.

On the surface it looks a furious attack mod looks balanced, you gain an extra attack only if you hit and you give up dodging and parrying which is a big ass sacrifice in our games, but like i said, maybe too generous to a player.

jericho wrote: It's the box where they give suggestions to speed up combat. One of the options is to give an additional Half Action per round to everyone.

This may be what's needed.

I would have thought reguardless of what spin you put on it the fact that you want to disable an enemy from attacking you is the best option.

The best way to disable or nullify an enemy is to kill it, the faster this is achieved the better, no amount of fancy stuff (feints, maneuvers, moving and so forth) is going to change that fact, so multiple attacks are always the best option if you have it.

So swift attack as a half actions would still mean everyone will go for swift attack as their main option, and it opens up parrying stance (thus gaining a parry) for those weilding the two-handed weapons (usualy impact).
Overall giving extra attacks with no downside.

"...This is already given as an optional rule in the rulebook..."

Crap! Shame on me. I think I need to give Core Book a go. Again I mean.

"Charging and All Out Attack as one action? You talking about Berserk Charge? If not, nice house rule for fawtyk, have to give that one a whirl. But in WFRP you either charge or All Out AttaCK, not both, so I dunno where you getting that."

No, no, no... You got me wrong there. What I said is that it stinks with rule from WH40K, not WH40KRPG. See the difference? And God forbid, don`t try it. As Jadrax wrote in a other thread "Never give away another attack".

"The best way to disable or nullify an enemy is to kill it, the faster this is achieved the better, no amount of fancy stuff (feints, maneuvers, moving and so forth) is going to change that fact, so multiple attacks are always the best option if you have it."

Hmm... Well, not really. The best way to disable an enemy is to either cripple him or knock him out. According to the rules, to cripple an enemy You would have to inflict a Critical hit, so let`s skip that. But a knock out is still a viable option. And it can be done in one attack.

Perhaps the best solution would be to increace the effectivness of the various half actions? That would surely make a standard attack and a half action as popular as a swift attack. At the moment an Aim giving +20 rather then +10 comes to my mind, but I'm sure others can be improved too.

That, and an overall increacement of lethality. With that done, swift attacks won't be needed as often do dispatch an opponent (barring ones with outrageous amounts of wounds, of course), and parrying/dodging will be much more popular.

I thank you for your time

Lord Gorthuar de Veris
Cult of Nagash