Hello friends. I have a couple of new questions regarding dueling maneuver rules, and I'd welcome your thoughts to make sure I understand this correctly:
1. Let's say an Aldana Fencer with Weaponry 3 and Panache 3 is facing an opponent in a duel and has rolled 3 raises. The Aldana spends 1 Raise to Feint (inflicting 1 wound and 1 addtional damage on further attacks) and then spends a second Raise to perform the Aldana Ruse (additional wounds equal to Panache on next hit), and finishes with a Slash. Would both the Feint and Ruse benefits be cumulative, increasing the Slash damage to 7? (3 for Weaponry Skill, 1 for Feint bonus, 3 for Aldana Ruse's Panache bonus).
2. A Mireli Fencer (Weaponry 3) rolls 3 raises during a duel; her opponent (a Sabat with Finesse 3 and Weaponry 3) rolls only a single raise. The Mireli spends 1 raise to Bash (1 wound and reducing damage from opponents next attack by Weaponry Skill) and spends her second raiser to perform Mireli's Revision (which has the effect of either a Bash or Parry; in this case the Mireli chooses the Bash effect again), followed by a third maneuver. The opponent spends his single raise to perform a Sabat Gambit (Finesse 3+Weaponry 3+1 Raise=7 wounds). However, since the Mireli used Bash and the Revision against him, would the Sabat Gambit be reduced to only 1 damage: -3 for the Bash, and -3 for the Revision?
3. Last question: Let's say an opponent uses Parry or Riposte to prevent the damage from a duelist's Bash or Feint-does the extra benefit from the Bash or Feint still apply even if the 1 wound is prevented, or would you say that it is cancelled? (My own interpretation would be to allow the benefit to stand, as I would picture this as the distraction of defending from a Feint or Bash puts the opponent in a vulnerable position. But I would welcome other people's thoughts on this?)
1) Hmmm...I would say no. Because feint is very specific that the bonus damage occurs on the next maneuver. So the Ruse would actually do 1 wound (like Feint) and then you get the wammy on the third maneuver.
2) I'm going to say yes, since both maneuvers specify "...the opponent's next action."
3) I would allow the benefit for feint, since its meant to mislead your opponent and thus open him up to a vulnerable strike. Bash is trickier. Since that plenty comes from the opponent being knocked off his feet and unsteady. If you parry the bash, that might or might not still apply.
The question in the Aldana Case is "Does the Ruse Maneuver count as an attack?" If you consider the Ruse an Attack, it deals the extra feint wound. If you consider it more in line with a non-damaging move like Parry, then the damage would add to the slash.
In your second query, I interpret it the same way you do. Reduction to 1 wound.
In the third, (and I don't have the book in front of me) It will come down to exact wording. If the rules say deals a wound AND takes damage the next time, then the feint effect stays. If the rules state "WHEN they deal the wound it also does X" then the other effect is negated. If I remember right, Bash says "deal a wound, the next time..." so it implies that the effect is negated if the wound is not dealt.
1) It doesn't matter if the Ruse counts as an attack. Feint is worded such that "if your target is injured again this round...", and the Ruse itself doesn't injure your opponent.
2) Agree with all, reduction to 1.
3) Per RAW, there's no link between the damage dealt from Bash/Feint and the reduction/increase to opponent's damage. If you want to interpret it differently for your game, though, that seems reasonable. However, you may also want to consider that if you've been Bashed prior to attempting a Bash/Feint, the same question would apply, and to me, that would make Bash unbalanced, particularly when combined with Mireli's Revision.
Thanks! Regarding #3, my preference is to let the offensive/defensive benefit of Feint/Bash remain even if the damage is prevented in some way. But the phrasing in the book was just ambiguous enough to me to want to get the opinion of others.
I'm glad my interpretation of the Mireli school technique seems to be correct. Mireli seems like one of the best dueling schools for defensive techniques so far.
I have a question too:
if I feint, does the attack of my next ally do the +1 wound?
I would have think so, but now I'm unsure...
Feint Posturing and positioning in such a way that your opponent drops his guard or tries to block an attack that never comes. When you perform Feint, you deal one Wound—if your target is injured again this Round, he suffers one additional Wound.
I see no reason to be so certain about that. It sure seems like a good idea to exploit the oppening you created, but I see no reason why someone else couldn't not exploit it.
Interesting. By that wording, any additional injury comes with +1 wound. So if you feint, and your three companions attack your opponent, each does +1 wound. I...don't know how I feel about that. I'm inclined to houserule that to be "the next time your target is injured this Round..." That way it either works for you, or sets up your companions for an opportunity.
Then again, villains have A LOT of wounds they can soak before they go down, so maybe that's not as bad as I think it is.
To be fair, if the player doing that feint knows that the timed consequence damage effect is coming up, it could make a really memorable event: Imagine a player duelist and a villiain are having a duel in a burning building . say both have 4 raises GM says at : 'at 3 raises, the roof timbers will start falling, and everyone will take 1 wound.'
The villiain goes first and uses their first raise to do something . The Player uses his first raise to feint, saying 'with clever footwork, I feint so the villiain is standing under a particuarly heavy roof timber. It is now 3 raises, so both the Villiain and the Player take damage, but because of the feint, the Villiain takes 2 wounds, because of the player's clever actions.
It wouldn't have even occurred to me to interpret Feint as dealing +1 wound for every subsequent injury the target suffers. If it were intended that way, I'd imagine it would be worded "Whenever your target is injured again this round". "If" is a yes/no. "Was he injured again this round? If so, he suffers an additional wound. If not, he doesn't."
When I said on another topic that Feint was not powerful enough I understood that the next hit he suffers would deal 1 extra damage. Now I'm not that sure. After reading it again I can see that it might meant what Sean Butler has said. If it means all injuries after feint was performed and during the same round then Feint has gone up a few levels in power... to a scary level depending on how it is used... wow.
Sure. Just that round. THAT is very specific. But if 7 players are ganging up on the same guy, the party duelist be stupid not to feint right off the bat.
Personally, I suspect the INTENT is to have the next injury by the attacking duelist do +1 wound.
Anyone want to compare the language to the other two drafts of the rules we got? That might clear this up.
Like I said, the first time I read it I understood it meant just 1 additional wound once if the target is injured again in the same round. I agreed with the way you read the rules but some people may differ and we do not have an official answer.
By the way, if 7 people are ganging up against one, that one better run. Feint or not, he is finished. Actually, 2 vs 1 is really tough already the way the system works.
I think Feint begs a clarified wording.
slightly OT: I have also some issues also with the wording of some Hubres: 'gain a Hero Point when <blah blah> especially if blah blah' > what is the rule meaning of 'especially' :S?
I believe the "especially" part is to empahsize that the player might not always get a Hero Point for doing something. Most of these are like "receive a hero point when you lie to someone and get in trouble for doing so" or somesuch. It's pretty clear you get a hero point for stirring the pot and not necessarily acting in your own best interests. This is a game about telling cool stories after all. Almost every aspect of it feeds into that.
I still think interpreting Feint's wording to indicate that every subsequent injury inflicts an additional wound is a linguistic stretch. I would assume the intent, based on the wording in the rulebook, is that only one bonus wound is dealt. That also happens to be the most reasonable common sense interpretation, which reinforces the idea that that is the original intent. If you reverse the clauses to read, "Your target suffers one additional wound, if he is injured again this round," maybe that's more clear.